1993-06-09

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, recently, Bell Canada appeared before the CRTC and maintained that to prevent any deterioration in its financial situation, it would have to increase residential and commercial rates by, respectively, 40 and 25 per cent.
I do not agree that Bell Canada should be allowed to raise its rates at the present time. The general public does not agree either. It feels Bell Canada's profits are adequate and there is no justification for this rate increase.
Bell Canada has no right-and I stress the word "right"-to increase its rates at this time.


FOOD BANKS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, this government still does not get it. Yesterday the chair of the government's subcommittee on poverty proclaimed that she saw no reason for people to be dependent on food banks and that there seemed to be little reason in Ontario for the large-scale use of those food banks.
I am certain that her comments came as a shock to a great many Torontonians, including Gerard Kennedy,
director of the Daily Bread Food Bank, whose organization has been struggling to meet the already overwhelming and increasing demands being placed on it due to this government's failed economic program.
More than 10 per cent of Torontonians have used a food bank at least once. Over 66 per cent of those individuals are people who have lost their jobs directly as a result of the continuing Tbry recession and are not the free-loaders that she suggests.
Rather than closing her eyes to Canada's needy by compelling this government's switch to a new definition of poverty she should instead open her eyes to the harsh reality facing all too many Canadians and show some compassion during these tough economic times.


CONSEIL DES MONUMENTS ET SITES HISTORIQUES DU QUEBEC
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, 18 years ago, the Conseil des monuments et sites historiques du Quebec was founded and over the years the council has developed and has earned the respect of the public and professionals alike.
For the first time in many years, the council's finances are in excellent shape. It has paid off all its debts and even has a substantial surplus. The future plans of the board of directors will include investing in partnerships with agencies that will help the council to grow and to fulfil its mandate, which is to protect our heritage.
These partnerships will include, for instance, the Centre d'interpretation de la ville de Quebec, Villa Bagatelle, Parks Canada, the Department of Culture and Les Amis de la vallee du Saint-Laurent, Laval University, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Washington and the Canadian Heritage of Quebec Foundation, as well as members of the private sector who remain one of the pillars of the council's success.

June 9, 1993
On this 18th anniversary I want to thank the board of directors, especially Chairperson France Gagnon-Pratte, and I hope they are all looking forward to the coming year.


POVERTY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, the government is juggling the poverty line statistics in order to hide its failure to take effective action. This is just another diversion, but figures will not change the facts. It is outrageous to use new criteria to try and buiy the poverty issue and make us believe the situation in Montreal is not as critical as we think. Because of the high level of poverty in the largest districts of Montreal, one child out of four falls victim to it.
I repeat, the government has no right to hide behind statistics. The government has a duty to seek and implement ways to deal with the problem of poverty, which the government's own ill-conceived and poorly managed policies have institutionalized across Canada, and especially in Montreal.
.


NATIVE HOUSING
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, it has been brought to our attention by the Amisk Housing Association, treaty 6 and treaty 8 areas in Alberta, that recent cuts to urban native housing will have a tremendous negative impact.
The chairman states:
The federal government has unilaterally decided to eliminate the urban housing program for aboriginal people during the year which this government has recognized as the international year of indigenous people-the cuts will affect the 43,000 off-reserve treaty Indians living in the city and directly affect the approximately 500 treaty families on the waiting list for affordable housing in the Edmonton area.
I join them in asking the House to reconsider this, especially in view of the recent housing report tabled by the aboriginal affairs committee.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the many men and women in my riding and elsewhere in Winnipeg who work at the railway, their families and many other people who are connected with the railway.
I would like to register my objection to the fact that at this very late point in the mandate of the government it has tried to set Canada in the direction of eliminating both the Crow rate and the paying of the Crow benefit to the railways.
The railways have been systematically attacked on a wide policy front by this government through deregulation, free trade and a variety of other ways. This is the final nail in the coffin of the railways. This is not only bad for people who work for the railways but bad for the country and bad for the environment. It is bad policy.
It is about time the government realized that and changed its mind, instead of tiying to do in the last few minutes of its mandate what it has no mandate to do and no right to do at this time.


FESTIVAL CARAVAN
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, this year Festival Caravan is celebrating its silver anniversary with an array of 40 international "cities" representing over 70 cultural communities. This festival covers all of metropolitan Toronto and over two million people are expected to visit over its nine days.
Taking place from June 18 to June 26 this year, Festival Caravan was the first international festival in North America. This unique festival has often been emulated yet never duplicated.
Special recognition should be given to Zena Kossar, the founder of Festival Caravan, who for all 25 years has worked tirelessly to make the event the success it always is.
The festival is a celebration of the rich and diverse heritage that is Canadian culture with dance, art and music. It is a wonderful mosiac for all Canadians and international visitors to enjoy, making this year's 25th anniversary an outstanding success.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, there are 103 foreign fishing vessels on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks today. They are not allowed to catch northern cod but they will and they will suffer no consequences.
By moratorium rules Newfoundland fishermen are not allowed to fish their own waters. If they do they will be arrested, their boats will be seized and they will be charged and prosecuted. What a shameful and outrageous contrast.
For the past five years the Liberal opposition in Parliament has done everything in its power to induce the Conservative government to put a stop to this pillage and rape of our main resource in Newfoundland.
With speculation now that the moratorium may go well beyond two years, the provincial Conservative opposition is joining the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in crying out for this federal government to effectively take control of the nose and tail of the banks to stop this illegal and immoral economic, environmental and ecological plundering.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the dying days of this government pay heed to this sound advice, stop illegal foreign overfishing and implement measures that will return the Grand Banks to its rightful owners now?


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, last week was National Access Awareness Week in Canada, a time when over a thousand communities across this country took stock of their progress in breaking down their barriers which prevent full participation in community life by persons with disabilities.
NAAW, as it has come to be known, has experienced amazing growth and success over the past six years because of partnerships forged among labour, business, volunteer and public interest groups.
The success of NAAW is evident everywhere, in a host of national programs, in community designed initiatives
and here on Parliament Hill. In this regard, I especially appreciate the Deputy Speaker's initiative in building on the commitment and leadership of the hon. John Fraser.
An action plan for Parliament is now in the public domain. We can expect annual reports on progress as we move down the road to a fully inclusive society reflected, for all intents and purposes, by the leading democratic institution in the land.


DR. HELEN GRAVES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, there is one program between Canada and United States that is working very well. Many members of Parliament and political parties have benefited from it.
Over the past 15 years, through a unique program developed by Dr. Helen Graves, almost 300 political science students from the University of Michigan have become acquainted with our people, issues and parliamentary system of government.
By working with members, attending briefing sessions with top government personnel and completing special assignments they have learned about the differences between our two countries. They have also learned about the similarities that allow us to unite in a common purpose. Today these people are at all levels of government in the United States, including the U.S. Congress.
In addition, a number of Canadian students, including our own pages and guides, have participated in a similar program in Washington, D.C.
The success of this program is a tribute to Dr. Helen Graves' creativity, enthusiasm and dedication. I know the House will join me in commending her on the anniversary of this significant program. Merci bien, Dr. Graves.


CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, step right up to the Tory leadership three-ring circus, featuring the Tory leadership contenders and their 100 lobbyist handlers.

June 9, 1993
Oral Questions
This weekend under the big top in the first ring, the illusory Jean Charest will make the deficit disappear with the able assistance of lobbyist magician Gary Ouellet.
In the second ring, we have the amazing Jim Edwards who in his effort to cut costs is doing a death defying trapeze act without a social safety net and helped by lobbyist John Laschinger.
Now, for the main attraction, suspended hundreds of feet above us, the unpredictable Avril Phaedra, alias Kim Campbell, will be walking the high wire with the balance pole between her teeth and assisted by lobbyists Bill Neville and Gerry Doucet.
Finally, to keep the crowds happy no circus would be complete without this: "Aren't they a pair, send in the clowns".
Undoubtedly the 1.6 million unemployed Canadians-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


POVERTY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, a news flash.
As a result of the report tabled yesterday from a tumultuous Commons committee on poverty and if the member for Don Valley North has her way, there will soon be two million fewer Canadians living below the poverty line.
How will this be done? The government intends to do so by lowering the poverty line. Instead of formulating concrete policies to deal with the plight of 4 million Canadians living at or below the poverty line, 218,000 of whom reside in Manitoba, 21 per cent of all Manitobans, the government has adopted a negligent transparent approach of denial and avoidance.
This is unacceptable to Canadians and particularly to Manitobans who face the highest rate of poverty in Canada. The arbitrary redrawing of the poverty line does nothing to help the 72,000 children living in poverty in the city of Winnipeg.
In addition it is simply not true that nearly half the people using food banks are-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
This morning on the eve of the Tory leadership campaign I opened my mail. Finally after nine years a letter came that said the government had the answer to unemployment. What do I find in the envelope? A leaflet saying: "Sit only when asked" and a brochure saying: "Be friendly with the secretary", and the government offers a conehead dunce cap to the unemployed.
Yesterday the government's solution to the problem of
4.5	million Canadians living in poverty was to erase them from the statistics. Today it tells 1.6 million unemployed Canadians that they are dumb.
How can the Prime Minister justify distributing hundreds of thousands of conehead dunce caps as a solution to the failure of its economic policies?


An hon. member:: We want a question.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, there is no one who is more concerned about the unemployment problem than I and the members of this government.
We recognize as well there are some very clear challenges not only facing Canada but also facing other industrialized countries in the world. I certainly experienced that last week when I attended the OECD ministerial meeting composed of the 24 major industrialized nations.
As a matter of fact there is a comprehensive study on unemployment currently being undertaken that shows that Canada's prospects are the most positive of all the 24 industrialized nations. It is confirmed by the headlines we see appearing in recent newspapers: "Canada poised to top G-7 growth. Canadian recovery has taken a firm hold, says the economic agency", the OECD. "Canada's economy will beat other G-7 countries" says the OECD.
June 9, 1993

"Canada's economy, the leader in growth" and there are things such as: "Construction spending to rise. A corporate Canada on the comeback trail. The GDP bounces back to strength. The oil patch recovery is surprisingly strong". A poll forecasts more jobs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps we can continue with another question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the truth is that more than 400,000 people are living in poverty in Montreal. There are 221,000 unemployed men and women in Montreal, and the government sends them leaflets that say: "Sit only when asked" and "Be friendly with the secretary". The government is also sending them dunce caps. Why does the Prime Minister insult the unemployed by treating them like unruly children?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I listened earlier to the question the hon. member for Hamilton East put in English, and I listened to this one in French, but neither makes much sense. I just want to say that to describe the situation the way the hon. member just did is quite easy. Ever since this government has been in office, it has tried to determine the causes of these problems and why we are facing them now. With the help of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, our cabinet colleagues and the government, we have put in place strategies for training, employment and direct assistance, especially to poor people, in order to respond effectively. Increasingly as the Minister of Finance pointed out, the mechanisms we have put in place, including our interest rate policies, are producing results. There are more jobs for Canadians, who are better able to take care of themselves, act responsibly and meet problems head on. As a result, they will very likely never have to revert to the situation in which they were before.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, we know the views of the hon. member for Don Valley North on poverty. Now we hear the hon. member for Mississauga South who ridicules poverty saying that with current statistics: "A millionaire can be considered in poverty and go to food banks".
Oral Questions
This coming Friday, the Conservative Party will call the retiring Prime Minister a people's champion and an economic genius. It is no wonder that the government-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, those who are clapping the loudest are those who are not seeking re-election.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is it any wonder that the government is blind to the suffering of millions of Canadians when this is how it sees the role of its job in helping the unemployed. Besides offering them a conehead dunce cap and saying good luck in your job search, what has the Prime Minister to say to 10,000 steel workers in Hamilton who have lost their jobs?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton East refers to me as the people's champion and as an economic genius. Sheila, I didn't know you cared.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Your minister sent it out.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have to tell my hon. friend I would be happy if she would table the document to which she refers because I have not-she is ready to table it. I am sure that at an appropriate time she will table it and we will take a look at it. We may be the few people in Canada who will understand what she has been talking about.


Mr. Keyes:: It is your minister's.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend Stan says that it is my minister's. Why would that change anything? After all, my hon. friend refers quite properly to a very serious problem in respect to the steel industry. We have been working with the United States and I think quite productively to protect the interests of Canadian steel producers which are achieving a larger market share in specialized areas of the American market than before.
The best way that we can help the steel producers in Canada or any other industry is by producing low inflation. We have the lowest inflation rate in 30 years. We have the lowest interest rates in 20 years. We have the highest projected employment growth rate in 1993-94 of any industrialized country in the world. That is the way we help Canadian workers, by creating durable long term jobs.

June 9, 1993
Oral Questions YOUTH EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, last month the youth unemployment rate rose to 18.2 per cent. That is 430,000 young Canadians who do not have jobs.
There is a crisis in this country of youth unemployment. I want to ask the minister what new ideas or new programs he has to put these young Canadians back to work and to give them hope. Clearly the old policies are not working.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, obviously my hon. colleague was not listening to me when I went before the standing committee recently and explained to the hon. member the initiatives that are there and are working.
The initiatives have been designed to help those youths who are seeking employment and particularly those youths at risk who are thinking of dropping out of school. We are making sure that they do not make that decision if it is possible. They are our future and they need the appropriate tools to ensure that they can face all the coming opportunities.
A strong recovery and a strong economy is exactly what we are giving them.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I listened to the minister, but the minister's programs are not working.

My supplementary is directed to the same minister. Young Canadians have lost hope. They need a government that understands them. When will the government offer specific programs that will provide jobs for young people?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, obviously this is a repeat in French of a question that was put in English. Young
people will not have to wait, because we are already giving them hope and trying to create the right economic climate, so they will get results as well.


LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN
John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the fact that the campaigns of the Tory leader candidates are a virtual who's who of the Canadian lobbying industry. In fact more than 100 lobbyists are working on the campaigns of the top three contenders.
With the Campbell campaign are Bill Neville, Gerry Doucet and Nancy Jamieson. With the Charest team there are Jodi White, Gary Ouellet and Pat MacAdam, among many other lobbyists for profit. The Jim Edwards campaign is managed by John Laschinger and assisted by other lobbyists for profit like Chester Burtt.
Does the Prime Minister not think that his party and his government are sending out the wrong message to Canadians when lobbyists for profit who make their living off government procurement contracts are accumulating political IOUs that can be cashed in with the new Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question. He raises a serious matter, according to him, of propriety.


John R. Rodriguez: For the country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: For the country, I see, I am sorry I missed that.
In that case he would be interested in the following statement today that "the leader of Prince Edward Island's New Democrats is quitting his post for three months and collecting unemployment insurance to save the NDP party money".


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: "The leader"-I use that euphemistically-"of the NDP, Larry Duchesne, 44, says the self-imposed lay-off will save the NDP about $4,000 from his annual salary".
June 9, 1993

I wonder if my hon. friend in terms of propriety will be on the phone this afternoon to the leader of the NDP in Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will of course recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, but let us be careful that it does pertain to the administration of government.


John R. Rodriguez: In response to the Prime Minister's comments, first of all it has nothing to do with lobbying and second-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Cut him off.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, second, Mr. Larry Duchesne did not make his money lobbying government for his private interests.
My supplementary question for the Prime Minister is this. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that you dance with the one who brung you. Well, by golly, the lobbyists and the Tories are still dancing. I might add they are not ballroom dancing, they are dancing the lambada.
Given that the Tory leadership candidates are continuing to boogie with lobbyists, the question that I and many Canadians want to ask the Prime Minister is this. Is this not a clear signal that it is better to know the Prime Minister than to be the Prime Minister?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Prime Minister may want to answer, but this certainly is not in regard to the administration of government.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there a question about government from the hon. member for Nickel Belt?


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, it has everything to do with government. It has to do with the private sector interest interfacing with the public interest and where does the government square on the issue? That is my question for the Prime Minister.
Where does the government come square when private interests intermingle with public interests? Whose interests are protected?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend says that his indignation has everything to do with government.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I do this reluctantly but I will read the next paragraph.


Mr. Fulton:: Order.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to assure the House that that was not my voice.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Madam Speaker, and I can understand why the NDP yelled "order" just as I began the answer.


An hon. member:: Be gentle.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be gentle. The NDP leader Duchesne said party officials checked with Ottawa last year and the measures meet federal eligibility guidelines for unemployment insurance. I quote: "It is something the NDP party does every year".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we should continue.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, in a letter sent to all members of Parliament yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the minister states: "There are more than one million unemployed Canadians and tens of thousands of vacant jobs requiring skilled workers in Canada today".
In the package the minister is sending to the unemployed, he suggests how to get one of these hidden jobs is by talking to "people you invite for dinner at your home", or one can get a job by "talking to people you meet at parties".
I want to ask the minister of employment what planet does the government think it is living on? Does the minister of employment not realize that it is hard enough for the unemployed to pay for their own dinner, let alone to throw dinner parties?

Oral Questions


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I understand why a Liberal is never invited to a party.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: The hon. member is talking about a serious issue.
We are talking about unemployed people who need to be able to fill these jobs. Is the hon. member denying there are vacant jobs in Canada right now that cannot be filled because people do not have the skills or do not know about them?
I invite him to come to a region of northern New Brunswick in my riding where the unemployment level is maybe 12 per cent while at the same time, people are looking for employees.
The measure we introduced will help unemployed workers access the vacant jobs that are available. This is a measure that will assist them in their search.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the job search planner the government is going to send to all unemployed Canadians states that the unemployed will be told that most of these "hidden jobs", these tens of thousands of jobs available in Canada today, can be found through "personal contacts". Some of the sources listed for these hidden jobs are "friends, relatives and acquaintances".
Is this hidden job theory of tens of thousands of jobs available not a fairy tale? Is it not just a figment of the government's imagination? Will the minister not admit that the only hidden jobs that have been filled by this government were the 600 government appointments, yes, to friends, relatives and acquaintances of the Tory Party of Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is talking about jobs. GM Canada announced on June 2 the addition of a third shift to the truck plant in Oshawa, creating about 650 jobs. On June 4 The Ottawa Sun reported that Concert Industries of Vancouver will be creating 60 jobs in Thurso, Quebec. The Royal Bank is adding 60 jobs in Regina, Saskatchewan. One hundred and fourteen jobs will be created near Wawa in northern Ontario.
All of these jobs have nothing to do with the Conservative Party but they have everything to do with Conservative policy.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
The minister recently proposed changes to the immigration point system which would make it more difficult for immigrants who have not completed high school and would give priority to immigrants with university degrees.
Since there are now many immigrants in Canada with university degrees and trade certificates who cannot use this training because their diplomas are not recognized here, what will the minister do to make sure that immigrants with diplomas can practise their trades and professions in Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows from all of his experience in this House and his knowledge of the jurisdictions that accreditation is a provincial matter.
When we introduced the amendment to the Immigration Act in Bill C-86, which, by the way, the hon. member and his party opposed, I wrote to all my counterparts at the provincial level. We have an interdepartmental officials committee working on accreditation. This will facilitate recognition of these new Canadians coming in with skills, with knowledge and with professions so they will be able to work.
We are working in co-operation with the provincial governments in order to try to find a solution so that these skills can be quickly acknowledged by provincial bodies.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I understand that much of this is under provincial jurisdiction but I would hope the minister could convince his provincial counterparts. If he is going to make immigration more available for university graduates in Canada, they should recognize these diplomas and certificates.
There are many immigrants who are highly skilled tradespeople but they do not have high school diplomas. Why is the minister making it more difficult for these

June 9, 1993
persons and why are these people not given some points for the education they do have?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, this government is not making it more difficult. It is making it easier for Canadians to continue to benefit from immigration.
The issue is that with the work force we have in Canada we need skilled people, people with a certain level of education so that when they come here they can enter the labour market.
If I am faulted today for refusing to admit people to Canada without primary or secondary level education, I think it is for the welfare of all Canadians that we are doing this without being unjust to anyone.
Those Canadians that are here are not affected. However those who want to choose Canada as a land in which to prosper and work with us to continue building this great country should have a level of skill and education that would allow them to participate fully. Again it is for the benefit of all Canadians.


POVERTY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who by now will have had time to read the report of the subcommittee on poverty.
Would he tell the House and the 4.2 million Canadians who live in poverty whether he thinks poverty should be addressed by redefining it, as his committee suggests, or does he think it should be addressed by finding solutions to the problem?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague does not believe that I read the report overnight and that I am ready this afternoon to answer what I could not answer yesterday.
The question is good in terms of what the government has tried to do since 1984. Once again we can talk about statistics, levels and so on. But what Canadians want to
Oral Questions
know and what the government is trying to do is find the reasons that we face poverty. That is why we have worked with the Minister of Employment and Immigration for example to train people and to educate them, and the Minister of Finance has worked to keep inflation and interest rates low and so on.
For all those reasons we believe we are moving toward better jobs for Canadians. When people have jobs they are able to look after themselves.
Of course it is not the philosophy of the NDP. The NDP has a lot of suggestions when its members are in opposition but the day it is in power everything disappears. I have looked at three provinces in this country and there are no miracles in terms of jobs in Ontario, Saskatchewan and B.C.
Listen to us and let us try to do the same thing in those provinces.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the minister is right that there are no miracle solutions but I am glad he raised the question of the government's economic policies. I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister on this matter.
In a University of Toronto study today, the government was blamed for making Canada's recession deeper as a result of higher federal taxes and its obsession with inflation, making this recession come sooner and be more severe than for our competitors. The study concluded that as a result of federal government policy
515,000	fewer Canadians had jobs in 1992.
I want to ask the Prime Minister as a parting gesture of good faith to Canadians, would he admit that his government's policies deliberately deprived 515,000 Canadians of jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, whenever these kinds of simulated projections are undertaken in abstract they come up with some rather weird conclusions. This is a very clear case in point.
This study is advocating lower taxes, more government spending, higher inflation, and a devalued dollar.
That is not the policy we are following.
Oral Questions AIRLINE INDUSTRY

June 9, 1993


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last week in a speech prepared for the National Airline Commission in Washington, D.C., the president of Air Canada made the following declaration: "It is now time to revisit whether airlines should be able to charge anything they want no matter how ridiculous or destructive".
This is nothing short of a cry for help from the president of Canada's largest airline and an admission that the airline industry lacks the discipline to ensure its own survival and with it the thousands of jobs that depend on our two main carriers.
When will the minister wake up and realize that Canada needs an airline policy that encourages survival rather than bankruptcy?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in the decision handed down by the National Transportation Agency about three weeks ago, these issues were explored very thoroughly. The report makes it clear that the government's transportation policy contains all the elements for members of this industry to manage their business properly, if they are willing to do so.
It is certainly not up to the government to tell airlines what they should charge for their services. We live in a free market economy, and it is up to the people in the industry and the entrepreneurs to set their own prices for their services.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, clearly the minister was not paying attention to what Mr. Harris had to say or, for that matter, Mr. Eyton when he came before the transport committee of this House not long ago and also asked for some regulatory measures.
We now know that the future of Canada's airline industry in the absence of some declaration or action by the government is to be decided within months either by the courts or by the financial collapse of one of Canada's major corporations.
Is this what the minister wants? Is the policy of the government not to have any policy until the events just take control and potentially 16,000 jobs are lost in one of Canada's major corporations?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I suggest the hon. member refer to pages 8 and 29 of the report of the National Transportation Agency which happens to deal with all these issues and contains the answers the hon. member is looking for, namely that the policy adopted by this government in 1987 on deregulation and free competition in the transportation industry, as in other industries, was the right kind of legislation implemented at the right time, and was a very welcome development for users of various types of transportation.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The government adopted a policy to place airports in Canada under the control of local airport authorities, with the exception of Pearson airport. In the last three years local authorities have taken over in large centres such as Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, and I think one airport in Montreal.
Since this policy was announced a responsive group of Thunder Bay citizens formed their own committee at their own expense and worked hard to have the Thunder Bay Airport turned over to local men and women who know something about the local economy of northwestern Ontario.
For the benefit of this local group and other local groups with the intention of having their airports turned over, would the minister please advise what the timeframe will be for smaller communities in Canada to have their local airports turned over to their control?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon for supporting the devolution of local airports to local airport authorities. As he mentioned, it is almost a year since we have devolved the four airports

Oral Questions
to local airport authorities. The arrangement is working very well.
Since that time the airport transfer task force has been negotiating with about 10 or 12 other communities in Canada. As far as Thunder Bay is concerned, I am informed the base case documents are being prepared and should be completed in August. This will mean that some time in the middle of 1994, if everything goes well, the Thunder Bay Airport should be transferred to the local airport authority.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister. The fact of the matter is that the Thunder Bay Airport was advised last week that it would take at least three more years to have the airport transferred. By the time an audit is prepared some time in August or September, plus 18 months for signing the letter of intent, 9 months for the notice procedures and then the preparation of the legal documents, it will be 6 years from its inception.
The minister will understand that this is unacceptable. Will he have the officials in his department accept and adopt the same timeframe as he just outlined in his response to me?


Jean Corbeil: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no reservation in confirming to the hon. member that the timeframe I just enunciated will be respected.
The letter he referred to is alluding to the fact that it took three years to complete all these documents for the first four transfers because it was the invention of a new situation. Now that we have had four transfers the mechanism will work much more rapidly.
Again I repeat. In the middle of 1994 the Thunder Bay Airport should be transferred to the local airport authority.


HUMAN RIGHTS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the fact that over the past year, 9,000 complaints have been registered with the new human rights commission in Mexico, a government commission I might add, set up by President Salinas.
Given the fact there have been these 9,000 complaints, would the Prime Minister not reconsider-and I know it is late in the game-his headlong rush into a North American free trade agreement, an agreement with Mexico, a country in which ordinary people obviously do not have the ability to defend themselves or to advocate on their own behalf without the risk of false arrest, persecution, murder or torture? Just name it; it is all here in the human rights commission report.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I have not read the report to which my hon. friend refers. There is a general agreement in countries around the world that President Salinas is an enlightened leader whose tenure marks a very significant departure from the events of the past.
He is widely recognized as a reformer who is trying to improve the lot of low income Mexicans, not by receiving handouts from Canada or the United States but by trading their way to prosperity.
For many years that party has asked that we provide more and more foreign aid, more and more handouts. President Salinas is saying: "No, I do not want any charity. I do not want any handouts. I do not want any foreign aid. What I want is an equality of opportunity to trade into an industrialized market, thereby raising the prosperity of all of my citizens, thereby elevating the degree of social justice in Mexico, and thereby becoming a better partner of Canada and the United States".


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, if the North American free trade agreement is supposed to be such a boon to the Mexican people, maybe the Prime Minister could explain while he is on his feet why the standard of living in the Maquiladora corridor is so abominable.
I asked him a question about human rights abuses reported by President Salinas' own commission. Does the Prime Minister not understand that we cannot have a level playing field, to the extent that such a thing is possible in any event economically speaking, if politically the people are unable to advocate on their own behalf, if trade unionists and others seeking social justice have to fear persecution?
How does the Prime Minister answer that question? What does he intend to do about it? When will he reverse this facile notion that somehow free trade with Mexico will be of benefit to the working people of

Oral Questions
Mexico? It is not going to be of benefit to them or to the working people of America or Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I ask my socialist friend how we bring about reform in countries around the world. Is it by greater isolationism or by greater economic, social and commercial intercourse with those countries so as to improve relationships, so as to provide them with opportunities and instruments to raise the standard of living, so as to provide them with greater opportunities for social justice?
I understand my hon. friend and the union supporters in Canada have the same union supporters in Mexico. They are protectionists. They want to keep the world the way it is. They refuse to recognize the great currents of globalization that are affecting North America and the world.
We are saying that North American free trade is not necessarily a panacea for all, but it is a step forward in helping all peoples confront the new demands of globalization, thereby raising the prosperity level for all citizens of this continent including Mexico.
My hon. friend should stop penalizing the people of Mexico by trying to sabotage a deal which would give the poorer people of Mexico a greater opportunity to increase their wealth, their families' well-being and their human dignity. Surely the NDP should stand for greater human dignity for people in developing countries.

[Translation)


HIGHWAY RECONSTRUCTION
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. For several months the federal government and the provinces have been discussing a reconstruction program for our national highway system. Annually, Ottawa collects $11 million in gas and road taxes.
Could the minister tell the House today whether the federal government will invest in rebuilding Trans-Canada Highway 117 in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and other sections of that highway in Quebec?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is of course aware that in last December's economic statement, the Minister of Finance announced that the federal government would make $500 million available to the provinces for repairs to highway systems that are part of our national highway network. Highway 117 is indeed part of that network and is one of the items we discussed in our negotiations with the Quebec government, to decide how funding allocated to Quebec in last December's economic statement by the Minister of Finance would be shared by Quebec and Ottawa.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for external relations and international development.
A year ago at this time the Government of Canada led by the Prime Minister participated in the earth summit and in particular signed two very important treaties pointed in the direction of achieving international co-operation.
In the words of the Prime Minister: "This is not the time in the history of the environment to entrench, to regroup and to return to former positions. This is the time to test the outer limits of what we can achieve together".
One important commitment was to achieve the target of .7 per cent of ODA by the year 2000. This has since been ratified by two parliamentary committees this year. However the estimates of the department have suggested that we will only eventually achieve the target of .7 per cent.
Could the minister indicate what steps are being taken to achieve the commitment made in Rio a year ago?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of External Relations and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, I was not at the Rio Summit, but I do know that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of the Environment made a commitment to abide by the .7 per cent target in their official speeches. For reasons that will be obvious to all members in this House, we have had to restrict

growth at CIDA, and the .7 per cent objective is a long-term goal.
However, I can confirm that the government, through CIDA, intends to abide by the commitments that were made at the Summit. Having said that, I would remind the House that as a donor country, Canada still ranks second among the G-7. Therefore, CIDA actively supports the follow-up on the Rio Summit, co-ordinates our contribution of $25 million and implements the proposal to convert the debt of ODA countries to use in environmental protection projects, which represents a total of $145 million.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. He will know that this week we learned the Brazilian court refused the appeal of Christine Lamont and David Spencer.
Unfortunately the Secretary of State for External Affairs has refused to exercise the right of the Canadian government to request expulsion. Instead she has said that the families could rely upon a further appeal process or an offender's treaty, knowing full well that those measures would take another five or six years for completion.
In one of his final acts as a member of the government, will the Prime Minister instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request an expulsion order from the Brazilian government as fully required under the Brazilian law so we could end the suffering and imprisonment of these two young Canadians who have already spent far too much time in a Brazilian jail?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has explained many times, this question of expulsion is not quite as automatic and problem-free as would be indicated.
Also, there are in fact two more levels of appeal. The Canadians along with the other group involved in the kidnapping had a joint appeal for reduction of the sentence which was denied by the judge.
Oral Questions
However there is an opportunity for two more levels of appeal. There is a good sense in the Brazilian legislature that the sentences were unduly harsh. If the Canadians were to appeal on their own in terms of what they claim to be a peripheral participation, perhaps they would have an opportunity to have it reduced. In any event they are provided with legal counsel. Our consular people in Brazil are being as helpful as they can be. It is simply desirable they proceed through that legal process.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, with all due apologies to the House leader,
I am making an appeal to the Prime Minister.
It is based very much on the fact that the Department of External Affairs commissioned an independent expert, Dr. Dias, who put forward a report which said explicitly that any further appeal procedure would take another five or six years.
I want to quote from the report: "In this case, specifically, if the Canadian government requests the expulsion of Christine Gwen Lamont, the Brazilian government may grant her an expulsion because all legal requirements have been fulfilled".
It seems to me there is clear reason for the Canadian government to exercise this right. I appeal to the Prime Minister to undertake that initiative today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, if it were as simple as my hon. friend suggests then of course it would have been done.
We were informed by the president of Brazil and by the minister of justice of Brazil that the suggestions of any degree of automatic reaction were misleading and unhelpful both to the case and inconsistent with judicial traditions in Brazil.
I raised the matter myself with the former president of Brazil. We engaged the minister of justice in Brazil on this very actively. We have been pursuing this case vigorously and very enthusiastically. We share the deep sympathy my friend expresses for Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer.
We thought the decision was very unfortunate as we thought the sentence was inappropriate. Brazil has its own judicial traditions, as do we. One of them is that it is resistant to intrusion and invasion from the political sector as it ought to be.

Routine Proceedings
That being said I have thought for some time that perhaps the best way to deal with this was to secure expeditious passage of the transfer of offenders act in Brazil which would allow us to seek the transfer of Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer from Brazil to Canada, thereby subjecting them to review by the National Parole Board of Canada and conditions in Canadian jails as opposed to those that prevail elsewhere.
This piece of legislation passed congress. I am informed that it is before the senate. We are pressing with every degree of energy to have this legislation passed before the Brazilian senate because we plan to invoke it as quickly as possible.
We believe that perhaps the most expeditious way, not the only one, of securing justice and at least some fairness for these two Canadians is to bring about their return to Canada very expeditiously so they will be subject to Canadian laws in Canada, reviewed by Canadian officials and I am sure liberation at a much earlier date.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the matter raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte on Friday, June 4, 1993.


Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether or not the usual courtesies have been extended to the hon. member in question.
My colleague is not in the Chamber at the present time and I am wondering whether the Chair or indeed the Table has informed him of this so he could be here to hear the ruling.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am informed that people in the party were told. If the hon. member would rather wait until tomorrow, I am quite prepared to do so.


David Charles Dingwall: I thank the Chair for the information. I would respectfully request we postpone the decision until tomorrow when my colleague is in the Chamber.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: By all means.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a nomination that was recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 28 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
17TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, in both official languages.
In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, May 11, 1992 your committee has considered the four-year review of the act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act (sexual offences), chapter 19, third supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, which formerly was Bill C-15, and has agreed to report it with 17 amendments.
June 9, 1993


[Stage Direction]
14TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in both official languages.
The report deals with the effectiveness of the employment programs of Employment and Immigration Canada.


[Stage Direction]
4TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 4th report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, concerning peacekeeping.
The committee conducted a study of peacekeeping. It heard testimony from many experts. It also solicited briefs from the general public and heard citizens' testimony and here it reports its conclusions and recommendations.
I wish to thank personally all the research staff for the support we obtained, as well as all Canadians and experts who appeared before the committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS ACT


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-135, an act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, the National Energy Board Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Routine Proceedings
Mr. McKnight moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES ACT


John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-447, an act to amend the Trust and Loan Companies Act.


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


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to close an existing loophole in the Trust and Loan Companies Act which allows executives to borrow unlimited amounts of money from their companies in order to purchase company shares.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Rodriguez moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



DOMESTIC VIOLENCE POLICE RESPONSE ACT


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-448, an Act respecting violence against women and children and the development of a standardized procedure for police response to emergency calls regarding domestic violence.


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


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to develop a procedure that would have basic principles in connection with domestic violence. This would be a standardized approach whereby emergency calls should be given no less a priority than emergency calls respecting other violence; that police response to emergency calls requires special procedure and training; that the victim, the accused and any witnesses should be interviewed separately and not in each other's presence and that information respecting the incident should be en-

Routine Proceedings
tered in the Canadian police information centre as soon as possible.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Mills moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



EMPLOYMENT OFFERS ADVERTISING ACT


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-449, an act respecting the advertising of employment offers generated by federal funding.


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


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, I wish to table this bill entitled an act respecting the advertising of employment offers generated by federal funding. If enacted this bill would require employers to make the federal government aware of jobs created by any federal funding provided to them. Those jobs would then be publicly advertised in Canada Employment Centres across the country.
If the bill is enacted by Parliament, Canadians across the country will be better informed and more aware of jobs being created through the federal government's use of taxpayers' dollars. They will therefore be more able to apply for and obtain those jobs through fair access. Currently such jobs are filled through local offices or by offshore workers if qualified personnel are not locally available. These jobs could and should be filled by any qualified Canadian willing to take the job.
This bill will help to put those Canadians on a more level playing field in competing for the scarce job opportunities being created in this country.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Rousse, a constituent in my riding, for assisting in the drafting of this bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Vanclief moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



EXCISE TAX ACT


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-450, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act (electric motor vehicles and low emission vehicles).


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


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, the main reason most people in greater Vancouver move to the Fraser Valley is for the quality of life: the green open spaces and the quality of the air, but we are losing on both those fronts with tremendous growth.
This bill is the first of three private members' bills that I have been working on in this area. It provides both individual and corporate consumers with an incentive to purchase electric vehicles or vehicles that run on alternative low emission fuels by offering an exemption from the GST for a period to end January 1, 2005.
The second bill will encourage mass distribution of these alternative vehicles in our marketplace through government and a Crown agency replacement program. The third will require 2 per cent of all vehicles purchased by the year 1998 to be low emission or electric vehicles.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Wenman moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



EMERGENCIES ACT


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-451, an act to amend the Emergencies Act (protection of ethnic minorities).
June 9, 1993


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


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to limit the powers of the Governor in Council to ensure that the emergency powers in this act will not be used in an emergency to restrict the liberty of Canadian citizens and permanent residents on the basis of citizenship of a nation other than Canada.
We all will recall the shameful injustices that were imposed in World War I when Ukrainian Canadians were interned and again in World War II when those of German, Italian and Japanese descent were unjustly interned.
This bill adds the phrase "on the basis of-citizenship of a nation other than Canada" in addition to the existing prescribed grounds and it will not limit rights or impose obligations on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, citizenship of a nation other than Canada, colour or religion.
I think those groups that are pressing for redress for that shameful part of Canadian history have asked for these changes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Ms. Mitchell moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario) moves for leave to introduce Bill C-452, an act concerning the freedom of association.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Mr. Soetens:: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Red Deer for seconding this motion. It has been apparent to me in my tenure in this Parliament that many public sector employees are not satisfied with
Routine Proceedings
the representation they have received from the unions they are forced to be members of.
This bill gives individual employees the freedom to choose whether or not to associate with other employees for the purpose of advancing their collective employment interests. This bill will also put in place protection measures for those who choose not to associate with a union and of course it affects all employees covered by federal contracts under the Canada Labour Code.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Soetens moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: that Bill S-15, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation), be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I move:
That pursuant to section 139 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, an act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, chapter 16, fourth supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the act be referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment, and that the committee undertake a comprehensive review of the administration of the act, including the provisions and operations of the act, and submit a report to the House no later than one year after the review is commenced by the committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I think you will find consent from all parties for the following motion:
That the House of Commons of Canada convey to the Parliament and people of Pakistan its profound sympathy in response to the tragic deaths of 23 peacekeepers of Pakistan, killed this month in service with the United Nations forces in Somalia;
And that the Speaker convey this resolution to the Parliament of Pakistan.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, the petitions I am presenting today contain several pages of names of people expressing their views in the democratic way. Their concern is the entrenchment of two official languages in our Constitution without ever having been approved by the majority of Canadians.
The people who have signed this petition are asking the government to make amendments to the Official Languages Act based on a referendum put to the Canadian people. These petitioners are asking that this matter be given attention by the government.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present petitions from a number of people in Windsor, Ontario, requesting that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as serial killer board games can be kept from being distributed in Canada.
This petition has been checked by the clerk and has been certified as conforming to the rules.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on another subject at the request of a number of people in Windsor, Ontario.
This petition requests that the House of Commons pass legislation giving to the people of Canada a referendum on the question of two official languages.
This petition has also been certified by the clerk as meeting the requirements of the rules for this purpose.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present that have been certified by the clerk to be in accordance with Standing Order 36.
First of all I have a petition from Canadians in my constituency and elsewhere in the national capital region who are very concerned about educational matters and have asked that the federal government, together with other levels of government, facilitate the standardized testing procedure for students across Canada.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition similar to that just presented by my colleague from Leeds-Grenville. I gather there has been a bit of a campaign with these petitions. I was asked to present it by Mr. John Elkin of my constituency. It has 35 names on it and it asks as well for a national referendum on the policy of bilingualism.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting this petition in concert with the hon. member for Don Valley East and the hon. member for Oshawa.
June 9, 1993

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that the Canadian Parks Service of Environment Canada in its development concept for a proposed national historic park on Grosse tie ignores first the tragic truth of the 15,000 Irish men, women and children who, fleeing famine and pestilence in Ireland in 1847, found in Canada only death and mass graves. Second, the service ignores the heroism of the many Canadians who selflessly succoured the sick and the dying, often at the cost of their own lives. Third, it ignores the generosity of the people of Quebec who adopted nearly 1,000 children orphaned that summer and allowed them to keep their own names.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada through the agency of Environment Canada's Canadian Parks Service to ensure that the Irish mass graves are perpetuated as theA main theme of the national historic park on Grosse lie and as a permanent reminder of the Irish role in the building of Canada.
This particular petition was circulated by Miss Ann Looney of Wellesworth Drive in Etobicoke.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a very lengthy petition on behalf of my constituents from Kitimat. It has been certified pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners are concerned that as a result of Conservative government policies, Canada Post Corporation is now centralizing the processing of forward mail from Kitimat, B.C. thus creating less work for Kitimat, B.C. postal workers and resulting in the loss of potential jobs for the youth in the community.
The petitioners call upon this Parliament to stop the privatization of postal services and to stop Canada Post from considering any closure of the wicket services in Kitimat, plus ensuring that the citizens and taxpayers of Kitimat, B.C. have a full service post office which is directly run by the Canada Post Corporation.
Routine Proceedings VIOLENCE


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my second petition has also been certified pursuant to Standing Order 36 and again is a very lengthy one.
There are more than 30 pages of signatures of concerned citizens from Terrace, Smithers, Kitwanga, Van-derhoof and Hazelton. They are concerned that many studies have shown a link between violence and entertainment and desensitization to violence in our society.
Since the laws of Canada do not deal with the materials portraying torture, rape and murder as fun including the serial killer board game they therefore call upon this Parliament to amend the Criminal Code so that violent and degrading materials such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions with thousands of signatures from the St. Catharines-Niagara area supporting the efforts of Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy and her quest to have the importation of killer cards seized at the Canada-U.S. border and to stop their distribution in Canada.
The signers of this petition abhor the crimes of violence against persons and believe that killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather contribute to violence.
They call on the Parliament of Canada to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. Duane Derreck was responsible for all of these petitions being distributed.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of 68 of my constituents who live in Osgoode Township, I am tabling two petitions asking the government to hold a referendum on the issue of official languages. Although I do not share the opinions expressed in this petition, I am still pleased to do my duty as a member of Parliament in a democratic country and to represent all my constituents, even those who think

Routine Proceedings
differently from me, as on the question of respecting the languages of the two founding peoples, French and English, and who do not seem interested in promoting Canadian unity.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to file two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
One has several hundred pages of signatures of residents of North Surrey condemning the post office for closing the mail sorting plant in Surrey which is one of the biggest in western Canada. It will cost the community $2.3 million in lost wages and will slow down the delivery of mail not only in Surrey but in the surrounding Fraser Valley area as well.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have calls upon the government to certainly not proceed with the free trade agreement, particularly as it will mean that we cannot bring back low cost generic drugs for a period of 20 years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table petitions on the very important issue of establishing national education standards.
Having well-educated and literate citizens is crucial to Canada's future competitiveness. It is unacceptable that today about 30 per cent of students drop out before finishing high school and 40 per cent of Canadians have difficulty with everyday reading and arithmetic. These people will find it increasingly difficult to find meaningful and rewarding employment or any employment at all.
The petitioners are calling for the establishment of a national education standards system to protect, promote and improve the quality of education in Canada. A lack of national standards can hide differences in the quality of education offered across this country.
To restore confidence in our educational system I believe along with the petitioners that establishing a national standard is a positive step in that direction.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of my constituency on Cape Breton Island who are very concerned with the recent violent crimes in Cape Breton. They are concerned that this rate of crime is going to increase.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to review the whole question of sentencing people convicted of violent crimes to make sure that the sentences fit the crimes. They also want a review of the Young Offenders Act to see that stricter penalties are applied to violent crimes.
I ask the House for its consideration in this matter.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition from my constituents.

Twenty-five people have signed this petition and it has been duly certified. My constituents call for the government to enact legislation for a referendum of the people of Canada binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada, the acceptance or the rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with the majority in a majority of provinces, the territories being considered as one province.
I am duty bound to present this petition.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a number of people on the Lamont and Spencer case which the Prime Minister mentioned today.
They call upon the Prime Minister to return Christine Lamont and David Spencer to Canada, not to serve 28 years in Canadian jails or to wait for a treaty with Brazil, but to ask for the expulsion of these people right now according to Brazilian law. I am pleased to present this petition.
June 9, 1993


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 that has been certified correct by the clerk.
It adds 3,000 names to the 5,000 I have already presented in favour of asking this Parliament to take action to amend the Divorce Act of Canada to prevent the separation without due cause of children from their grandparents. It recognizes that children can be denied the security they need when unjustified barriers are placed between them and the relationship they enjoy with their grandparents.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from residents from Toronto primarily.
I am pleased to present this certified petition in special tribute to a friend of mine, Mr. Charlie Christie, who worked all his life on behalf of peace.
It calls upon Parliament to establish a peace trust fund which would allow Canadian taxpayers who are conscientious objectors to choose to redirect a portion of their taxes away from military uses to a fund which would use the resources for peace, education, research, humanitarian aid and other peaceful purposes.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the democratic principles of this House and my responsibility to represent the views of all my constituents, I present another petition asking Parliament to hold a referendum binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in this first instance, petitioners point out that the major challenges facing Canada today are problems such as poverty, unemployment, abuse.
They say that the current merger of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada with the Canada Council being proposed by the government will not help social scientists resolve these particular problems. They want this decision deferred-there is
Routine Proceedings
still time to do so-and some consultation to take place and then a decision to be taken by government.


Ron J. Duhamel: In the second instance, these petitioners want child care deductions for families with special needs children and especially for single-parent families with special needs children to be deductible from income.
They point out that some children require facilities which can be very costly and there is really no option. They believe that the current laws are unfair, insensitive and may be discriminatory. They ask that these be reviewed.


Ron J. Duhamel: In this final situation, I have petitioners who want child care facilities for workers who need them. They want a reform of the unemployment insurance rules to ensure that there is no abuse of workers. They want the government to create situations favourable for jobs for those who are unemployed and for those who are receiving social assistance. They would like as well the promotion of in-home jobs for mothers or fathers who may want them and they request that there be consultation on future budgets with the people of Canada.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Lethbridge and of the Crow's Nest communities in southern Alberta.
They point out to the House that if implemented, the North American free trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, conserve Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit and advance needed social programs.
For this among other reasons, the petitioners call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Routine Proceedings OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to introduce a petition which deals with language and referendum. It is my duty to present same.

I would like to say that I share the position of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but the time for petitions has now expired according to the rules.


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Speaker, I know it is very difficult for you on days like this, but I just want to bring to the attention of the House and to your attention, that often in this comer because we sit over on the far side, we get left out in presenting petitions because of the orderly way in which the Speaker does things.
I want to point out to the House that it appears that over all it is often unfair to those of us who sit on the far side.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is my hope that if the Speaker tested the House, he would find there was unanimous consent to allow for the presentation of petitions to finish, there being I believe, three petitioners left.


An hon. member:: There are only two left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your putting this to the House.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My petition is one where the residents of Greenwood, Westbridge, Midway, Rock Creek and other areas in the boundary country are somewhat concerned over the North American free trade agreement. They say that if it is implemented, it will cause problems for provincial and territorial governments with respect to their natural resources for Canadian benefit.
They are asking the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. In two of these petitions the petitioners wish that the House ban the serial killer board game, first edition, by Tobias Allen.
This particular game comes with a body bag, 25 babies, four serial killer figures, the object of which is to commit murder and the person with the highest body count being the winner. They ask this Parliament to consider banning this type of game from being imported into Canada.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the other petition I have deals with a similar matter. Other colleagues have raised it today. It is a petition that came about as a result of the efforts of Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy. It deals with a similar subject matter.
These trading cards deal with serial killers. The petitioners do the same as the previous petitioners and ask this Parliament to ban outright the sale, importation and possession of this type of game card.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the extra time given to present these petitions. A number of residents in the riding of Okanagan-Shuswap, particularly the areas of Vernon and Salmon Arm, are concerned about the impact of the North American free trade agreement on drug prices. They have called upon the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and use the termination clause that is available to the government to reject the Canada-U.S. agreement.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, second and very quickly, a number of residents also from Okanagan-Shuswap are concerned about the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act putting more power in the hands of the employers. They call upon the House to reject the proposed amendments to the UI Act.


June 9, 1993


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for the extended few minutes required to present the remaining petitions.
I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by some 35 citizens from the communities of Fruitvale, Montrose, Quesnel, Trail, Rossland and Castlegar, all within the constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The petitioners point out that in their opinion, the North American free trade agreement if implemented would result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, conserve Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit and advance needed social programs.
The petitioners therefore call upon the House to reconsider and reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Routine Proceedings
and to Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 522 will be answered today.
Mr. Saint-Julien: For each year since 1983, has the government spent money on its embassy in Paris and, if so, (a) how much went toward the operating budget (b) how much toward travel by the various ambassadors who have held the posting, and which ones (c) how much toward accommodation allowances, and for whom (d) how many people were employed by the embassy every year (e) how much was spent on receptions?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as External Affairs and International Trade is concerned, the reply is as shown below.
Since the embassy retains financial records for a six-year period only, detailed information for fiscal year 82-83, 83-84, 84-85 and 85-86 is not available.
Embassy Operational Budget
82/83: 4,929,721
83/84: Incomplete information (1,462,375)
84/85: 4,968,591 85/86: 5,658,182
Please note that we cannot supply total operational budget for 83/84.
Ambassadors to Paris
1981-1985: Michel Dupuy
1985-1988: Lucien Bouchard
1988-1993: Claude Charland
Number of Canadians and Local Employees
EAITC	EIC	DND	RCMP	CSIS	PA	OTHER	TOTAL1983	231	6	4	2	15	2581984	230	6	4	2	7	2491985	227	6	1	2	3	4	2431986	199	6	2	2	1	4	2141987	205	6	2	2	3	3	2211988	207	6	2	2	3	4	2241989	200	6	2	3	2111990	197	6	2	3	1	209
Routine Proceedings
Number of Canadian and Local Employees
EAITC EIC	DBD	RCMP	CSIS	PA	OTHER	TOTAL1991	206	6	2	3	2171992	204 6	7	2	3	222(a) to (e)	86/87	87/88	88/89	89/90	90/91	91/92	92/93Embassy operational budget	7,469,380	8,448,974	7,323,305	7,290,882	8,562,965	7,664,198	9,582,371Ambassador travel budget	27,765	29,366	5,514	21,482	19,050	12,984	5,172Official residence maintenance budget	32,302	96,417	127,430	130,921	51,230	77,125	198,628Combined Canadians and local staff	see attached	Ambassador	62,000	79,363	65,587	90,026	106,720	89,722	98,319
hospitality
budget
EAITC External Affairs and International Trade Canada EIC	Employment and Immigration Canada
DND	Department of National Defence
RCMP	Royal Canadian Mounted Police
CSIS	Canadian Security Intelligence Service
PA	Public Archives


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is agreed?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On April 21, 1993 I placed the following question on the Order Paper:
Was a payment of $20,000 made to Senator Pat Carney for the loss of ministerial papers and, if so, (a) how was this sum determined, (b) how and when were the papers lost, (c) what was the total cost incurred by the government with regard to this matter?
I asked the question, of course, because some of my constituents were interested in these matters. That is true and I can show you the letter, if you want.

I guess I am really wondering now because the 45 days have expired and we are getting very close to the end. I am not playing games with this issue. This is a natural question that was raised by my constituents. I would like to know when I can expect an answer.
If my hon. colleague would like the proof that someone else has raised it, I would be delighted to provide it to him.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the number of the hon. member's question is on the list of questions which are now in the process of being answered and I hope to be
June 9, 1993

able to provide the answer as soon as possible, before the House adjourns, if possible.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-19, in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
P-19-Mr. Dingwall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
including studies, reports, correspondence and other papers relating
to the Westray Mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Notice of motion for the production of papers No. P-19, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the hon. member would be in the House because I am going to provide some answers to Motion No. P-19.1 will proceed just the same, and if the hon. member is here he can offer some comments.
Documents pertaining to the Westray mine were tabled in the House of Commons on June 4, 1992. Further documents were released to the public on July 23 and September 9, 1992. They total 7,500 pages. These papers may be viewed at the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, 235 Queen Street, C.D. Howe Building, seventh floor, east lobby boardroom, as well as at the ISTC regional office in Halifax, located at 1801 Hollis Street.
The federal government has also released the balance of its documents, some 11,000 pages, to the commission of inquiry established by the Government of Nova Scotia on April 8, 1993 to examine events leading up to the accident and its cause.
The inquiry commissioner has ordered the commission staff to hold all documents in strict confidence until the public hearings resume. In keeping with the federal government's commitment of May 20, 1992 and the
Government Orders
objectives of the commission, it would be inappropriate to release the documents to the House of Commons and the public before the commission is free to resume hearings.
In view of the above facts I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is absent, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader agree to have this question transferred for debate?


Charles A. Langlois: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So ordered. Transferred for debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of enthusiasm that I rise to take part today in the final debate on Bill C-62 that will be held in this House of Commons.
I am enthusiastic because I believe it is a good day for Canada. It is most certainly a good day for the thousands of men and women who work in Canada's telecommunications industry. It is a good day for Canadian consumers who will have modern legislation to ensure that there is a standard of service they can expect from one coast to another.
I am enthusiastic because Canadians and the Canadian telecommunications industry have waited a long time for modem and forward looking legislation to govern this important and rapidly evolving sector of our economy and our long wait is finally nearing an end.

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
The Railway Act, which has provided the legislative and regulatory framework for telecommunications in Canada, dates back to 1908. Yet telecommunications networks made up of wires, coaxial cables, fibre optics, microwaves and satellites have long since replaced bands of steel as the foremost transcontinental highway binding this country together. Our most modem and high-tech industry is governed by legislation which is so outdated it is not even used any longer to regulate most rail service.
Third reading of Bill C-62 in the House will take Canadians one step closer to the modern legislative framework we need if this industry is to fulfil its promise as a key catalyst for economic growth, employment opportunities and prosperity.
The progress that has been made in this industry in recent years and the growth that has taken place, an average growth of about 8 per cent per annum right through the recession, indicate that our telecommunications industry is a winner for Canada.
It is an industry that creates jobs throughout Canada. It is an industry that creates opportunities for Canadians. It is an industry that provides services for Canadians that are essential if we are to maintain and build an even stronger standard of living than we have today.
This bill has now been the subject of comprehensive public hearings by two parliamentary committees, the Senate committee on transport and communications and most recently the subcommittee of the House Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Both studies found there is a consensus that is as broad as it is clear. This country needs a new telecommunications act now and Bill C-62 deserves to be passed into law.
On several occasions I have praised the work of the Senate committee in its pre-study of the bill last year. With determination and most important, with open minds the senators listened to many hours of testimony from the best and brightest figures in Canada's telecommunications industry. The greatest tribute to the senators can be found in the simple fact that many of their recommendations are now reflected in the amended Bill C-62.
After second reading in the House this spring the same challenge fell to the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. The amendments made by the committee reflect the members' genuine interest in and awareness of the issues facing the Canadian telecommunications industry and the role that this key industry plays in Canadian society today.

Hundreds of people have participated in discussion of Bill C-62. Many excellent suggestions have come forward, and we have both listened and acted.
The changes made respond to key recommendations of the Senate committee, to suggestions voiced by the House subcommittee, by the CRTC, by industry players, including carriers, resellers and cable companies, by the provinces, by the Canadian business community, and by public interest groups representing a wide range of Canadians who depend more and more on telecommunications services. The amendments have improved Bill C-62, without undermining its underlying principles in any way.

While I will not attempt to list all the amendments brought to this legislation, it would be appropriate to touch on a few of the more substantive changes. These include: more clearly excluding resellers from the scope of the bill; better reflecting regional interests in the policy objectives; giving the CRTC the power to exempt classes of carriers from the legislation; strengthening the provisions on federal-provincial consultation, eliminating a proposed licensing regime while preserving firm Canadian ownership requirements; creating a presumption in favour of regulatory forbearance where effective competition exists, while requiring the CRTC to bear in mind the sometimes fragile nature of competition; imposing an important time limit on CRTC decision making while allowing the commission some flexibility to extend this limit only where more detailed analysis of the matter at hand is required and strengthening the CRTC's ability to deal with infringements of individual privacy caused by unsolicited telecommunications.
I want to pick up on this point in particular because when we ended yesterday my colleague from Mount Royal was quite correctly pointing out that there is a growing concern among Canadians about this whole issue of privacy. There is a growing feeling on the part of Canadians that something must be done and done now
June 9, 1993

by this Parliament to ensure that their rights are respected.
We have written provisions into the bill to give the CRTC the power it needs to intervene, to ensure that the basic rights to privacy of individual Canadians are better respected than they are today.
Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have been deluged with letters from constituents who have complained about receiving telephone calls from auto diallers. They have complained about junk faxes and 976 numbers which have been used in a way that causes them or their families to run up massive phone bills often without realizing the consequences of their actions.
Today the hands of the CRTC are largely tied on a number of these issues. It is important that we bring changes to the law to ensure that the CRTC has the ability to look into these abuses and act effectively on behalf of Canadian citizens to ensure that their basic rights are reflected.
Yesterday my friend from Mount Royal raised a concern as the House concluded its deliberations at report stage about whether the provisions in the bill could interfere with the ability of legitimate survey takers, for example, to do their work. I can certainly assure members of the House that is not the intention of the government nor is it our expectation that the bill will be used in such a way. We are determined to act effectively in response to the concerns that have been expressed by literally hundreds of Canadians to stop abuses which strip away their basic privacy.
All of us know of some particularly egregious cases where auto diallers and junk faxes are being abused which bring discredit to the telemarketing industry. It wants nothing to do with these fly-by-night concerns which bring nothing but grief to people on the receiving end of those messages. They are vexatious for the telephone companies as well because Canadians turn to the telephone companies asking for their assistance and the companies are very limited in terms of what they can do.
The measures we have taken here that we will be passing into law today will help give better protection to these basic rights of Canadians and will respond to a concerted voice of Canadians from one coast to another
Government Orders
asking that this Parliament act without further delay to protect their privacy.
In all the areas where we have made amendments I believe we have ended up with a bill that is better and stronger than before. Some people have expressed surprise about the government's flexibility and willingness to entertain these sorts of amendments during this process.
Over the course of the debate colleagues opposite have used various figures to describe the number of amendments. Two weeks ago they said there were over 150. Yesterday they said there were 74. The figure is 51.
The government's willingness to listen to suggestions for improvements to the bill does not demonstrate that this bill is fatally flawed, as some in the New Democratic Party would have us believe. The government kept the commitment which I made at the outset both before the Senate committee and in this House that we would listen with an open mind and accept any proposals that could make a good bill better.

My hope is that, in time, efforts by government to act in a non-partisan fashion will be reciprocated by members on both sides of the House. Parliament is here for a reason. And while the road from first reading to royal assent can be long and sometimes frustrating, I believe the journey is most rewarding when all parties forgo dogma in favour of discussion, and conflict in favour of co-operation.

Why waste the time of MPs, senators, witnesses, clerks, researchers, translators, lawyers, officials and staff if no one is really listening? After all, the bill does not belong to the minister or the government; it belongs to all of us. If all the people who care about the outcome have input and consider their input to be meaningful, I believe our accomplishment is that much greater.
I want to express a very sincere word of thanks to those witnesses, members of the House of Commons, members of my own staff, those of my department, senators and others who have done so much to ensure that this bill is responsive to the concerns of Canadians. Their efforts have certainly borne fruit.

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
When we make this major modification to our telecommunications industry and the structure that governs it we are doing away with the superstructure that was put in place in 1908 and replacing it with a modern one suited to the needs of the 21st century. These people have helped to ensure that the needs of Canadians, especially those working in this industry, are respected in the bill itself and reflected in the new legislation that will be put in place.
That collective effort and generosity that was shown by so many people and their willingness to collaborate, work together, listen and search for common solutions to challenges have helped to strengthen this bill and ensure that Canadians will be better served for the future with modem, forward looking legislation.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to return to the three fundamental principles which guide Bill C-62. They are: to ensure that Canadians have access to affordable and reliable telecommunications services; to increase the competitiveness of the Canadian telecommunications industry and to promote Canadian ownership and control of the Canadian telecommunications infrastructure.

The last of these three principles is fundamental to the achievement of the first two. Telecommunications serves to link this country together through a wide range of activities from personal conversations, data and information transfers to business transactions and increasingly to the enjoyment of cultural products and services.
The telecommunications system is in a sense the country's central nervous system linking all other elements with each other. I take pride in the fact that the first Canadian telecommunications act will enshrine Canadian ownership and control of this vital infrastructure as one of its key public policy objectives. I am particularly pleased that the objective of Canadian ownership and control is strongly supported on both sides of this House.
I recently returned from the Asia Telecom Conference in Singapore where I had an opportunity to meet with communications ministers from Asia. I also had the opportunity to meet with representatives of industry from around the world.
I continued from Singapore to Beijing in support of Canadian business and its attempts to sell equipment and services from Canada to a growing Chinese marketplace.
It is striking when one realizes that in China each year between now and the turn of the century the Chinese people will be adding as many telephone lines as we have today in Canada. Virtually every Canadian has access to modem telecommunications services today while in China, as in so much of the world, only a tiny fragment of the population has access to such services.
In Canada, the second largest country anywhere in the world, we have been able to build the world's best telecommunications system. It makes it possible for someone in Pond Inlet in the Arctic to pick up a telephone, be linked to the satellite and talk to someone in any other region of the world. Our telephone system helps facilitate the provision of goods and services across Canada.
When we take a look at the needs of developing countries such as Mexico or China, success in industrialising and improving the standard of living and quality of life for ordinary people will depend directly upon the infrastructure which is in place. Business cannot locate in a country if it is impossible for it to communicate with its customers and its head office which may be located thousands of miles away.
The goods and services necessary for a growing population cannot be provided without a modern telecommunications system. We cannot attract new industry. We would have a hard time providing services for tourism, banking and financial institutions of all sorts unless we had a modem telecommunications infrastructure firmly in place and Canada has that.
We are determined to ensure that this infrastructure remains in Canadian hands, continues to serve the needs of Canadians and grows with the future. We are determined to use this Canadian base which we have built as a means of launching trade from Canada around the world; as a means of giving literally thousands of Canadian working people the opportunity to produce goods and services which will help to improve the quality of life of people throughout the whole of the world.
June 9, 1993

This country is making an important contribution. It is an important contribution that this industry, which is now being given modem effective legislation, can make to the rest of the world.
We are determined to ensure that this is a Canadian industry. We welcome competition. We welcome the opportunity to compete in the rest of the world. We are determined as well to ensure that the Canadian men and women who have built such a successful industry in Canada will continue to be able to do so in the future.
I would note parenthetically that perhaps the most unique contribution of the debate was made yesterday by my friend, the NDP House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops. He said that the government's policies would lead within a short time to Canadian telephone operators being replaced by Mexicans based in Guadalajara or in Ensenada. Let me quote his words exactly as they were recorded on page 20511 of Hansard:
I am going to make a prediction that would say that within a short period of time when you, Mr. Speaker, or others dial an operator to get information for a particular number the voice you will hear at the other end of the telephone will sound more like Buenos noches, senor. In other words, the telephone operator will be operating out of Guadalajara, or out of Ensenada or out of a community along the Rio Grande River.
I do not think my hon. friend really has to worry about the prospect of B.C. Tel being bought up by Taco Bell. Instead we are ensuring that there are opportunities for Canadians to be able to provide services in Canada and be able to assist our friends in Mexico in developing the infrastructure they need to provide the quality of life that all citizens, irrespective of their country, want to enjoy. The North American free trade agreement opens up a multibillion dollar Mexican market for Canadian suppliers. It is an opportunity that is welcomed by the Canadian industry and one that may help to create hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs and greater prosperity. By building upon that strong domestic base that Bill C-62 encourages, Canadian industry and Canadian workers are able to take advantage of an international market for telecommunications equipment and services which will total in the hundreds of billions of dollars between now and the turn of the century.
Government Orders
Some people sell Canadian business short and they sell Canadian workers short. They believe that it is impossible for people in this country if we take down tariff barriers and encourage competition to be able to succeed either at home or abroad. This industry has proven them terribly wrong.
All one has to do is to travel outside of Canada and see the amount of Canadian telephone equipment which is being sold by workers who have built and designed this equipment here in Canada and who have worked entirely from a Canadian base to recognize that Canadian workers and industry are as good as the world has to offer. Those faint hearts who argue that we should hide ourselves behind tariff walls simply sell Canadians short.
What Canadian workers are looking for and what Canadian business is looking for is opportunity. They are not seeking to be walled off from the rest of the world. They are not seeking to hide in shrinking markets behind high tariff walls. They ask for the opportunity to compete on a fair and even playing field and the opportunity to be able to sell their goods and their services throughout the world.
That is indeed what we are achieving with Mexico. It is something which will be of benefit to the Mexican people and which will certainly be of benefit to Canadian workers and Canadian business as well.
We have seen that Canadians, given the opportunity, can certainly triumph. As an example of that, in China today there are switches either already in place or already contracted for that are made by Northern Telecom. This provides telephone service to four million Chinese. Northern Telecom among other Canadian suppliers continues to bid on contracts in that part of the world and the prospects look very encouraging indeed for them. What they need is not to have impediments to trade but to have the opportunity to trade and to produce goods and services in Canada and to sell them abroad.
The same applies to Canadian consumers. Colleagues opposite have made the point. We are indeed moving to a very different philosophy here about how we should be providing telephone service in Canada. We are moving from a philosophy which said that we should protect

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
monopolies and have those monopolies located in each of the markets across Canada providing service to consumers.
Last year in an historic decision on long distance competition the CRTC mandated that competition in the future would be allowed for long distance service for Canadians. There are some Canadians who oppose that and believe it is not desirable for Canada or for Canadian workers that competition should be able to exist. I believe they are wrong. We have seen the benefits of competition, rates coming down and opportunities being created.
We have also seen jobs being created in Canada as a result of competition. Jobs have been created directly in the telecommunications industry as they will be in the constituency of the House leader of the NDP where an announcement has been made by one of the companies providing long distance competition that it was their intention to create a new service and new jobs in that constituency. We are seeing it created across the country. As a result of competition we are seeing that as rates come down Canadian business people are able to obtain telecommunications services less expensively, as are Canadian consumers from one coast to another. Some people argue that it should not happen and that it is not in the public interest that it should happen.
However, what would happen if we maintained and followed the policy of some that rates should be artificially high for long distance and that competition should not be allowed? One of the costs of doing business for Canadian companies is indeed the cost of telecommunications services. If these services were available much less expensively south of the border would there be an incentive for these Canadian business people to remain in Canada and to create their jobs here or would the incentive be to take those jobs out of Canada and move them to some other country? Unless we have modem telecommunications services available in Canada at competitive rates we will have a hard time developing our economy, creating the jobs in industry and providing the services that we believe Canadians from one coast to another are entitled to have.
Canadians are not afraid of competition, they welcome it. They are not afraid of increased services, they welcome that. They are not afraid of moving to the marketplace, they welcome the fact that the marketplace will be more effective in the future.
We have seen the effects already in cellular, not just in Canada but around the world. In those countries which took the model of licensing a monopoly, the penetration of cellular service is universally lower than it is in those countries which mandated competition. Prices are higher. Service has not been extended as far. Why? Because one is dealing with a protected monopoly instead of dealing with a marketplace in which the consumer is king and in which the needs of the consumer are put ahead of every other concern.
Today with the legislation which governs our telecommunications industry at this moment it is against the law for the CRTC to refrain from regulating. It is against the law for the CRTC to say that the marketplace and free market competition is doing a good job for consumers and that it does not make sense to delay the introduction of new services or to require costly regulatory hearings. This is costly both for taxpayers and for consumers who have to pay the bill passed on to them by the companies. That is simply not allowed. The CRTC is required by law to regulate and to go through this costly and cumbersome procedure which denies timely improvements in service to consumers and drives up costs both for consumers and for taxpayers. How is the public interest served if we allow this to continue for one more day? How are ordinary Canadians served by that sort of action on our part as Parliament?
The CRTC is there and will remain there in order to intervene in instances where the marketplace cannot do the job fairly and effectively. That power is not circumscribed. It is there and it remains undiminished. In those instances where the marketplace can do the job better we are saying it is time to move away from protected monopolies to free market competition. Every single Canadian in every part of Canada will be a beneficiary as a result of the action that we are taking.
All these principles which underlie the bill are important for Canada. They are important for building for our future, giving opportunities to young Canadians and ensuring that the quality of life that we are privileged to enjoy as Canadians is maintained and enhanced. This is because without innovations in telecommunications it is impossible for us to move services out to the rural and
June 9, 1993

remote areas throughout Canada where we are expecting that new services should be provided.
By bringing in new legislation, encouraging our industry, giving opportunities to the men and women who work in Canada's telecommunications industry and showing vision by putting in place an electronic highway system to tie together every home, business and governmental institution in Canada we can broadly democratize the provision of services in Canada. We can make it so that people in the most rural and remote parts of Canada have access to the same quality of services as people have in the hearts of the great cities in Canada. We can make it so that people who are living with disabilities have the opportunity to work from their own homes and be able to participate fully in the labour force. We can make it so seniors or single mothers will have the opportunity to continue to participate fully in the labour force and to do so from their own homes to improve their quality of life and to make a contribution to our economy as a whole.
However, it requires that we have modern legislation in place and that all of us involved with the industry and with government show vision and a sense of direction for Canada.
Often when we talk about Canada's telecommunications system and about the importance of telephone service the debate gets relegated to the business pages if it gets covered at all. Often there are many other elements of debate in this House which draw much more attention than what we do for our number one high tech industry in Canada.
It is an historic day for this Parliament and it is an historic day for every Canadian that we are now finally moving to put this modern legislation into place and to ensure that Canadians can plan for the future with confidence, knowing that they will continue to have a Canadian-owned, strong, national telecommunications system.
The principles underlying Bill C-62 have now been endorsed by the Senate committee's pre-study, by the House of Commons at second reading, by the subcommittee of this House charged with reviewing Bill C-62
Government Orders
and by the vast majority of witnesses who have made submissions on the legislation.
The telecommunications industry, its major users and the regulator are unequivocal in their message to this House. Canada needs a new telecommunications act. Bill C-62 is that act. It has been thoroughly debated, studied, amended and improved and it must be passed today so that telecommunications can take us to the very bright world of tomorrow.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is really a privilege as well as a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to examine and discuss a piece of legislation that is important to the economy, business world and ordinary people of this country.
It is the responsibility of the opposition party to scrutinize this bill on behalf of the people of Canada. That is our role and responsibility. I, as a member of the opposition with respect to this bill, and all sides of the House looked at this bill, made comments at all levels of this House, whether it was in the Senate, in the House itself or in a committee which was a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
There is no question that this bill is a very important bill. I think the minister in his speech outlined a large area of potential involvement and active participation right now in the areas that are impacted by this particular technology and by this kind of infrastructure and areas in which telecommunications touch our lives.
There was no question that new legislation was needed. By the way it was interesting that new legislation was tried in this House in 1977 and it died on the Order Paper in 1978 I believe. I think the most important part of this whole approach was that not only did we have to have a new telecommunications bill, but that it had to be right. There had been such dynamic change that we really had to have a very forward-looking bill.
I would agree with what the minister has just said. Yes, it is the central nervous system of this country. It is important for Canada for many reasons. It is true that this is Canada's electronic highway for the 1990s. There are 100,000 Canadians who work in this industry. It generates over $20 billion worth of revenue. It invests heavily each year in Canadian research and development

Government Orders
in new technologies, plants and equipment. It is a significant industry in a variety of ways.
All this is made possible by tapping the resources of highly skilled and highly trained Canadians. Our work force is one of which we can be very proud. It has certainly gained a reputation internationally if not, as well, right here on our home territory. We hope that this will continue and grow in the future because this really is a winning sector of the economy for Canada. There is no question we have become far more efficient and far more effective which was part of the battle behind the maintenance and the growth of the Gemini services that Air Canada had.
However, let us not forget that when we automatically make the reservations necessary to go by plane, when we can set up a hotel reservation, when we can make changes where necessary to fit our tourists' interests, when we need to use a card at a banking machine because it was inconvenient to get to a bank, even the banking transactions, the business transactions, the stock market transactions, the distribution of all cultural products, all these various industries hinge on an effective, well-implemented, competent and capable telecommunications infrastructure. It is a strategic industry for our entire economy and it helps other industries to compete by giving them access to the information and communications revolution which has been going on.
This helps us to create the knowledge-intensive, high technology jobs of the future and it helps us to locate them where people are, outside of traditional business centres particularly in our regions. It meets the need for home industry today and certainly meets the needs of the disabled who can work more effectively and efficiently from their own homes without being disaccommodated in many ways. This is not to say that we should not also make improvements to the work place so that people of all competences have access at any time.
This highly regulated industry requires the appropriate policy, legislative and regulatory environment in which to succeed. That is why we are here today. Yes, we want to serve the public interest first with a balanced approach among the regulator, the monopolies and complete deregulation. Governments do have a role. This bill looked to find balance among all the competing interests
as we sought a design based on the original bill that was placed before the House last February 1992.
I have given this a great deal of thought. I have been involved in this since I came into this House. I have called on the government to keep its word and fulfil its commitment, particularly over the last five years. I want the government to get moving and to back up what it had to say in 1984 about the need for a modem legislative framework for our telecommunications industry.
For nine long years that was just another broken promise. As the government failed to respond to its own promises, the Liberal Party called many times for the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to study the telecommunications issue. We had our own life in this Parliament but it was never convenient to get it on to the agenda. It always came second or third as a priority.
Therefore, let the record in this place show that in my role as critic for communications and culture I raised, on an ongoing basis, the need for us to address this issue in the standing committee. We needed to address and examine the shortcomings of this industry's regulatory process, to examine the issues of competition, of monopoly versus duopoly and the development of this key industry infrastructure as an instrument of competitiveness, but it was never done.
The standing committee never got around to it, notwithstanding urgings. I think the country may have suffered from our inability to address this issue over time. Never did this government sit down, to my knowledge or to the knowledge of the general public, and look at the telecommunications industry, study how its various components worked together and then look at the 1908 Railway Act and say: "Canada is falling far behind. Let us act now".
Meanwhile, it is true that certain conversations were held in ministerial quarters over time. A committee was set up to take a look at convergence. None of this came into the public arena and certainly not in time for this bill. Meanwhile, Telesat was introduced and privatized. Teleglobe was privatized. Competition was introduced in the long distance market and as well cellular phones were introduced non-regulated. Pocket phones are on the horizon. In fact new technologies like we see with
June 9, 1993

Newbridge and digital highways are sprouting almost every day.
We regret that the government never produced a white paper, a green paper or a thorough public review of the telecommunications issues. It never developed a national strategy that could be reviewed and examined. This flawed bill was the result.
Our greatest regret is that the Conservative government opposite put this issue on the front burner when it was elected in 1984, yet it stayed on the back burner ever since. Only since last February 7, 1992 after eight years of waiting did it finally introduce Bill C-62. It was April of this year when the bill received second reading and on April 20 it went to the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. It was reported to this House on May 28.
We in the Liberal Party have supported this bill moving forward, not because the minister has done a wonderful job, not because it was a good bill when it was introduced, but because we knew this industry and the business community believed it to be an important bill, one that it could live with and one that we could live with for the moment if amendments were brought forward.
In my years as the communications and culture critic for the Official Opposition I have seen communication ministers come and go. However never did I expect the weak leadership that we have seen in this area of telecommunications.
The minister has failed. The government has failed to consult, to build a national consensus on the future direction for this industry, leaving Canada with its 1908 Railway Act, designed for the horse and buggy era in place and not ready or able to cope with this information age. A more constructive, open process would have included perhaps a redrafted bill instead of the dozens and dozens of amendments that we had to make in committee.
The government and this minister indicated that they were open. We can measure the impact of that promise by examining the procedures with this bill. Essentially they could have improved their credibility after the Senate undertook a pre-study of this bill and made a
Government Orders
myriad of recommended changes which the government for the most part chose to ignore at that time. Until the government was convinced by the House committee many important amendments were not made.
This is not to say that all were not made but certainly some very important ones were not made. It took the insistence of the committee to force those changes.
Yesterday we were treated in this place to a very sad display on the part of the Minister of Communications as he somehow felt that he had to make a case for his work and his own bill by blaming the opposition for delay and replaying some statements from the past. He just did not get it.
I do not understand why he does not find it ironic that I produced a discussion paper on telecommunications, flawed or otherwise. I did not have the government's staff and all the bureaucracy behind me but I sat down with two staff people in my office and drafted what I thought would be the beginning of a discussion that we could have with the telecommunications people.
It may have been flawed in the minister's eyes but certainly it was a first step. It is ironic that I produced that paper and he never did. It is ironic that this government never produced any kind of discussion paper. Does the minister not realize that in damning the opposition he actually showed that we have been more active on this file than the government?
The point is that this minister and this government waited nine years to make this bill a priority. Now the minister wants everyone to jump on board, say he has done a wonderful job and forget the years that the government has been ignoring the issue. To say the least, that is asking a lot.
If the minister wishes to go back to the past and have his little researchers find my words calling for a new Telecom bill, then so be it. However if he wants statements from the past I have a few others for him so that Hansard and the history books can be complete.
We can begin with the former Minister of Finance's November 1984 economic statement. He said. "There is a clear need for a national telecommunications policy to take advantage of the opportunities presented by rapidly

Government Orders
advancing technology and the growing demand by Canadians for new telecommunications services".
He went on to say: "Through regulatory reform the government can spur innovation and provide a major stimulus to the Canadian economy". Then for nine years nothing happened.
We can go back to a speech by the hon. member for Frontenac to the Canadian Bar Association on February 12, 1986 when he said: "The fundamental revision of the policy and regulatory framework which allows the telecommunication industry to realize its potential has thus become a priority for me and for the government. I tackled reforms head-on while establishing the basic principles that should inspire it". Again for nine years nothing happened.
Then there was Madam Flora MacDonald and the minister's 1987 paper called A Communication for the 21st Century. She said: "In spite of our past achievements in communications, Canada has not reacted to the changes that are taking place in our own economy and the larger world in the same way as other advanced industrial nations. We have been content to rest on our laurels, to cope with the challenges of the new environment. It is time to call this complacency into question". Again for nine years nothing happened.
We heard the present Minister of Communications who tabled Bill C-62 in February 1992 saying four months later at the Senate pre-study: "To delay its implementation would be to slow the growth of an industry which is vital to the Canadian economy".
That was almost a year ago the minister spoke those words of urgency and this bill is only now proceeding, nine years later, nine years late, at the very dying moments of this government's mandate. At death's door we have finally through pressure in the industry and through lobbying by that industry got the House leader to recognize that the Minister of Communications had an important bill that had to get through this House. It shows the commitment of this government from 1984 until now. Not only that, democracy was not allowed to rule here. We had time allocation on the bill.
For my part when Bill C-62 finally came forward I was prepared to look past the minister's slow handling of this bill because the Liberal Party wanted to ensure a piece of legislation that worked for Canada. I believe the committee process worked very well. Our interest was in
ensuring that the committee did a very thorough job and I believe the committee did.
To all those colleagues on all sides of this House who participated I think we enjoyed the process because it was open. It did respond by making many changes that improved this bill immeasurably. To the witnesses, the lobbyists, the lawyers, the staff, and the researchers I say a hearty thank you in the interest of this industry which is vital to this country.
At legislative committee we wanted to make sure that we heard from some of the groups that had been given no opportunity since the Senate report of last year to put their concerns on record and we did that. I must say that the minister did at least respond favourably when I asked if it would be all right if the CRTC sat at the table with us and if the interveners from the business sector could also have their word to say. That was agreed to by the minister and the chair for which I think we can be very pleased.
Since the Senate report of last year it was important, as no one has been heard from again, to put the concerns on the record of this industry and the various partners and players. At different times throughout the course of our hearings Stentor, the resellers, B.C. Tel, CanCom, Telesat and the CRTC were represented at the table. Unfortunately the artistic community was not so represented.
I know it may have seemed like an unwieldy process at that time but it was very helpful to have the industry's views on the record as we went through clause by clause and made the necessary changes. A better bill resulted. The minister can go back and look in Hansard and he will see that I indicated there were 51 amendments and 150 changes in wording within the bill.
What should the goal of a telecommunications policy be? What should the goal of a telecommunications architectural structure be? It was meant to provide a fresh direction for the telecommunications sector so that we could maximize the benefit to every Canadian of the world-wide information revolution. This is not only for the people who use their phones at home to call their mother, sister, husband, office or whatever but also to allow businesses to profit from the use of efficient and effective telecommunications and fair and competitive prices in the conducting of their business. I believe the cost of telecommunications is almost one-third of indus-

try's costs. It is certainly so for the medium and large businesses.
It was important for us to update and ensure that the system and the regulator could effectively put into place the terms and conditions that were needed. We also must ensure that this system helps in terms of learning, literacy, education and training and communicating for cultural, social and business reasons.
It brings all the marvels of this revolution from our biggest cities to our outermost communities. This bill as introduced last February was really not what this country needed. However through the committee's efforts it is a better bill for the short term.
Let me turn to a number of issues raised in this bill because we cannot address them all here today. I will address just a small number. Liberals supported this bill, which was acting on the AGT Supreme Court ruling which found largely in favour of federal jurisdiction over telecommunications. Canada needs harmonized rules and regulations governing this sector if all Canadians are to have equal access to the benefits of the information revolution.
In terms of the definitions as we find them in clause 2, there was much study in the Senate on this question and again in the House committee. Should resellers be in or out of the legislation? The indication was that the will was to have them out of legislation. Should this be done by definition or by exemption? That was the key question. My view was that they should be exempted from the act or they should benefit from forbearance.
It was somewhat ironic to see the CTA, the resellers' association, initially fighting to be left out through an exclusionary definition but in the end agreeing to the approach of pursuing forbearance or exemption. I am glad that in the end it got its act together and realized what was going on. However it was too late and the minister did not react. We are left with a complicated definition and we will have to judge its workability over time.
I believe the House of Commons committee did not adequately address so-called hybrid carriers, those that are part reseller but own some facilities and therefore are part carrier. This was not totally cleared up in
Government Orders
committee. They should have been addressed at greater length. Perhaps that will be up to the new Parliament.
Much was said at committee with respect to the objectives of this bill. I would agree with the three goals the minister outlined: access of everyone to an affordable telephone system, increased competition and the promotion of Canadian ownership. These were major goals. I am not going to review all the discussions that took place on the definition and the outline of the objectives section. The record should show that many groups felt that greater clarity was needed in the bill to differentiate between the means and ends.
We also discussed culture. In committee the government assured us that the bill could fully respect Canada's cultural interests as new technologies evolved. However some questions remained in the eyes of the arts community. Only time will tell.
Where is the clear direction in this bill with respect to the potential convergence of our cables and our telephone services? We just had a major decision from the CRTC on the future of cable and this fall the commission undertakes a full review of telephone regulation.
I see two tracks here. I am concerned that some areas of cultural activity missed by the Broadcasting Act will also be missed by the Telecommunications Act. Which bill captures what in this no man's land, or no person's land? I do not know and perhaps we will have to see it addressed in a bill that puts a chapeau over the whole thing.
There should be no gap or potential gap between the two pieces of legislation in this regard. We really have to look at the whole question of convergence. A 200-page study was undertaken by government but it certainly was never circulated and unfortunately the industry and general society were not in a position to respond to it. The bill does not address it in that manner.
Mr. Keith Spicer, the chair of the CRTC, was quoted in The Globe and Mail yesterday as saying that the commission was probably going to have to do some serious work at dealing with the convergence of telephone and cable.

Government Orders
There is a section with regard to the power of direction. It is a new power, and I think it is an important one, allowing the Governor in Council to provide policy guidance to the CRTC on telecommunications matters. Liberals support the general intent of directives from cabinet on broad policy matters so long as it is used judiciously.
However for a sense of balance I am pleased that the committee was able to force the government to add a refer-back option to its vary or rescind power under clause 12 so that the CRTC would not become simply a rubber stamp. We did not want a situation in which cabinet could issue a direction through the power of direction to the CRTC beforehand, and then insist on varying or having the right to vary or rescind the CRTC decision on the same subject matter after the fact. I am going to address that in a few minutes.
The question of exemptions from the act was examined very closely. I felt very strongly that the minister or the Governor in Council should not issue exemption orders, and the Senate agreed. The minister agreed to move the exemption power to the CRTC, which I was very glad to note. However it was not without some very strong interventions at the committee stage. This is one area where Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition contributed to a better bill in a very real and substantive way.
The Liberal Party felt very strongly, as did the Senate, that the vary or rescind power should be substituted with the set-aside or refer-back power as it presently exists in the Broadcasting Act and that a timetable should be established for cabinet to deal with such appeals. I also agreed with the Canadian Bar Association that clause 12 on vary or rescind needed to be amended so that the cabinet in making its decisions must exercise this power in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of the bill.
Quite frankly, we knew that the minister would refuse to limit or remove the cabinet's power to vary CRTC decisions. They did give some examples as to why it was important that this be maintained. Therefore our approach was that the minister had what seemed to be some very sound reasons so we left that but said that at the very least he must allow for a more open process, a more transparent process, and add a third option of referring decisions back to the CRTC while retaining the authority to vary or rescind if necessary.
We are pleased that the minister finally saw the light and agreed. This whole section was improved at committee. With time limits being imposed on cabinet petitions and other ways of creating a more transparent process the option of referring a decision back to the CRTC now exists at least. Hopefully, moral suasion and the process of good government will lead to this option being used in the future as a route of choice.
What more can we say with respect to the fact that the minister and this government wanted the power to license carriers? I am very pleased that the minister saw the error in this approach and removed his licensing regime for carriers. It was rather redundant and bureaucratic and it seems to me totally opposite to everything this minister and government have been saying about smaller government. There was significant opposition to this measure across the industry and across the country. How ironic that a minister who everywhere else in this bill wanted to emphasize market forces was creating a grand new arm of government to license carriers.
Liberals took strong exception to adding another layer of red tape, so that was finally removed. It could have put ministers and Governor in Council in a very embarrassing situation so I am pleased that it is gone.
We believe that we need to do everything we can to foster a strong, dynamic Canadian telecommunications system and we think strong Canadian ownership rules are part of that. I must say that we are very pleased with that aspect of the bill.
We need to make sure that our own people own and manage, that our own people are the workers, that our own researchers and scientists, our own manufacturers and our software and hardware designers all have a chance to prosper and remain at the leading edge of technology.
Global alliances and global markets are part of the reality but let us make sure that there are sufficient safeguards in place so that net benefits to Canada are assured when foreign companies come in here. Those benefits should be a top priority.
In the recent case of Unitel and AT&T I know that we accepted Unitel's promises that Canadian priorities will be met in terms of domestic jobs, research and management. However we do see some signs of high U.S. executives being brought in to replace Canadian ones and of significant software and equipment being brought in from the U.S. An unfortunate undercurrent of concern is out there about how much AT&T is or is not letting Unitel management, Canadian bom and bred,
June 9, 1993

and Canadian competence make strong and independent Canadian decisions.
In terms of the bill, scrutiny will definitely have to be paid to how the 80 per cent domestic ownership requirements work and how the holding company regulations will actually look. In short, we want to make sure the intent of these domestic ownership provisions is valid and that they work in the national interest of Canada.
In terms of the new forbearance power, Liberals were concerned that it work in the public interest. Some serious amendments were made by the government to this key element of the bill and it is a much more workable section now. For Liberals we know the concern out there is to avoid wholesale deregulation through an improperly worded forbearance clause. We believe the commission now has sufficient tools to safeguard the marketplace, protect the consumers and review where needed when this power is used.
Let me echo something the Senate alluded to and something I have been concerned about since the privatization of Telesat. That is the need for the Competition Bureau to have a more explicit role in consulting with the CRTC and giving regular advice when it is needed in the regulation of our telecommunications industry.
Concentration of ownership is a concern. I concur with the Senate suggestion that the role of competition policy should have been addressed either directly by the director of the Competition Bureau or indirectly through a consultative mechanism between the CRTC and the Competition Bureau.
The government refused to move on this proposal, so we are going to have to save that for another day and see how things have worked out at that time.
Let me turn very briefly, somewhat out of sequence but I do this for clarity, to some of the proposed amendments that the minister did not see fit to accept. In the end I thought we still could have had a better bill if we had included a five-year review of this act in the legislation itself, for example.
I know the minister proclaimed that a House committee could do this if it wanted to and the minister is accurate and correct. However my own experience on
Government Orders
the committee shows that when things are very busy, and this was a very busy committee, addressing telecommunications is not the first item members wish to undertake. It is complex. It really was not something that they wanted to learn from scratch. I wish the minister had accepted that motion so reviewing and revisiting the legislation would be an obligation not just the choice of a committee.
I also wanted to give all interested parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard under the cabinet power to refer back, to vary and to rescind. I felt that when cabinet, either on petition or on its own motion, wanted to make an order it would be only democratic that people have a chance to be heard first. Again, this was not accepted by the minister.
There are a great many issues that came up in this bill, all of which cannot be addressed here today. I hope this bill works. I hope it is what the industry and the Canadian population need. I hope we will be prepared to make any changes needed if any shortcomings become apparent.
In conclusion let me summarize by going back to the beginning. The government's failure to take telecommunications issues seriously hindered Canadians' progress in this area. It produced a flawed policy process that in the end initially placed a flawed piece of legislation before Parliament. Despite this, Liberals took a very constructive approach and were prepared to move forward on this bill in the interest of Canadians and Canadian business.
Let us be very clear. The minister said yesterday that the opposition was delaying his bill. We believe we improved this bill expeditiously with no unnecessary delays. We were helped by my legislative assistant, Matthew Behan, the industry and the people around the table. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have a much better bill.
While the minister seeks praise for finally getting around to a telecommunications bill after nine years, I do not hear much praise out there from the industry or across the country. It took a press conference and lobbying by this industry to get this bill moved to the front burner, get this government and its House leader

Government Orders
out of neutral and move this legislation from the horse and buggy age to more modem legislation and a Canadian industry of worth.
Mieux vaut tard que jamais. Better late than never.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 74 the first two speakers have 40 minutes. The third speaker has 20 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments made by both the Minister of Communications and my counterpart, the critic on communications for the Liberal Party, the member for Mount Royal.
I want to congratulate the member for Mount Royal for some very cogent comments and take the opportunity to thank her for an outstanding performance as an opposition critic in the debates in committee. I think both opposition parties did everything humanly possible to make this piece of legislation a better piece of legislation. On behalf of my Liberal colleague and, if I may be so bold as to say, also on our behalf I think those efforts paid off. This is certainly a much better piece of legislation than when this bill was first introduced into the House.
I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate those individuals in the industry as well as the officials from the CRTC who were at the table during the committee hearings. I think their assistance and the expert advice they were able to give us as opposition critics provided us with a greater level of knowledge and understanding than perhaps we could have gained without their presence.
It was certainly a very productive committee. The presence of members from the industry, members from the various consumer groups and various organizations as well as the CRTC provided a great deal of insight in making this a better bill.
Although it is significantly improved I am afraid the bill still has a considerable distance to go to make it the kind of legislation we should have coming into the 21st century. We have to remember that this bill is taking us out of the horse and buggy age of communications from the Railway Act of the early 1900s to the turn of the century. It is a quantum leap in terms of the technological advances that have taken place within that time frame. There is no question that the legislation was very much overdue.
In light of that it was somewhat disconcerting to see the bill introduced after nine years of this government's presence, virtually within the dying moments of this legislative session.
This bill has been in process for some time now under two former communications ministers of this government. It did not see the light of day until it was finally introduced in February of last year. Even then the bill sat on the back burner and was not brought forward except to be referred to the Senate committee on transport for a pre-study in the summer of 1992. In terms of coming to this House, the government allowed it to languish on the back burner until April 19 of this year. That was fully 14 months after the bill was first tabled and almost a year after the Senate committee made recommendations for change.
Even at that stage, after bringing it into the House and with the opportunity the government had to make changes and reintroduce the bill it did not do so. We ended up in committee with a bill of 137 to 139 clauses. The government brought in the first round of about 51 or 52 amendments on its own. It then brought in further amendments to amend the very amendments it had made. It was a very perplexing, confusing and difficult time for all members of the committee. It was exceedingly difficult to ensure that the changes we were making were appropriate changes that would do the job we wanted them to do when the government was bringing in changes on those changes.
The time frame and the number of amendments the government chose to bring in made the process of legislative change little more than a shambles. It does not speak very highly of this minister and his ministry or this government for the way they handled this very important piece of legislation. I can only hope that when this bill becomes law-and it will become law because the government will vote it through at the end of the day-it does the job we hope it will do. My fear is that there are a lot of loose ends that will amount to a loophole that you can drive a Mack truck through. That is of concern to me when we look at the direction this industry is heading.
I listened to the comments made by the minister in introducing the bill. He waxed quite eloquent about the opportunities for global investment under this bill. There are no clauses in this bill that deal with opportunities for global investment. This is a domestic piece of legislation. Canadian telecommunications industries are already
June 9, 1993

performing on the global stage and doing quite well so I do not know where his argument comes in.
He talks about job creation. The fact is that under the deregulatory structure this bill will introduce, we will very likely see considerable job losses also taking place in the industry. As a result of the CRTC decision to deregulate the long-distance telecommunication market we are seeing a restructuring in our telephone market. That has already amounted to the loss of some 820 full-time positions in British Columbia alone under the restructuring taking place within B.C. Telephone. The minister's comments and flowery eloquence about the job creation that will take place under this bill is suspect to say the least.
He also talks about preventing businesses from moving south by giving them lower long-distance rates. Lowering long-distance telecommunications costs is not going to keep businesses from moving south. Businesses are moving south because American branch plants are closing their Canadian branch plant operations and moving back to their head office operations because now they can import products across the U.S.-Canada border tariff-free. They are moving south because of the free trade agreement, not necessarily because of high longdistance costs, so that argument is a bit of a whitewash.
He also talks about the bill providing services to rural areas. The bill may endanger the services we currently provide to rural and isolated areas throughout Canada. Canadians have been served by a first class telecommunications system put together under a regulatory network that has ensured virtual universal access, no matter where one lives in the country, to the telephone as an instrument of communications. Canada has one of the highest levels of utilization. About 98 per cent of Canadian homes have telephone services.
Because of cross-subsidization and the low cost of servicing for residential connections the services to many homes that currently have access to telecommunications services are in danger. As long distance rates go down under deregulation we see right now in the industry residential rates, particularly the rates for installation in rural areas, going sky high. We have already seen
Government Orders
substantial increases requested by B.C. Tel and Bell Canada in Ontario for residential consumers. As long distance rates go down consumer rates are going substantially higher. That will endanger the whole concept of universality in our telecommunications services. We fear that is the weakness in the current legislation.
The minister indicated that the bill was a visionary document providing a consolidated telecommunications policy to take us into the future. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill is not a visionary document whatsoever. It has completely ignored the vital question of convergence of technologies and of the ability to combine voice communications, digital communications, video and audio through fibre optic networks.
We are dealing with a phenomenon we simply have never experienced before where a single fibre optic cable can carry thousands upon thousands of simultaneous conversations or video signals for television hook-ups. The bill simply has not addressed the whole problem of technological convergences in the industry.
The bill is not a visionary document. The bill is simply an entrenchment of the corporate agenda. It is a way of ensuring profits remain high for our telecommunications companies. It is a way of ensuring that the new entries into the market and the slow encroachment of the U.S. telecommunications industries into the Canadian marketing system are given the opportunity to maximize their profits at the expense, I might add, of residential consumers.
To get back to discussing some elements of the bill, I mentioned the number of amendments the government had brought in. It really was very difficult to see where the government was going with the piece of legislation. To give an example, the government absolutely insisted that ministerial licensing provisions were crucial to the piece of legislation. They had to be in there.
A large section of the bill dealt with ministerial licensing provisions and then the government pulled the whole section. It decided they should not be in there. It changed definitions. It modified the very objectives. No longer was the principal telecommunications policy to be ensuring universal access to affordable telephone services and telecommunications services. It was to serve

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
the market needs of companies, to ensure they would be able to pursue the process of unfettered competition.
The government first came in with a bill that included a commitment to ensuring the integrity of Canada's cultural industries. It then decided that culture did not really need to be in the bill and took it out. As opposition members, we argued ourselves blue in the face that culture, because of the whole phenomenon of convergence, would be a very important component to maintain in this piece of legislation.
The minister and I must admit his deputy minister were absolutely intransigent in putting back in the bill what they had there in the first place. We could not convince them that culture was important. It is a very critical weakness in the legislation that the minister and his senior advisers decided to appease the powers in the Quebec caucus that did not want culture in there in the first place. They pulled it out and left it out so culture would no longer be deemed important when dealing with telecommunications issues. That is a critical weakness of the bill. We will be sorry that change was made.
The government placed artificial time deadlines on the committee. It was almost impossible for the committee to deal with the substantive changes and the avalanche of amendments made by the government within the time frame it was given.
Groups concerned about the legislation whose input was important were turned away. They were asked to submit briefs to the committee. They should have had an opportunity to discuss it in an appropriate forum, but the committee was up against impossible time constraints.
Opposition parties proposed a large number of amendments. The first set proposed by the New Democratic Party numbered well over 30. In total about 50 amendments were made. I submitted at the time that these amendments were desperately needed to improve the bill. Simply speaking the government left it too late. We did not have time to deal with them appropriately, and the bill goes through with serious flaws in it.
As I mentioned before the bill excludes culture. It is one of the most serious omissions in the bill. Cultural groups across the country are rightly outraged. A commitment to maintaining Canada's cultural identity and ensuring the strength of our cultural fabric has been expunged from the legislation. Multinational businesses are already exploiting telecommunications to circumvent Canadian rules intended to protect and promote Canadian culture.
I will give an example. Sports Illustrated is now publishing a Canadian edition with virtually no Canadian content. It does it by beaming in a signal by satellite across the border and printing it in Canada. The federal government's hands are tied and will be tied particularly with the fact that culture is no longer part of our telecommunications policy.
The bill is silent on the issues of culture and convergence, yet right now telephone and cable companies are scrambling to position themselves to provide the integrated services of the 21st century. The bill is silent in that regard. It is a serious failure of the bill. If the bill is passed into law, telecommunications companies will be exempted from the rules that apply to broadcasters to promote culture, but they could very well be offering virtually the same products as broadcasters.
I see my time is very limited. I know I only have half the time of the minister and the Liberal critic, but I would like to make a few more comments in wrapping up.
Because the bill has failed to address the policy of job protection many Canadian jobs have been put at risk. One of the amendments we in the New Democratic Party had tried to include was one to maintain and enhance Canadian jobs in a Canadian owned industry, and the bill remains silent on that.
The concept of affordable and universal telephone access is also at risk. We tried to have put back into the objectives of the bill the concept of providing universal and affordable telephone services. Although it is not entirely silent on it, the failure of the government to agree to strengthen the provision has certainly put the concept of universality at risk.
June 9, 1993

This piece of legislation is important. We very dearly would have liked to have been able to support it. Many of the amendments we proposed would have gone a long way toward providing a degree of comfort for the New Democratic Party to support the legislation. There is no question that it is needed, but the inherent weaknesses in the current bill prevent us from having that degree of comfort and essentially supporting the bill.
The flaws that are in it must be addressed. As I said before it is a visionless document that tends to if anything entrench the status quo.
Other than the fact that it is a document that opens up one very large avenue which is of great concern, and that is the whole process of deregulation, it is a document that essentially harmonizes this with the North American free trade agreement and in the future may put many Canadian jobs at risk.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question that I want to pose to my colleague from the New Democratic Party is one that deals with process since he was a key operative in the committee system. I want to review just a couple of facts and ask him for his comments.
It is very clear from the comments made by my colleague from Mount Royal, who deserves credit from all members of this House and people who are truly interested in this matter for the work that she has done over the years, it was back in 1984 that the then minister responsible, now Minister for International Trade, indicated clearly that it was going to be a priority of this government in its first few days to come in with this type of legislation.
Indeed in 1986 with the then minister at the time, the hon. member for Frontenac, and in 1987 the then minister Flora MacDonald, it seemed every time that there was an opportunity for these ministers of communications to give a speech, to get before a camera, they indicated that this was a top priority piece of legislation or legislative changes that they wished to pursue. Every single time that they got before an appropriate audience they talked about how they would be the minister that would put together a bill with a tremendous degree of consensus to make these necessary changes.
Government Orders
Indeed it was in February 1992, and this is June 1993, that the current minister, who got up and wanted to talk about all the wonderful things that he has done with this bill, introduced this particular bill in Parliament. It was introduced at that time, yet it was 10 months later, April 19, 1993, before this minister could convince his House leader that this bill was important and, as he had said, before he could get it called up for second reading. That is nearly 15 full months.
In the meantime this minister had the Senate pre-study the legislation. The Senate came in with a pile of recommendations about what had to be changed in the bill. It basically said the bill was flawed. There were some major problems with the bill.
We in the opposition at that point felt that this 14 month respite from looking at the bill on the floor of the House of Commons or sending it to committee after second reading was due to the fact that the minister was rewriting the bill. When we got it back here on April 19 we found out that that was not the case at all. It was the same piece of legislation.
We went to committee where we had two weeks of hearings. Time allocation was brought in at second reading of the bill. When we went into committee my understanding is, and the member can tell me if I am correct, that not everybody was heard. The opposition parties said: "Listen, this is an important piece of legislation and we have given you an unusual degree of concurrence in trying to put this forward but these people must be heard". That was not the case. The government used its majority and shut down the committee after two weeks.
On June 1 at report stage, with one and a half hours debate, the minister opposite who wants to pat himself on the back-I listened to him carefully today-accused the opposition of mounting a filibuster. He had almost 15 months to take this bill into the House, lots of House of Commons time, yet he accused us and the members in the New Democratic Party of a filibuster. I would like to see his definition of a filibuster.
What did he do? He then used that as an excuse to and use time allocation again. He had time allocation came into this House for report stage and third reading, meaning one day each.
I want to ask my colleague from the New Democratic Party this. This bill has been long overdue in the making. This bill has 138 clauses. In committee the government

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
members came in with over 50 motions and those 50 motions represented over 100 amendments. The opposition parties put forward over 50 amendments.
[DOT] (D15)
I want to ask my colleague opposite why this minister, who likes to claim that he is so well respected within his caucus, took a year and one-half to proceed with this legislation through the House. Does the hon. member believe it is absolutely despicable that this bill has seen the thirtieth use of time allocation by this government in this Parliament in addition to closure 15 times? It has been used 45 times to shotgun legislation through the House.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Liberal Party has raised some very legitimate concerns.
This whole process of introducing this bill and then letting it languish on the Order Paper for the extended period of time that it did and bringing it forward in the dying hours of this session of this tired old Tory government has been nothing less than a disaster.
As the hon. member said it forced the committee into time restraints and constrictions which was all part of the game plan. The Tories do not want any democratic debate. They do not want to hear the opinions of the people across Canada in terms of their concerns over this legislation. They wanted to ram it through committee and ram it through the subcommittee dealing with it at report stage.
As the hon. member has said it was the government in the first whack that brought in over 50 amendments to a bill of 139 clauses. The government wanted to change 50 of them. By the time we got finished there was amendment upon amendment. The process was a shambles and the minister should be ashamed of himself for allowing that kind of process to take place.
If it had not been for the hard work of the opposition critics ensuring that each of those clauses was thoroughly debated and discussed and bringing to the table representation from the CRTC, the industry and interested organizations, and demanding they be heard because of the quantity of changes that had to be made, what else would have snuck through and weakened the legislation even further?
It is an absolute travesty that this government pulls this kind of subterfuge and then when it gets it into the House after one hour and a half of debate at report stage
of this bill this minister has the unmitigated gall to say that we are filibustering.
This minister knows full well that this House can no longer filibuster because the government has all the tools at its disposal to pull the plug at any time. All he was trying to do was obfuscate the process and say the opposition was filibustering just to make life difficult for the government and for the industry.
We cannot filibuster. The government has all the tools and it used those tools just the other day. The minister after one hour and a half of debate at report stage pulled the pin and brought in time allocation. As the member has said it is the thirtieth time this government has done this.
This government has used closure and time allocation more in this parliamentary session than in all the rest of the history of Parliament and Canada. It is an absolute abuse of the privilege of Parliament and this government has used it to the hilt.
I say it is a travesty to the democratic process that once again this minister through the government has used this procedure to shut down the type of democratic debate that should have taken place with this bill, that could have taken place with this bill but what he did not want to see take place.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Mount Royal because her work on Bill C-62 has been immense. She has always offered a critical and positive eye and I think because of her hard work this bill has been improved. In many ways I wish I could say the same about the government. For nine long years the government dithered on telecommunications. It talked a lot but it always procrastinated. I just remind you, Mr. Speaker, of a quote made by the then finance minister back in 1984. He said: "There is a clear need for a national telecommunications polity to take advantage of the opportunities presented by rapidly advancing technology and the growing demand by Canadians for new telecommunication services. Through regulatory reform the government can spur innovation and provide a major stimulus to the Canadian economy".
That was in 1984. Despite all the talk about the need to move fast, we saw the very opposite from the government. Bill C-62 was introduced well over a year ago. Second reading and committee examination did not
June 9, 1993

come until this spring. Now, as we approach the end of this Parliament, the government says there is no time to waste, it is time to rush, rush, rush. The government even had the gall to bring in time allocation, a form of closure. The whole thing is rather sickening. For nine long years the government did nothing and yet we were forced to proceed with all haste even if it meant stifling parliamentary debate.
I do not think I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that telecommunications is one of the most important industries in Canada. Here are some facts to back that up. It employs more than 100,000 Canadians. It generates over $20 billion in revenue. It invests heavily each year in Canadian research and development, in new technologies and in new plant and equipment. As my esteemed critic from Mount Royal said, and I quote: "All of this is made possible by tapping the resources of highly skilled, highly trained Canadians".
I want to further quote my colleague from Mount Royal because of what she says about the role of telecommunications in Canada. Again I quote: "Telecommunications is also an important strategic industry for our entire economy, helping other industries to compete by giving them access to the information and communication revolution. This, of course, helps us create the knowledge intensive, high technology jobs of the future, and helps them where our people are outside traditional business centres, particularly in our regions. But this highly regulated industry requires appropriate policy, legislative and regulatory environment in which to succeed".
In looking at the bill itself, one of its major intentions is to introduce competition in what has traditionally been a monopolistic industry. The degree of competition, however, is open to some question, and only time will tell how well the competition develops. We hope it develops very well. Its other intentions are to adopt the principles of affordable universally accessible telephone service, give the federal government clear authority over what has been a fragmented Canadian market, make the CRTC the regulator for all the 10 provinces, provide the CRTC with more policy direction. The commission may even back away from using its regulatory powers in areas where competitive markets are working and impose a 20 per cent ceiling on foreign ownership of telecommunication companies. The bill is also tackling the problem of telephone nuisance calls.
Government Orders
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill is wide in scope. We support it in principle. Canada needs harmonized rules for telecommunications. In the wake of the information revolution, split jurisdictions for control and regulation do not make a lot of sense any longer.
We on this side of the House do not think the issue of hybrid carriers was adequately addressed in examining the bill. This matter may have to be examined by the new Parliament.
The government has assured us that Bill C-62 respects Canada's cultural interests. Let us indeed hope so. There are some questions in that regard. There is concern that some areas of cultural activity will be missed by the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. There should be, in our opinion, no gap with respect to culture.
We will also be watching the 80 per cent domestic ownership requirement. It must work because we need to make sure, as my colleague for Mount Royal has said, our people, our workers, our researchers and scientists, our own manufacturers, software and hardware designers have a chance to prosper and remain on the leading edge of technology.
We are also concerned about the concentration of ownership but the government has refused to address this issue so it may have to be revisited at a later date. Given some of these concerns, we find it rather strange that the government did not agree to a five-year review of this bill being put in the legislation itself. That made sense but the government said no. It has been done before. It was done in reviewing the sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code and earlier in Parliament there was a five-year review of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act. There is precedent and yet the government refused to listen.
Moreover the left hand of the government does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. In the area of agriculture where I have some responsibility, the minister has offered a six-year review of continental barley marketing. Producers do not want continental barley marketing at all but the minister is rushing ahead over the protests of producers and offering a six-year review. But when it comes to this particular bill, Bill C-62, there will be no review. In our opinion, not only is this

Government Orders
government old and tired, we think it is confused and very mixed up.
In my final remarks, I would just like to say that we hope that Bill C-62 will work beyond its expectations. If it does fail in some respects it may well be because of the unseemly rush by this government, a rush that really was not necessary at all. If only the government had not dithered and dragged its feet for nine long years.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am very much concerned about some aspects of this bill. I understand that the Liberals will be supporting the government.
I am concerned when I look at the documentation and the work done by the TWU in British Columbia and some of the other people in the industry. They have expressed disquiet, particularly about the deregulation component and the entering into the long distance market of competitors which is now being allowed.
The telephone companies are in a position to have to ask for local rate increases to offset the loss of revenue from long distance. There is a growing concern in British Columbia. Yes, 400 jobs may be developed in Kamloops but already 820 jobs have been lost in B.C. Tel.
I would like the member to comment. Does he think that is good mathematics in job creation when you do something that creates 400 jobs and loses 800? I wonder if he has had an opportunity to read some of the material that was prepared by the unions, particularly the TWU, and some of the material prepared by B.C. Tel.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure whether this government knows anything about arithmetic. I am absolutely sure that it knows nothing about job creation. It has been telling us for nine long years that it had the answers for our economy. We have waited nine long years and what do we see?
We see rising unemployment. When this government came to power almost nine years ago, the unemployment level was not anywhere near where it is today. Yet today, we have an unemployment rate of about 11.4 per cent
which in terms of persons, men and women, amounts to well over 1.5 million Canadians.
When the hon. member for British Columbia asks about job creation, this government does not have a policy with respect to job creation. Its preoccupation, as we know and as it is proud to say over and over again, is to fight inflation. It did a pretty good job of that, but during the process of killing inflation or reducing it to 1 per cent or 2 per cent, it pretty well killed the economy. We have seen unemployment rising at unacceptable levels.
I want to say one other thing. The member from British Columbia is right in expressing those concerns, especially about job creation. It is one more reason why there should have been a clause in this legislation to have a five-year review so we could examine the productivity of this bill five years hence.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate on third reading of Bill C-62.
Back in 1984 a call went out to a new government that had promised so much to this country. It took nine years for it to answer the call. This bill is about telecommunications-communicating with one another.
It has taken, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, nine long years to have a new telecommunications bill. I am sure we all would agree that telecommunications, advancing as quickly as it does, has made waiting nine years to put your house in order unfair to the consumers, to the industry and all the stakeholders in this great industry. Until two or three years ago, fax machines, cellular telephones and the new innovations have come forward in terms of interactive telecommunications and will soon come to our homes.
I want to talk about two things. I want to congratulate our critic, the member for Mount Royal, who has done an absolutely stalwart job for us during the committee hearings, at second reading stage and even before that. She has been very involved in the telecommunications debate and has asked this government on numerous occasions since 1984 to get on with getting this country
June 9, 1993

up to the 21st century in telecommunications. I want to applaud her great effort and her hard work.
Having participated somewhat in the committee hearings myself I want to congratulate all the stakeholders who were at the table trying to help in their own way the country to have a modern telecommunications industry.
I also want to congratulate the member for Okanagan- Shuswap for his fine effort and that of his party in trying to improve the bill.
I will also congratulate the government for finally bringing forward a bill. The process-and a lot of people have alluded to the process-that this government has put us through is really repugnant and unacceptable. The purpose of Parliament and elected representation is to give Canadians a clear opportunity and chance to hear all sides of the issue so that they can make informed decisions whether or not this bill is a good one or a bad one.
I applaud the efforts of the government finally getting a telecommunications bill in before the next election which is only two or three months away, maybe even sooner depending on who wins the convention this weekend. However it is the process, and this is typical of what this government has done at least since I have been here in 1988, it believes that this place is irrelevant. The government uses closure too often and I think it is repugnant. People should not be expected to have to suffer this kind of abuse from a democratically-elected government.
Telecommunications is really the electronic highway of a country. In our homes and businesses it touches everyone's life because we cannot communicate with one another without answering that telephone or without receiving a signal or without a fax machine. Everything we do in life needs communication. Therefore this telecommunications bill is very important to the lifeblood of a country, not only because it is an important industry that employs 100,000 people, but it brings an awful lot of revenue to this countiy directly and indirectly through our trade. It is one of the things at which we excel. We are able to export telecommunications. It is an important industry throughout the country. [DOT]
More important, other businesses cannot operate effectively and competitively without the telecommuni-
Govemment Orders
cations industry or policy that allows each and every one of those businesses to employ a lot more people, create wealth and entrepreneurship. They could not exist without a dynamic telecommunications framework. I think Bill C-62 does that.
We also have to remember that Canada has to compete in the world. I know this government likes to speak often about competitiveness and other matters that are very important for exports. If we are to become truly competitive so that we can compete in a very mean world out there where everybody is trying to achieve the same standard of living as we have, then we have to make sure we are at the forefront of telecommunications.
While this bill is not perfect, admittedly so because some amendments have been put forward by our side and those of the NDP, the fact is that we are not prepared to throw it out, start from scratch and wait another nine years, another four years, another year or what have you. That is why the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill C-62 enthusiastically, even though we have some reservations. It could have been improved upon a lot more. Perhaps our commitment will be that when we form the next government in the next number of months, we will not wait nine years in order to bring in the improvements.
What is important is that Bill C-62, the telecommunications bill, must essentially balance competing interests. The competing interests of the industry would be the public interest, the public which is served by telecommunications. This bill tries to balance competition with the regulatory authority that is necessary to ensure there is a good, managed telecommunications industry.
That is why we put forward some positive amendments that have made the decision-making through Order in Council more transparent, more even, more fair, and has taken some powers away from the minister and essentially put them in the hands of the CRTC. That body can review and look at these substantive issues that will come up because telecommunications is changing each and every day.
We have asked that it be mandatory to have a sunset clause or a review clause. I know the minister responded to my question a number of days ago when he said that a committee could review any bill at any time. It is a commitment that would have been very positive.

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
We could have said that in five years, four years-we proposed five-that it be mandatory for Parliament to review our telecommunications bill to ensure we do not cause what happened the last time, a wait at least nine years for the changes to be made.
Industry, telecommunications industry, other businesses, people, require that the government lead and not follow in these areas. That is what has happened and that is where we failed as a Parliament and as a government. We have followed and not lead in the telecommunications forefront.
It is important that in this recessionary time-I do not think we have come out of the recession-we look for tremendous opportunities for this country. One of the things that telecommunications bring to this country is high technology and skilled workers. It is an industry that has unlimited potential growth. Canada ought to make as its objective to become the best in the world in telecommunications. We have that infrastructure already.
With the support of the government and the stakeholders and with everyone working together co-operatively we can make this the best industry for Canada so that we can export the technology and expertise we have and not only build a great telecommunications industry domestically but one for other countries of the world.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend with a great deal of interest. I listened earlier to my friend from Okanagan- Shuswap with similar interest as he made a very circular argument. It was essentially that because the government now has the ability to time allocate and put an end through time allocation to a filibuster that a filibuster is impossible and therefore it is unnecessary to use time allocation. It is an intriguing argument but is not one that holds up to very close scrutiny.
I listened with great interest to my friend from London when he referred to the use of time allocation as something that is repugnant. He said that at least twice. We see speaker after speaker on the opposition side denying that they would ever dream of anything like a filibuster and saying how shocked they are that the
government would put an end to their attempts to have an interminable debate.
I have a very simple question for my friend. Is he aware of this statement that was made by his colleague from Mount Royal, the Liberal critic, as recorded in the committee transcript from May 27, 1993? The transcript reads: "Mrs. Finestone: If you pull culture out I forewarn you that you will have a filibuster in this House that you will not believe and that you will not get this bill without calling closure again and demonstrating once again what an undemocratic government you are".
Is my friend aware of that statement? Does he believe that the member for Mount Royal was telling the truth when she said that? Does he deny that it was the intention of the Liberal Party to act on this commitment and filibuster this piece of legislation?


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal always tells the truth.
I do not know why this minister displays this kind of arrogance or elitism. I know that he is supporting one of the candidates who displays that kind of characteristic. I do not know if it is rubbing off on every one of these ministers.
We are all here to serve our country. We are all here to do exactly the same thing, to try to do the best job we possibly can. I was part of that committee. I want to applaud the chairman of that committee who happens to be a member of the minister's party. At least he respected the people around and it did not matter what party they were a member of. We were all trying to do the best job we could.
The question is not whether we were prepared to or whether we threatened to filibuster. The fact remains that this minister only brought this bill at second reading in April of this year. At second reading he gave us two days to discuss the principle of the bill.
When the bill went into committee it was the minister's own department that introduced 150 amendments. Thlk about a filibuster. Why did the minister not do his work right in the first place? The minister took more time with his amendments than the committee and this Parliament took in debating the whole issue.
June 9, 1993

This has absolutely nothing to do with a filibuster. It is the incompetence of this government that is the issue.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we must have come a long way in order for anybody in their right mind to regard this as a filibuster. This is hardly a filibuster. The minister, as someone who spent many years in opposition before his last nine years in government, participated in many a long debate that was far more qualified to be described as a filibuster than what we have today.
I wonder what the Minister of Communications called those 16 days of bell ringing. Yet he has the nerve, on an afternoon when we are considering third reading of a major restructuring of the telecommunications industry in this country, to get up and accuse anyone of filibustering.
It may be that the Liberal critic threatened to filibuster. However it is obvious that it was an empty threat because this is not a filibuster. No one here this afternoon claims to be engaging in a filibuster but simply in an attempt to outline our concerns about this bill.
The ongoing conversation across the floor of the House of Commons between the Liberals and Conservatives is evidence of something that is worth pointing out when it comes to this bill, and that is, the Official Opposition intends to vote with the government on the bill.
The minister is perfectly able to get up and leave the House if he does not like what I am saying. Once again we see evidence of the real confluence of ideas and interests between the Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to major issues on the corporate agenda.
This bill concerns deregulation. The Liberals are saying that it is not exactly what they want but they are going to vote for it anyway, even though the objection they threatened to filibuster around in committee still stands. That is their objection with respect to the removal by the government of culture as an element of this bill.
When push comes to shove there is not that much fight over there when it comes to this kind of thing
Government Orders
because basically they are of the same mind. It was the Liberal Party that began the deregulation of the transportation industry in 1984 when the current member for Winnipeg South Centre was the Minister of Transport.
We heard the same kind of facile optimism then about the benefits of deregulation and how we had to bring our transportation system into the 21st century. We heard how we could not resist the modem trends and that we had to be with it.
We have been with it now in the transportation industry for nine years. It was not long after the Liberals started deregulating the transportation system that the Conservatives came into power and carried forward the same corporate agenda on behalf of the same people who had been asking the Liberals to do the very same thing.
Now we see history repeating itself. The member for Winnipeg-St. James was up there saying: "We hope the competition goes well. We hope this happens. We hope that happens". In this case there is no willingness to leam from history. They might have had an excuse in 1984, although they could have looked at what happened in the United States and drawn some lessons from there.
Now they at least have the Canadian experience in deregulation of transportation to look at. There is still no real learning on the part of the Liberal Party when it comes to deregulation. Deregulation will not serve Canadian industry, interests or culture or the integrity of the country very well at all. I feel I should be mystified by the position of the Liberal Party on this bill but I am not.
It points out something that has happened time and time again in this House. Most recently it happened on Bill C-106, an energy bill that eliminated the last vestiges of the National Energy Program. Those vestiges concerned the requirement for Canadian ownership in petroleum development on the Canada Lands.
In the same week the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about how he felt about the North American free trade agreement and what a shame it was that Mexico had struck a much harder and more independent deal with respect to its energy resources with the United States than Canada had done with NAFTA. He talked about how it would be the goal of the Liberal

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
Party if it was in government to reclaim energy sovereignty for Canada.
In that same week, within 48 hours of that speech, the Liberal caucus rose en masse in the House of Commons and voted with the government to eliminate the Canadian ownership requirement for the Canada Lands. Why was the government in a hurry to do this? It is because it is all part of the same agenda. In this case it is part of the North American free trade agreement agenda. That is what Bill C-106 was about because there actually was a provision in the North American free trade agreement that would have protected the particular provision that Bill C-106 eliminated but only if it existed at the time of the implementation of the agreement.
There was an opportunity there to protect Canadian energy sovereignty that was removed by the government with the collaboration of the Liberal Party in the same week that we had to suffer through speeches by the Leader of the Official Opposition about how the Liberals were so very interested in reclaiming energy sovereignty for Canada in whatever talks they might have with the Americans after they form the government in the fall of this year, or so they hope.
What is happening today is all part of that same package. It is the nervy and quiet, and they do not make a big deal out of it, collaboration between the Liberals and the Conservatives when it comes to matters pertaining to the corporate agenda of deregulation, privatization and free trade. That is what is before us in this bill.
In the early eighties, when there was concern about deregulation of the telecommunications industry, the minister of communications for the Manitoba government at that time came down here and met with members of Parliament from Manitoba, of all political stripes. He expressed concern to them about the effect of deregulation on the ability of publicly owned utilities like the Manitoba Telephone System to provide affordable phone service to Manitobans.
Although affordable phone service is listed in this particular legislation as one of the goals of the bill there are no measures to guarantee that affordable service will be maintained. We all know that the end result of deregulation, and this is the legislative complement to what the CRTC has already made possible in terms of telephone competition, despite all the denials and arguments to the contrary will be that the relatively cheap phone service that ordinary Canadians have enjoyed for a long time will eventually disappear.
The ability of public utilities like the Manitoba Telephone System or other telephone companies to cross-subsidize and make possible the kind of affordable phone service that so many people have enjoyed will eventually be destroyed by the kind of competition that we are now seeing in the long distance telephone industry and in telecommunications generally.
It is a question of jobs and sovereignty and it is a question of whether we want to be part and parcel of this over-all agenda that I am sure the minister knows only too well. We are not for it. The minister says he is. He has his own reasons which are internally coherent, ideologically speaking. Our reasons for not supporting this kind of agenda are also internally coherent, ideologically speaking.
It bothers me that there are two different approaches coming out of the same political party. We constantly get rhetoric from the Liberal Party on this issue with respect to culture, sovereignty and independence. When push comes to shove it means eliminating the last vestiges of requirements for Canadian ownership of Canada Lands, voting with the government on deregulation of the telecommunications industry and being the party that actually started deregulation of the transportation industry in the first place.
These are the kinds of things Canadians should be aware of if they want to register their objection to these policies in the next election. They should be clear about just where everybody stands.
The matter of jobs is one of the big issues here because there are upwards of 100,000 jobs in Canada involved in this industry. These jobs are the backbone of many Canadian communities. In B.C. alone 820 jobs have just been lost. B.C. Tel said that these job losses are the direct result of deregulation and competition.
We see this so often. We see the industries themselves saying that the job losses in their particular sector are the result of deregulation. These companies are often quoted by the government as sources of reliable information and yet when they attribute job losses in their industry to deregulation, free trade or whatever the case
June 9, 1993

may be, these analyses are not taken seriously by the government.
Many times CN, for instance, has attributed what is happening in the rail sector in terms of job losses and down-sizing or rationalization, to free trade and deregulation. This is not something we are simply manufacturing out of nothing and attributing to these agreements because we do not like them. This is something the industries that are involved in this and know the ins and outs of their particular industries are saying about deregulation. B.C. Tel has said that these 820 job losses are the direct result of deregulation and competition.
Canadians will have an opportunity when the election is called to say whether or not they like this brave new world of deregulation in telecommunications, transportation or free trade. They will have an opportunity to say whether they want to continue with that or whether they want to choose an alternative.
God help them if they are trying to sort out where the Liberal Party stands on this. They will not be able to make sense of what Liberals say, do or how they vote in the House of Commons because they have been very inconsistent lately. They talked about energy sovereignty and yet voted against Canadian ownership in the Canada Lands. They talked against the government agenda in general and yet refused to see that deregulation is part and parcel of the whole corporate agenda that this government has been advancing.
Maybe I am wrong to say they refuse to see it. Maybe they do see it. I believe that when it comes to the corporate agenda there is very little difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. There may be some other policy differences. They are not identical twins but they are certainly fraternal twins and when it comes to things like deregulation there is very little difference indeed.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments directed to my colleague regarding the particular arguments he has just made.
As the critic for the New Democrats in the telecommunications area and one who saw this bill through its
Government Orders
passage, it is somewhat confusing to see the level of criticism that was levelled at the legislation from our Liberal colleagues when I just found out a short while ago that they will be supporting the legislation.
I do not know how they can have their cake and eat it too. The opposition critic during committee stage and other members in the House today have been so critical of the various components of the legislation, yet when push comes to shove they say they do not like it but are going to vote for it.
We have taken the position that we do not like the bill. There are many weaknesses in the bill and we feel that although it will pass because the government has the majority it is a matter of principle. The bill is fundamentally flawed and we should oppose that legislation for the record and fight for stronger legislation in the future.
My colleague was talking about the whole problem of deregulation. The major thrust of this bill is to drive forward the deregulatory process. We have seen Unitel apply for application to the long-distance market. The CRTC has passed that and is now skimming the cream off the profitable long-distance market. As a result of that the cost of long-distance telephone calls has dropped substantially.
Traditionally the profits from long-distance telephone calls would be used to offset the high cost of local services and keep those costs low so all Canadians had access to those services. Mr. Ronald Lipert, a spokesman for AGT, the Alberta Government Telephone, said in February of this year that long-distance rates have decreased by 40 per cent and increases in local rates are the other side of it. As long-distance rates come down, local rates can only go up.
I want to ask my colleague, when local rates go up does that not endanger the very principle of universality and affordable access that has been held dear in terms of our past telecommunications policy?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my hon. friend that it does endanger the principle of universality and affordable access and this is the case in so many other areas as well.

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
In Canada we have had a practice which has been systematically destroyed and the telecommunications industry is one of the last areas in which this principle is to be destroyed. Cross-subsidization within industry and using the profits for instance that are made in some transportation corridors to subsidize other transportation corridors that are not as fruitful or profitable has gone by the board. It is also going by the board here in telecommunications.
Eventually this, user pay the full cost, kind of thinking will end up destroying the country because the principle of equalization which is in our Constitution is part of the same philosophy. We do not simply say to Manitoba, Saskatchewan or P.E.I. that they are on their own. We use the wealth that is created in more wealthy areas of the country to make a certain standard of living available for everyone.
It is the same principle when it comes to telephones. We would take the money we made in long-distance telephone calls to make it possible for everyone including the pensioner on a meagre fixed income to have inexpensive phone service. That is not going to happen.
Two separate reports have indicated that charges for local calls have increased world-wide when governments have attempted to reduce long-distance rates through competition. According to the Brussels-based European consumers organization the gap in the cost of service is widening between small and large users in most nations. This report released in early 1992 said that Canada was one of the most successful models of competition, that is to say before this bill. It is important to note this was completed before the CRTC announced its decision to deregulate the long distance market before the bill was passed. [DOT]
working system and they could not get their hands on any of the money.
We have restructured the whole country so that these people could get a piece of the action. While they get a piece of the action the average Canadian who used to be served well by a regulated transportation industry, a regulated telecommunications industry, a mixed economy, Crown corporations and all other things that used to work right in the country, is not being served well at all. That particular kind of Canada has been systematically dismantled by the government.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively and it is unfortunate the member got into so much faulty rhetoric. Much of what he says concerning some of the flaws in the bill is correct. If he had taken the time to read minutes of the hearings of the committee in their entirety, or even appear at some of the committees, he would know the motions put forward by the Liberal Party and by the New Democratic Party were in an interest not of getting everything we want or we would take our marbles and go home, but in trying to have a palatable bill go through the House after nine years of promises by the government.
Some of the work done by his party's critic, and most important the work done by the member for Mount Royal, was instrumental in correcting this far too late, tardy, death-bed legislation. It had some flaws that were inherent in the original piece of legislation, flaws that were seen by the Senate, the other place, when it studied it.
I do not live in a world of rose coloured glasses. I understand after five years in this place that the bunch opposite because they had the numbers would force through the most unpalatable legislation without blinking an eye.
In other words we used to do things right in the As reasonable individuals sitting in the opposition we country. There were a lot of things we used to do right in fight like hell and we get as much good put in bills as we the country. I do not understand the ideological obses- can. We do not always say that unless we get everything sion of the government, helped at times by the Liberals, we are going to go home, which is what the hon. member to destroy the way we used to do things. It worked well, seems to be saying. His party and his colleague did
incredibly good work on the bill.
What was the problem? The problem was that people
were excluded from the system who wanted to get in I want to ask a question of the member. He made a lot there and make money. That was the problem. The of references to some type of collusion between the Unitels of this world did not like the fact there was a Liberal Party and the tired old Tories opposite on free
June 9, 1993

trade and other legislation. His rhetoric was far too dangerous today.
When he gets up in the House is it possible that for once he could speak to some of the good things that happen with all three parties? Is it possible for once to acknowledge people like the member for Mount Royal who is an expert on communications and culture in the House? She has probably forgotten more about communications and culture than I will ever know or he or most members of the House.
When he speaks on a bill as important as this one, is it not possible for him to keep to the issue and to talk about some of the positive things that have been done by members on the Liberal side and indeed his own critic instead of getting away with reckless abandon on the rhetoric he foisted upon the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: Could I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona to please be brief? We have one minute and a half left in the time allocated.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of going home. I have not asked the Liberals to go home. I have asked why they are not voting against the bill.
They vote against all kinds of things here. They vote against almost everything routinely. I have pointed out that there is a strange coincidence between the government's corporate agenda with respect to deregulation and NAFTA and the times they choose to vote with the government. That is what I tried to point out.
Many times we have worked in committee. I acknowledge the good work done by the hon. member for Mount Royal and by my own colleague, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap. We cannot make a bad idea good with good legislation. I am suggesting the whole notion of deregulation in this case is unacceptable to us. That is why we vote against it. That is why the Liberals vote for it. In the final analysis they are of the same mind as the government when it comes to things like deregulation. That is the point I was trying to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: Questions and comments have elapsed. On debate, the hon. member for B roadview-Greenwood.
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by saying to the member of the New Democratic Party that all afternoon our colleague from Mount Royal was pointing out the flaws in the particular piece of legislation. I wanted to repeat that because in his remarks he suggested somehow we were co-operating with the government.
We are not co-operating with the government. We would co-operate with the government if we felt it was doing something constructive, but my colleague from Mount Royal was very specific about the major flaws in this piece of legislation.
At the same time a very important Canadian industry with world class technology is crying out for some rationalization or some modernization in terms of legislation. We are trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Because we are doing that, I do not want him to leave in the minds of Canadians that Liberals have abandoned our traditional principles.
We are a party that has stated in the House for many years that we believe in a strong national government and national programs. It is with national programs that we create national will.
In the last campaign I ran for a very specific reason. I opposed the Meech Lake accord. I could see the Prime Minister's agenda of breaking down or dismantling national institutions, national programs that were galvanizing and holding the country together, programs whereby stronger regions of the country were able to help disadvantaged regions, programs whereby profits for services in stronger urban areas could be used to make sure rural areas or disadvantaged areas could get the same service from coast to coast, region to region.
As Liberals we believe in the point the member of the New Democratic Party made about there being sufficient regulation in the legislation to ensure standard access and affordability across the country. We will continue to fight for it.
I can think of some of the damage the government has foisted upon the Canadian people. I remember in my own city what the government did to the Pearson International Airport, the most profitable airport in North America. In 1984 that airport with terminals 1 and 2 generated a profit before depreciation of close to $140 million. The profit made by the Crown on that airport

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
was used to look after disadvantaged airports or smaller airports in remote regions of the country.
What has the government done now? It has privatized it. It has basically given that profit centre to the corporate agenda, the private sector. Now in order to maintain our smaller regional airports we have to come up with taxpayers' funds. We can no longer use the profit from Pearson International because it has been privatized. Therefore we have to go to the taxpayer. That is one reason this government has exacerbated the tax burden of Canadians.
In the face of deficit and debt reduction the government chopped the country into many different spirits and pieces. This is why this whole institution is not functioning right now. It has weakened the national government to a point where it no longer has the strength in times of economic crisis to unfold a solid national program. It is frustrated by the provinces because it has turned the provinces into stronger units than the national government.
This piece of legislation is important. This is an industry in which we hold a tremendous edge in terms of talent and technology. There is no way we can walk away from doing our best to support the expertise of the industry. It employs over 100,000 people. It is a $20 billion industry. We have to make the best of it.
The bottom line is that three to four months from now the actions, the agenda and the policies of the government will be put to the Canadian people. It is going to be held accountable for all those policies. Do people want a national government that has basically been dismantled? It has been penny-wise and pound-foolish on all kinds of services. Turning to the notion of contracting out, there used to be a situation where government provided all kinds of-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought the member was in the last few seconds if not minutes of a question and comment. I was asked to be brief in my previous response. The member has now gone on for almost the entire length of a question and comment period. Is he in debate or is he on a question and comment?
When you recognized the member, Mr. Speaker, you recognized him on a brief comment and question. I have been waiting to answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: In response to the member's point of order, following the response he made to a previous question I called for debate.
The member is now participating in debate. This is not question or comment.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I was actually trying to pick up on some of the points the member made in his remarks that I thought were actually quite constructive. I reassure him that the Liberal Party has not abandoned its traditional approach to making sure that we have a strong national government.
With a strong national government we are in a position to develop policy and ideas. When the conditions are such that the national government must step in to make sure people get back to work it then has the instruments in place to do it. It should not have to go cap in hand or begging to provinces to co-operate on every little piece of law or legislation developed in the House.
When we face the people in the next three to four months I am confident they will vote back the party, the team, that will stand and say we must have a strong national government. That is the only way we can attend to some of the things the member from the New Democratic Party talked about in this particular telecommunications bill.
My colleague from Mount Royal covered all pertinent aspects of the bill that were deficient. She brought forward many constructive amendments. Obviously all of them were not accepted. The point is that in opposition with this government we are lucky to get any kind of amendment at all. As most people in the country now know, when the government decides the way it is going to be, the whole notion of debate or exchange or making a piece of legislation better is something foreign to most of the thought processes on the other side of the House.
I found it really interesting when I listened to the minister earlier. I have known this minister for many years and I have a lot of respect for him. As I was listening to his remarks he talked about a strong national telecommunications policy. I noticed the emphasis on the words "a national" telecommunications policy.
June 9, 1993

I am sure when he reflects back on these nine years in government he will see that the general trend, the pattern, the approach has been just the exact opposite. This has not been a government of strong national programs. This has been a government of dismantling national programs and selling off Crown corporations, many of which could have been used to good public policy objectives in terms of keeping people working.
The government always uses the excuse of the deficit and the debt but many Canadians will find as we review some of the things that it has dismantled that in fact it has been a greater cost to the national treasury by the fact that it has dismantled them.
This is one of the last weeks in this Parliament. My colleague from the town of Mount Royal, our critic for culture and communications, has stated clearly and emphatically that if we are given the trust in the fall to govern this country then the necessary amendments to this legislation will be dealt with.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I made some brief comments earlier but I am compelled to speak again concerning this bill.
First I want to commend the Liberal critic for culture and communication, the member for Mount Royal. If we could strip down some of the partisanship in the House I do not think that we would have many people, on all sides of the House including the government side, who would not agree that the member for Mount Royal is one of the most diligent and hard-working members in this Chamber.
Indeed, the zeal with which she approaches her work lends herself to an unusual degree of consensus from members all over this place about the level of contribution that she makes to the debate, to the policy process and to the committee work in this place.
When we came in here today we talked a lot. She stood up and gave her speech in response to the minister who almost broke both elbows patting himself on the back during his speech at this reading. I thought that the member for Mount Royal did an extremely good job of explaining what was good about this bill. She also talked about the things that were missing from this bill. She talked about process.
I would like to talk about process for a little longer. One of the things that the member has clearly done and something that the New Democrats opposite could learn
Government Orders
from is that she understands that the policy process in this place here is a game of give and take. Clearly we do not like everything down to the final word that is in the bill. Clearly there are things that we argued should be in the bill but are not.
However, because we in our party take our jobs seriously, we understand that not everything is a vote in favour of the government or its legislation or against it. We are supporting this legislation as my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood just said because we support the industry. It is clearly necessaiy, after nine solid years of dithering by a whole host of ministers, all of whom were full of vim and vigour to identify the regulatory problems and the need to come in with comprehensive legislation to streamline it, but none of them seemed to have the political clout I guess to pilot it through the House.
Yes, we are supporting this bill but with a lot of qualifications. Yes, we are saying that we support the industry. We commend the minister albeit somewhat qualified for his late arrival on the scene to fix the regulatory environment. He should have done it a lot sooner.
There are things that should be in this bill that are not. Clearly it would be our hope that after the next election with a Liberal government on that side those things will be addressed. The Minister of the Environment knows that.


Mrs. Browes:: You're dreaming.


Ronald MacDonald: We dare to dream on this side. We do not snuff out those flickers of ingenuity which all too often happens on the other side. I have even seen the minister's flicker of ingenuity be lessened in its brightness and brilliance lately.
I want to talk about the process on this bill. The minister opposite, for whom I have deep respect as a colleague, has been here a long time. Surely to goodness something happened on the way to the store with the minister.
In in 1992 he indicated clearly that it was his priority to fix the regulatory regime and to bring in a piece of legislation. After the fullness of debate and committee hearings and allowing all interested parties to have an input, hopefully we would have come up with a bill that was supportable not just by the Tories who have a

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
majority or just by the Liberals but by all parliamentarians in this House.
Something happened on the way to the races with this minister. I could not quite figure it out. In 1992 he bought this bill in with a great deal of urgency and fanfare. He probably did a good speech and a good press conference on the whole issue and got a lot of people in the industry excited.
Finally after all those years, eight years at that time, the Conservative government was going to put its money where its mouth is and reform the regulatory environment. Those members had heard the same thing in 1984.
The minister at that time, the present Minister for International Trade, made it very clear that this was a top priority of this government. It was not a middle level priority. It was a top priority. He said in November 1984 in his economic statement: "There is a clear need for a national telecommunications policy to take advantage of the opportunities presented by rapidly advancing technology and the growing demand by Canadians for new telecommunication services". Nothing at all happened.
Then we get another minister, the hon. member for Frontenac. In a speech to the Canadian Bar Association on February 12, 1986 he said basically the same thing. The clock was ticking. There was a need for reform and they certainly knew how to say it in speeches. They singularly were unimpressive in their ability to bring those changes by way of legislation to the floor of the House.
The then minister said: "The fundamental revision of the policy and regulatory framework which allows the telecommunications industry to realize its potential has thus become a priority for me and for the government. I tackled reforms head-on while establishing the basic principles that should inspire it". That was in 1986.
It was seven or eight years after that before anything happened. It seems every time a minister wanted to impress somebody in the industry about their ability to grapple with complex matters they gave a speech and made a promise. Like all Tory promises, it was written in invisible ink.
As soon as it was said, the cameras were turned off, the microphones were put away and so were the intentions to come in with a solid piece of regulatory reform.
Flora MacDonald, the former member for Kingston and the Islands, came in with great fanfare and a paper that dealt with this very subject matter. Even the great Flora MacDonald who hailed originally from Cape Breton Island did not have the clout at that time to bring forward a piece of legislation and convince her cabinet colleagues that this was an important matter to have put on the agenda.
Then in 1992, after eight solid years of promises but no action, this minister tabled a bill. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those who are experts in the field and who study this for a living in Parliament said: "Finally we have a piece of legislation that we can work on. If the process is allowed to unfold as it should we will have significant consultation with the interested Canadians and parties in the Canadian economy so that we can do this thing right". Like with a lot of the promises that are made on the opposite side, they stalled, sputtered and just did not go forward.
I tried to figure this out. My colleague from Winnipeg says that they dithered. I could not figure this out because the minister who has introduced this bill has a long history in this place and I think is respected by most members of Parliament.
This minister came in with a great promise. I can remember the press conference. I could not figure out what in the name of goodness would have dampened his tenacity and his resolve to get this thing through the process properly. I underline properly because properly means that we allow for reasonable and full debate. It means that members go to committee and allow all interested parties to appear and to put their points of view on the record dealing with the legislation. It means that it comes back here for report stage after that thorough examination at committee and that at report stage there is full debate. Then it goes on for third reading. Then it goes to the other place, to the Senate of Canada to go through a similar process.
How naive I was to think that the government that has used closure and time allocation more than any other
June 9, 1993

government in the history of the country would treat this bill any differently. How naive I was to think that the minister opposite was going to have the resolve, the tenacity and the commitment to go through a full process.
I am going to spend the rest of my time talking about the process because it stinks, it sucks big time. It is the type of process that the bunch opposite go through all the time which has led Canadians to be cynical at best about what we all do in this place, and at worst to condemn us all for what we do or do not do on their behalf in this place, the highest court in the land.
We waited. The bill was pre-studied. The Senate felt that it was such an important bill it wanted to pre-study it. It pre-studied it in June of last year and came forward I am told by my colleague from Mount Royal with a number of substantive changes to the legislation. That was what it was recommending. We did not see that piece of legislation coming back to the House of Commons.
This legislation has 138 or 139 clauses. It is a large technical piece of legislation, dealing with a very cumbersome and difficult to understand regulatory environment. The Senate did its job. It pre-studied it and came in with recommendations. When we did not see this bill back before the House we thought one of two things: either it no longer was a priority, that it had slipped off the list, off the agenda, as it had from all the previous ministers including the Minister of Finance, who gave nice flowery speeches but produced no solid piece of legislation; or the government was re-writing it, that it had looked at the Senate report and said there are a lot of things it has to do so it had better come back in with a new and substantially altered bill.
We did not get it. Ten months later, April 19 1993, the bill came in for second reading and there was time allocation. This minister had 14 or 15 months to put it before the Chamber. Either he did not think it was a priority or he had other personal priorities at the time, such as deciding whether or not to run for the leadership of his party, so he was preoccupied, or the House leader would not listen to him. I do not know which is worse.
What I do know is that we had 14 months in order to put this through the process without a shotgun at anybody's temple and allow the bill and the process to proceed. But the government was not satisfied and used time allocation at second reading.
Government Orders
It was sent to committee. I am not on the committee and I am not an expert in this field, but I am told that when it went to committee not everybody could be heard. There were hearings over a period of two weeks. They were not hearings that went from morning through noon and night. They were not non-stop hearings so every interested party could be heard. They were regular committee hearings with the government majority saying: "Two weeks she's up. You can get x number of people here and the rest. They will have to append it, they will have to send it in, because we are simply not going to hear them". After 14 months of doing nothing, the committee was told on this very complex bill that it only had two weeks to hear all the witnesses. Can you imagine Mr. Speaker? It is the same type of thing the government has done with us time and time again on other pieces of legislation that have come through this place. If it does not like what it hears and its political agenda is otherwise, it just throws caution to the wind and says: "To heck with the process and the priorities in this House". It forgets the rights of members of this place to speak on behalf of their constituents and the rights of all Canadians when this type of legislation comes forward to be heard. The government does not care about that.
The government came back June 1 at report stage with an hour and a half of debate. The minister was sitting there and told me: "We are going to have to have time allocation. We simply cannot allow the opposition parties to debate this bill. My goodness, it is a filibuster". He would not know a filibuster from a filly.
I asked him before exactly what his definition of filibuster was. He got so flustered he could not even talk about filibuster. The minister asked my colleague from London a question: "Is it not true that the member for Mount Royal said she would filibuster?" The member for Mount Royal is probably one of the most productive members of this place. She takes her job seriously and fights hard. If the minister was honest and up front he would indicate that this bill that is going through this place today is a better bill because of the input she and other members like the New Democratic Party member made during the committee hearings.
When the bill came back from committee at report stage after truncated committee hearings the minister, on behalf of the government, introduced over 50 motions which my legal people tell me if they had been properly

June 9, 1993
Government Orders
worded would have meant about 100 amendments to a bill that has only 138 or 139 clauses.
Think about it. If the alarm bells were not ringing by that point they should have rung for him that the bill that was brought in originally 14 months before was in shambles. Either the premises that the bill was based on were wrong or the drafters were drunk when they did it. It was unconscionable.
The opposition parties came in with nearly 50 proposed amendments but life goes on. The Tories are having a leadership convention. They want to get as much legislation barrelled through this place as they possibly can so they can change leaders mid-stream. They could not care less about the legislative process so once again we have time allocation.
These members opposite use time allocation like some people use laxatives. Every time they get stuck they take a time allocation pill. They have used time allocation 30 times in this Parliament. They have used closure 15 times. They have thwarted the rights of parliamentarians and Canadians 45 times. They have used that bloody blunt instrument, tyranny of the majority called time allocation and closure. Then they have the nerve to say it is the opposition parties that are trying to hold up this "important" piece of legislation. Perhaps the thought of a new Prime Minister has forced this minister to go on bended knee to try to get the House leader to allow this piece of legislation to come forth.
In closing I think this is the type of bill that should be passed. There are a lot of flaws and things we do not like in it but we understand that the industry must be supported. We also understand that if we left this industry to the devices of the bunch opposite, particularly the Minister of Communications, I do not know where in the name of goodness they would go. This minister did nothing but dither for 14 months. In the final analysis the bill that is before us is not a perfect bill but it seeks to try to streamline the regulatory environment.
My reason for standing today is to speak to the process part of this bill. I think Canadians have a right to know and remember just how this government approaches legislation and just how this government approaches the
rights of parliamentarians and the Canadians they represent.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the previous hon. member's speech.
He complained about the process but that seems to be a rather hollow complaint. We are trying to determine here whether or not this legislation is positive for Canada and the Canadian economy and whether or not it will improve the economy and create jobs among other things.
I think the suggestion that somehow the process should have been different can be refuted very simply by the comment of the hon. member for Mount Royal who made this statement in committee: "I forewarn you that you will have a filibuster in this House that you will not believe and you will not get this bill without calling closure". That is on the record and I do not think I have to repeat it. Let us deal with the substance of the bill.


An hon. member:: You call that a filibuster?


Murray Dorin: Earlier today the legislation to implement the North American free trade agreement was passed through committee. I would like to talk about what this bill can do for the telecommunications industry in Canada and particularly the province of Alberta where you, Mr. Speaker, and I come from because I think we want to talk about the positive aspects of this bill.


An hon. member:: What about 820 B.C. Tel jobs that are down the tube?


Murray Dorin: I will try to get past the rhetoric. I am going to talk about jobs if I am allowed to by the opposition.
The telecommunications industry has undergone significant changes in recent years and we understand that. Technological innovation has enabled the introduction of a wide range of new services and has fundamentally altered the market structure of the industry.
Some jobs have changed but overall there has been enormous growth in this industry. This is a leading industry in Canada and an industry where we are competitive world-wide. We have many more opportunities to be competitive, including in Mexico, given the
June 9, 1993

auspices and the Mexican free trade agreement which has just passed committee this afternoon.
One of the greatest changes brought about by recent technological developments is the creation of commercial opportunities for competitive service providers. With or without new legislation the stage has been set for the forces of change to accelerate and strengthen for years to come.
Competition in telecommunications has already brought benefits for Canadians and will continue to benefit Canadians. We see the market opportunities in telecommunications which is an important industry for Canada. It is a growing industry that employs 125,000 people and generates more than $21 billion in revenues.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question. There are opportunities in such places as Mexico where the telecommunications sector is being deregulated and privatized, opening private investment and service opportunities in areas such as cellular telephones, construction and the administration of the microwave earth stations. Between 1990-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the hon. member will put his question.


Murray Dorin: It is important that the bill pass today and provide opportunities for us to enter into that market.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that was quite the question. I am still not sure what he asked but he is a good reader. He reads his notes from the minister well. He will get full marks for that.
The hon. member for Mississauga South said something in this House one day that the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest should have listened to. If he did not hear it he should call it up on our electronic Hansard through OASIS.
The member said one day in debate that the hon. member should understand that a lot of people talked their way into this House but they should also understand that a lot of members talk their way out of this House. I think the nonsense that was just spit out by the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest is testament to
Government Orders
that. Sometimes people should know when to keep their lips closed.
I will address the question of the member opposite, and perhaps I will be able to address the question of the member over here if he gets a chance to ask it. What I would like to say to the member for Edmonton Northwest is that this promise of new opportunity and new jobs that the Tories like to spout about with the North American free trade deal is exactly the rhetoric that they spit out during the 1988 campaign about the huge opportunities that would be given to Canadians with the free trade deal. We know full well that rhetoric has fallen completely flat.
We know full well that the Ontario manufacturing sector, since this bunch opposite promised jobs, jobs, jobs because of that free trade deal-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 8, 1993, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East) moved:: That this House recognize the professionalism, personal sacrifice and dedication shown by members of Canada's many police forces in the course of carrying out their duties in the service of Canadians.
She said: Mr. Speaker, because so many of my colleagues wish to speak to the motion I will be sharing my time with them.
It is barely a year ago that Toronto's Yonge Street erupted in violence. Criminals took the occasion to loot and vandalize, hiding behind the aftermath of a police shooting in a back alley.
June 9, 1993

Standing by and eventually interceding, of course, were scores of metro Toronto police, ordinary citizens who serve and endure in a most extraordinary role in our society. Last May metro police were asked to defend the streets from looters while the provincial government was only too ready to point an accusing finger at all police officers.
What happened last May was not the fault of police chiefs, police training or police attitudes in Canada. The entire circumstance was more a response to the Rodney King case and the L.A. riots than anything that occurred in Canada.
Accusations hurled down upon our police forces. Every police officer stood accused regardless of attitudes, values or performance. The police officers in my district were gripped by an overwhelming sense that they were being hung out to dry in order to quell unrest, not of their making or really the responsibility of the vast majority of police officers.
Policing is the profession of dealing with tragedy. Police have to comfort and question the victims of murderers, rapists, armed bandits, drug dealers and then apprehend the assailants.
It is not the police who plant the seeds of crime. Society endures the level of crime that the government is willing to tolerate. The prevailing view of Canadians is that our revolving door justice system provides little deterrent to criminals and even less protection for society.
Many believe that crime starts with an inadequate education system that fails to inspire a third of all students to even finish high school. Without the tools to make an honest living it is too easy to take advantage of an environment that tolerates crime.
Perhaps our social service structure is to blame for depriving children of positive role models in their homes and denying them the opportunity to participate fully in society. I lament for the futures of children who are raised in homes where no one has ever worked, where no one gets up at seven o'clock to go to a job, where no one has ever received a promotion, a raise or any reward for hard work.
This is not an environment that instils a work ethic or even the concept that success comes through honest work. This is a breeding ground for criminals, criminals
Private Members' Business
who will learn that our justice system will tolerate a career of burglary, car theft or even more serious crimes. The failings of our education system, our social services and justice system are laid right at the feet of our police forces.
The NDP government in Ontario was keen on showing its willingness to compromise and undermine the authority and capability of police forces with new regulations that served only to reinforce the perception that the police were to blame for the tragic consequences of crime. Obscured from view was the daunting task of policing a province preyed upon by growing numbers of well armed criminals.
It is no wonder that police forces report a decline in morale when more and more is asked of them by society while governments seem grossly preoccupied with the protection of criminals.
By and large Canadians feel betrayed by Parliament, the courts and the parole board that have failed to keep dangerous criminals out of their neighbourhoods. The same sense of betrayal does not extend to the police who deservedly remain in the highest esteem among law-abiding Canadians.
Canadians are always fascinated by the remarkable ability of police to solve crimes with the sparsest of clues. Just the other day we saw a suspect tracked down in Brooklyn for a shooting not long ago in Scarborough.
Canada's police have indeed risen above their detractors to continue to provide the high quality of policing that Canadians enjoy, but 1992 will bum long in the memories of Canada's police forces. Officers not only had to endure the stress and expense of political show trials, they actually had to read articles suggesting they were somehow favoured by the court system. In how many occupations is a worker ordered into a potentially life-threatening situation and crucified if he survives?
Police have an over-used motto that it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. This is a terrible choice that officers face every day. When they are ordered to confront a suspect in a crime they have to decide whether to endure additional risk to themselves or potentially provide evidence against themselves by drawing a weapon and filing a report that may eventually be resurrected to impugn their characters.

Private Members' Business
Each time they stop a car they never know whether the driver is armed, on drugs, a hood or an upstanding member of the community. They just do not know. When a suspect pulls a knife or other weapon how much risk is it reasonable for police officers to accept? How close is too close? How much danger are they paid to accept? What happens if an officer does make a mistake?
An officer is ordered into a situation. Perhaps he does not have complete information and perhaps acts too quickly. Is that officer a criminal? Does this warrant years of prosecution, recriminations and protests.
We live in an increasingly violent society with greater risks to police officers than ever before. They have to behave more defensively, act more quickly and on less information. If they do not they could end up like the 213 Canadian police officers who have already been killed in the line of duty.
There are few certainties on the streets of major urban centres, but what is certain is that the police are targeted not only by criminals but by publicity seekers and malcontents. Rarely do we hear any mention or praise of the remarkable effort and success of our police force in solving crimes. We never hear about unpaid overtime by detectives who do not just go through the motions of investigating crimes but aggressively try to make the neighbourhood safer.
A recent parliamentary report declared that war must be waged on the roots of crime: poverty, the lack of education and other social ills. It says that more police and prisons are not the answer, and of course that is right in the long term. What is painfully clear is that no new efforts whatsoever are being proposed by the government to reduce unemployment or poverty or to improve education. Even if measures were put in place immediately they would take years to show up in crime statistics and do little to dissuade the career criminals that plague our streets today.
The current crop of criminals is the exclusive purview of the parole board, the courts and Parliament. The confidence that Canadians once had in these institutions has been shaken by such cases as the Stephenson inquest and repeated reports of dangerous criminals being returned to society.
Only Canada's police forces remain in the highest esteem among our citizens. Regrettably this esteem is
based on familiarity caused by rising crime and a rising number of contacts with officers investigating crimes. They realize more and more that their local police officers are not just there to get a pay cheque, but take an active interest in protecting their homes and families. Many Canadians who hear dire assessments about abusive police find those assessments a stark contrast to their own experiences.
When I randomly surveyed my constituents about our police I discovered a respect and admiration for our forces that transcends the diversity of our community.
I believe that ultimately every citizen will form an opinion based on his or her own experience with our police and overwhelmingly people are struck by the professionalism and sincerity of officers who have served us all so well.
We should always seek to improve our police forces. Of course we need to have police that reflect the communities in which they serve and are sensitive to the concerns of women and minorities but this progress will not be achieved by angry denials of the strides already made or the fine work that is already being done.
We need to recognize that there are thousands of police officers in Canada on countless municipal and provincial forces as well as the RCMP. We can no longer view police as convenient scapegoats for social ills that Parliament refuses to address. The police guard the end zones of our society and rarely see the products of our institutions until they are a serious threat to cross the line and cause harm.
Last year the number of stolen or missing guns reached 62,000. They are 62,000 weapons that could well be in the hands of gangs, hoods or deranged maniacs. As more and more illegal and unregistered guns surface on our streets we can expect more violence and more tragic incidents involving police officers. Undoubtedly there will eventually be a 214th officer killed in the line of duty.
When these tragedies occur what remains most difficult to accept for the families is that the names of criminals shot by police will be remembered longer than the names of police shot by criminals. It seems ironic that society sometimes prefers to mourn a criminal killed in an attempt to victimize society than any of the more
June 9, 1993

than 200 police officers who have been killed trying to protect society.
Canadians should remember the names of Richard Hopkins of the OPP who died on May 9, 1982 at the age of 31 and Dwayne Piukkala of the Peel Regional Police who died at the age of 24 in August 1984. We should also remember David Dunmore, Pierre Beaulieu, John Ross, David Utman, William Grant, Vernon Miller, Allen Giesbrecht, Michael Buday, Jacques Giguere, YvesTetu, Donald Campbell, Jacinthe Fyfe, Mario Tessier, Richard Thomas, Budd Johansson, Frederick Abel, Claude St. Laurent, Mario Simard, Robert Baril, Gordon Kowalc-zyk, Larry Young, Emmanuel Aucoin, Derek Flanagan, Ezio Faraone, Marcel Lemay, Yves Phaneuf, Thomas Cooper, Scott Rossiter, Andrew Gordon and Robert Vanderwiel, all killed by deliberate criminal action in the last 10 years. How often do we hear of their sacrifice or concern ourselves with those who take the same risks today?
The motion does not ask the government to enact any new program or policy. It simply asks the House to recognize that our police forces have served Canadians very well and deserve more than a little respect and support from their governments.
The enemy of Canadians is crime not their police. I hope that the morale of Canada's police officers will be buoyed by a unanimous vote in this House to recognize their efforts in the service of Canadians.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Mississauga East on her motion stressing the professionalism and dedication shown by members of Canada's many police forces, often at the expense of their private lives, in the course of carrying out their duties in the service of Canadians.
Despite the visible presence of the police in our communities, we seldom bother to formally express our thanks to this very important group in our society that is so dedicated to its profession.
Twenty-three years ago, the police introduced National Police Week in Canada to strengthen their ties with communities and make the public more aware of their
Private Members' Business
work. This year, National Police Week was held from May 9 to May 15.
We must admit that, thanks to the commitment of these men and women, Canadians enjoy a relative degree of safety.
By the end of 1990, Canada had more than 55,000 full-time police officers. Every day, they fight a difficult battle against crime, in addition to dealing with the many problems that exist in our society. They are often the target of criticism and complaints, because of their chosen profession. However, no one is more intent on doing everything they possibly can to maintain a just and tolerant society than these police officers, who knowingly risk their lives in the line of duty.
It is not easy to be a police officer in these changing times. In Canada, police officers and police forces face unprecedented challenges.
Issues like relations with ethnic groups, youth gangs, violent crime, organized crime, drug trafficking and crimes against the environment are all there, waiting to be dealt with.
These concurrent demands are forcing the police to constantly reassess their approach and to look for new ways of dealing with the problems head on. Despite the current climate of budgetary restraint, many police forces have made substantial progress in adjusting to our changing society.
Since police personnel are on the front lines, we expect them to react quickly to change. These expectations put tremendous stress on the police, both personally and professionally, but it is a challenge that they meet with courage and determination.
What steps have been taken to deal with the changes that are taking place in our society? Community policing and multiculturally oriented policing, which includes aboriginal police and relations with minorities, are a few examples.
Police forces are now in a situation where they must determine what is important and what direction they should follow.
Today, chiefs of police forces are questioning the old professional and organizational values and trying to instill new ones. They are considering new strategies, at a time when they are trying to deal with recent events connected with police surveillance.

Private Members' Business
To introduce new values, many police forces have adopted a mission statement and statements of principle to guide their officers.
The emphasis on values will encourage the police to ask themselves where they are going and how they will adjust to the changes in our society. They must take an honest and open approach to the problems they encounter today. It is the only way our constantly evolving communities will have the feeling that they really count.
The police are working very hard to meet the new standards they have set for themselves, and they are gaining public support.
We in government must realize that the police work in a changing environment and that this imposes certain constraints. However, solving current problems is not only a concern of the federal government but of the provinces and the municipalities as well.
In October 1990, the Department of the Solicitor General released a document under the title: Vision of the future of Policing in Canada. In this document, there are proposals for new structures for our police forces that will make them better able to fight crime in the year 2000. The report stresses how important it is for the community to work with the police, to control crime and maintain law and order at local and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on the need for co-operation among the various groups.
The document introduces the concept of community policing as a new, interesting and important approach to policing.
The Government of Canada, through the Department of the Solicitor General, supports the concept of community policing. This approach, today considered as very advanced, makes it possible for police officers to take advantage of the ties they have created with the communities they serve in order to perform duties more effectively.
This concept is increasingly widespread because it encourages co-operation between the police and the public in identifying the causes of crime and finding solutions. Partnership is therefore a key element of community policing. With this sharing of responsibilities, the public's need for police services will be better met.
The community policing approach is closely tied to crime prevention. We cannot talk about the work police do in Canada without mentioning the time and great effort they put into crime prevention activities. Whether it is drug awareness programs for children and teenagers or safety initiation campaigns for seniors, the police plays a leading role in our crime prevention efforts.
We studied with interest the new report on crime prevention of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, and we support it. This document will give us a direction and a solid foundation for our future crime prevention efforts.
Relations between the police and various ethnic groups is another important area where the police have made progress. They are now more attentive to the needs of the communities they serve. Canada must remain a country whose citizens can live in complete security. The values of police forces and the way services are provided are in line with this principle. We are trying to eliminate discrimination in police services provided to visible minorities. The police forces are determined to implement innovative policies and practices that will guarantee effective services in a multicultural society. A great deal of progress has already been made in this area.
Canadians must know that our police services have a reputation for being innovative and forward-looking and are considered leaders internationally. We must be proud of that.
The Government of Canada cares about public safety. For police services in Canada to be effective and efficient, we must ensure that excellent relations are maintained by all concerned-governments, the police and the communities served. Through constant communication, we can help the police in Canada maintain the excellence of its services. As police services continue to adjust to the changing needs of our society, it will be more important than ever for us, as partners in this venture, to work together to fight crime as effectively as possible.
There is no doubt that the police forces in Canada are doing a remarkable job which must not go unnoticed. The government recognizes the dedication shown by police officers throughout the country, and we promise to continue to support their excellent work.
June 9, 1993

During Police Week, I spoke to some police officers in Hull. What struck me particularly is that when they were being recognized for their work, we found members of the Hull police but also OPP and RCMP officers who had done tremendous services in that city. We also found citizens who had co-operated with the police to give that city a better security image and to promote greater public confidence. It is our role to take part in that kind of meeting because it is also up to us to encourage people to realize that it is partly their responsibility.
In closing, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga East, for giving us this opportunity to highlight the good work done by our police.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add my voice and that of my party, the New Democratic Party, to those who have already spoken. I congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga East for putting forward this motion. It reads:
That this House recognize the professionalism, personal sacrifice
and dedication shown by members of Canada's many police forces in
the course of carrying our their duties in the service of Canadians.
I would like to bring a different perspective than what we have already heard here today, the perspective of one who lives in a more rural setting and who has worked with the police over the past 20 years, both as a prosecutor and as a defence counsel.
My dealings with the police have shown that they must be not just police officers but they must be social workers, counsellors, life savers, medical people, coaches and public relations people within the community. All of these things are part of the everyday life of police.
In the province of British Columbia the rural areas are policed for the most part by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a police force that I would suggest all Canadians are very proud of, whether it be ceremonially, for the work they do within the communities or for their reputation internationally as perhaps one of the leading police forces in Canada.
Others have spoken about the police forces in specific cities or in specific provinces. I take nothing at all away
Private Members' Business
from the work that they do, but I want to emphasize, as a person who has worked for, worked with and socialized with police officers, that I have grown to respect not only the fact that they put their lives on the line many times in their police work, but the fact that they get involved in their communities and that often they must put their duties ahead of their own personal family lives.
In recognizing the dedication and personal sacrifice I specifically talk about some of the problems that police in small communities have in being transferred out every few years as is the policy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the fact that they often spend long hours. In some of the work they have to do they become very jaded by getting too close to some things, whether it be in undercover drug work or in the motorcycle squad that followed the motorcycle gangs around for years. They have difficulty in all of their undercover work in not being able to pay adequate attention to their own families and personal lives. That great personal sacrifice of these people often leads to separation and ultimately divorce and separated families.
I think of the number of people within this House who know the sacrifices that they make in being away from their families and going about their duties as members of Parliament. Similarly those sacrifices are made by members of our police forces in the hard work that they do for our communities.
In talking about police officers as medical officers I know that in many cases police officers are called to scenes of accidents which are not pretty sights. They are often the first on the scene after whoever originally called in the call, or discover people who are clinging to the last remnants of life. It is their duty to go in and try to assist, sometimes in very unpleasant circumstances with the blood and the screaming of those left. They are trained to deal with that in everyday life.
I recall just recently a young woman constable in British Columbia was given a special award for being on the scene when a gentleman had an attack and his heart quit. This young woman had just taken a course in CPR two or three weeks previous. She used her training to bring him back. He is healthy again, I am pleased to say. The young woman constable has been recognized not just for doing what she saw as her duty, but having done

Private Members' Business
it in a timely and professional fashion as I think we have all come to expect of these police officers.
I think of a number of gruesome cases that I participated in as both prosecutor and defence in murder trials, sexual assault trials and double murder suicides where the police officers were the ones who had to go in and deal with the traumatic scenes in front of them, in a professional manner and take their notes. However, that was not all.
Once they had done that it was often up to the police officer to act as priest, family counsellor or social worker in going to the families of those deceased to tell them in a compassionate manner that someone they loved and cherished was no longer with them. They had met an untimely death, whether through an accident, due to drinking and driving, someone else's fault, or whether they were a victim of a murder or an assault or whatever.
I have come to respect not just the training of our many police forces and police officers but the personal commitment they bring to their job. They bring commitment to their communities whether it is coaching a ball team, a minor hockey team, participating in local sports or getting involved in the community. They are not only part of the community, they are often the very pulse of the community.
I am proud to have been associated with the police. I know they work hard and I am very pleased to be able to add my voice to those speaking on this motion today.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in commending the hon. member for Mississauga East for having taken the initiative to recognize the positive accomplishments of police officers throughout Canada.
The member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for Ottawa Centre and I were talking a little while ago and we were observing how it is that in our society we often tend to accentuate the negative as opposed to the positive. For that reason alone my colleagues would have liked to have addressed this motion too.
Let me give an example of something that happened today. It does not happen only with the police forces. We have a colleague who yesterday celebrated 40 years of
outstanding service in political office. He is an outstanding Canadian, outstanding Manitoban, a member of the Manitoba legislative assembly for some years, the leader of the provincial Liberal Party of Manitoba and a Senator for a number of years, Senator Gildas Molgat. That would have gone absolutely unnoticed if someone had not told me and I was able to share it with colleagues.
I gave that example because here was a sound accomplishment and one worthy of being noted and yet if he had done the slightest little negative thing I am sure it would have been reported throughout the country.
So it is with police officers. They make mistakes, as we all do, but we tend to accentuate the mistakes and not see the positives. What I want to do today is talk about some of the positives. I want to talk about, from a somewhat biased perspective if you wish, the city of Winnipeg. I was in contact with the city of Winnipeg Police Department and want to share very quickly some of the positive things that are happening in my city.
For example we have what we call the CAT or combat auto theft program. We have a particular decal that is registered with the police. If the police spot this vehicle between 12 midnight and 5 a.m. they can stop to see whether you are the registered driver. It is to reduce the number of car thefts.
We have the community constable program where constables spend much more time with individuals in the community. They try to understand community needs and our citizenry much better than they have in the past.
We have the victim services unit where there is liaison between the police department and crime victims who often have difficulties adjusting to whatever it is that has occurred to them.
We have store-front policing where the introduction of more foot patrols in Winnipeg has led to the establishment of a number of neighbourhood police substations. These are high profile offices which serve as bases for foot patrols as well as public information depots. That has gone on now for some time and has been very successful.
We have what we call bicycle cops, which I do not say in the pejorative sense through which the Winnipeg police department will be increasing the personal contact between the police and the community by having many
June 9, 1993

of its officers travel about on bicycles. These are just summaries of rather elaborate programs.
We also have the Winnipeg police department which has doubled the number of aboriginal members in the past two years. The current number stands at 49 with 8 more aboriginals entering training next week. They all recognize that we have to do more in this area.
The department now employs 63 female constables and has made efforts to encourage more women to apply. We recognize that is but a beginning. We need more representatives from our female population.
Substantial efforts have been made to encourage visible minorities to join the department. We have had some successes but we need to have more. In Winnipeg there has been an increase in the number of Frenchspeaking services. These are all positive initiatives by that particular police department that often go unnoticed.
Let me briefly refer to some of the challenges the police officers face, such as youth crime and gangs. The police want amendments to the Young Offenders Act to deal with the growing problem. It is a serious situation and the police need our help and support. There is the issue of drug use. Many violent crimes and property offences can be traced to drug use and abuse. There is credit card fraud, and prostitution among 14 and 15-year olds or even younger is not uncommon. There is solvent abuse, gas sniffing, organized crime-very often mostly drug related-violent crime, sexual assault, wife abuse and property crimes. These are some of the challenges facing the police department and there are many more.
We have a police chief who once a week, I am told, goes out on midnight shift with his officers to see what it is really like out there. He is to be commended because he is the kind of person who is showing the leadership required today to go out with those who do the work to better understand what is needed out there.
I would be remiss if I were not to say that my colleague from Ottawa Centre wanted to congratulate the new police chief in Ottawa, Brian Ford, and commend the
Private Members' Business
police force of the City of Ottawa for the fine work it is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply summarize by saying that I am very glad that my colleague sponsored this motion, because for the first time in a long while we are talking about the positive accomplishments of a police force like this one and like those working throughout Canada. That pleases me tremendously.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague's motion to recognize the labours of the police forces that protect all Canadians. I certainly thank the member for Mississauga East for her initiative through the Liberal tradition.
As a former citizen member of the Winnipeg Police Commission on which I served for three years I have seen first-hand the dedication of these people to their trusts as they perform community policing and face the challenges posed by youth gangs and even organized crime.
Usually we discount recognition for their efforts. They nonetheless persevere year in and year out to ensure that Canadians can walk down the streets and not be harmed, and drive home late at night and not be killed.
At night when most other people are asleep members of our police forces are alert, responding to emergency calls and maintaining order, sometimes at the risk of their own lives. They risk their own lives when they are sometimes infected with disease-contaminated blood as they attend to medical rescue and emergency situations.
I am at this juncture reminded of another bill, Bill C-333, now under study by a committee of this House. Members of the police force are truly threatened when they attend to emergency situations. This bill will provide for an infectious disease notification system to allay unnecessary anxiety on the part of emergency personnel. It will eliminate the need for an expensive follow-up and reduce the invasion of personal privacy decisions regarding the prevention of transmission of infectious diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis and others.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask members of this House to also support this other piece of legislation

June 9, 1993
Private Members' Business
which will protect those who protect us when it comes back for final consideration in this House.
The personal sacrifice of our police officers is inspiring in a day when belief in heroism regrettably is being questioned. Most of the time the public only notices their failures and not their successes. Yet these dedicated professionals continue to serve. Indeed it can be a very thankless job.
I applaud my colleague, the member for Mississauga East, on her motion. I urge all members of the House to recognize the professionalism, personal sacrifice and dedication shown by members of Canada's many police forces, national such as the RCMP and local in every town and city across the country, as they carry out their duties in the service of all Canadians.
They risk their own lives to ensure the safety of Canadians, their person and the security of their property. They risk their own lives so that our lives may not be at risk. They serve us. Let us with deep conviction recognize them with gratitude.
I am confident that my constituents of Winnipeg North join me in supporting this motion and saluting our police forces from coast to coast.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are probably not aware there are approximately 1,771 police departments in Canada, all the way from the Newfoundland Constabulary to the Victoria City Police Force in British Columbia. There are approximately 55,000 Canadians serving as police officers in Canada. I am not forgetting the important role played by the auxiliary police and the cadets.
I am pleased to hear from my colleague from Manitoba that a growing number of women are now serving in the police forces. We see that in Ontario also.
Let me share a few facts about various levels of policing. First, the RCMP has quite a tradition and history in Canada. Canada is the only country in the world known for its national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP or la Gendarmerie royale du Canada. There are approximately 15,000 RCMP officers in Canada. The RCMP made history as one of the first police forces to be called upon by the United Nations secretary-general to serve in peacekeeping operations.
To date the RCMP has assisted in the development of civilian police forces in Namibia, the former Yugoslavia and Cambodia where I had the privilege of observing the first elections from May 23 to May 28. As more countries move from authoritarian systems to democratic systems of government, more and more of our police forces will be called upon to train other police forces in other countries.
The motto of the RCMP is: "Maintain the law". I think we are here to make legislation. The RCMP is there to maintain the legislation that we pass.
The motto of the Ontario Provincial Police, the OPP, is: "Times change and we change with them". It is a motto everyone should keep in mind. The reason the popularity of the government and the Prime Minister is so low is that he did not change with the times. This was evident in the Constitution, the NAFTA, et cetera.
The motto of the metropolitan Toronto police known as metro's finest is: "To serve and protect". On their cars and so on we see that sign: "To serve and protect".
A lot of excellent preventative work is done by local police. I am reminded when I was in the classroom of how the police used to come in and teach kindergarten children safety rules, to stop, look and listen before they cross the street. The police work with a number of community groups to fight drugs and prostitution and to reduce the number of break and enters in larger cities such as where my riding is situated.
I did a survey in my riding recently. In response to a question with respect to law enforcement: "Do you believe that the police should have more power, less power, et cetera" 62 per cent felt that police needed more power to enforce the law while only 2 per cent said that they had too much power.
In response to the question of who should be doing more to fight crime and improve street safety in Park-dale-High Park in the same survey, 72 per cent felt the courts and elected officials should be doing more to fight crime, indicating a high level of community satisfaction with police services in my Toronto riding.
As in other provinces I too have services offered by the police on foot patrol, in cars, on horseback and on bicycles. A new one introduced a year ago is the golf cart. Golf carts are becoming a very important vehicle in parks, especially parks such as High Park. The police now are providing much better service. It was their profes-
June 9, 1993

sionalism and their creativity that suggested we use not only the horse, the bicycle and the car, but also golf carts.
The Liberal Party recently released a crime and justice policy which calls on the community to take a larger role in crime prevention in conjunction with the local police forces. That is what is happening in my riding of Parkdale-High Park. The community now is setting standards. It is getting together with the police, working together. This is the only way we are going to reduce crime in our communities, and that is for the entire community to get together.
I have about a minute, Mr. Speaker. If you could not see the clock for a minute I would like to finish here because this is a very important motion.
Unlike most people in Canada, police officers put their lives on the line every day. The friends and families
Private Members' Business
of police officers also live with the fear that one day their mother, father, sister, brother or partner may not come home. If we all support this motion posed by the member for Mississauga East and the entire country gets behind and supports police forces at all levels, hopefully we will see fewer police lives lost in the line of duty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being eight o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 10,1993