1993-06-03

Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to table the report of the Information Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, pursuant to section 38 of the Access to Information Act.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) this document is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


STATE OF CANADA'S FORESTS
Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table, in both official languages, the third annual report to Parliament on the state of Canada's forests. The year 1992 will be remembered as a year of transition and an important threshold in the history of Canadian forestry.
In March 1992 the many different groups with an interest in our forests finalized a new national forest strategy. A broad coalition of Canadians signed a new national forest accord. In June I announced the selected
sites for a nation-wide network of model forests which will be extended internationally. The work carried out in these model forests will provide an invaluable stimulus to the development and practice of sustainable development in Canada's forests.
It was also a year of change in markets for forest products as consumers became increasingly concerned over the environmental implications of their purchases.
Finally, 1992 will also be remembered as the year that saw the issue of global forest management assume a new profile on the international stage. These topics are all-important features in my 1992 report to Parliament.
The report also includes updates on the series of economic and environmental indicators developed by my department to objectively measure the progress being made by Canada's forest community in improving environmental quality and economic productivity.
The report presents new information on the national forest account, which balances the additions and the depletions made to our commercial forests over the last 10 years. The data in this account is very encouraging and underlines our progress in revitalizing our most important natural resource.


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):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June 3, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.
This report recommends that the government engage a private sector auditor to audit past oil and gas production from the Indian lands. It also recommends that the Auditor General do a value for money audit of the federal government's management of this aspect and that the federal government quickly adopt the amendments to the oil and gas regulations already negotiated with the First Nations.
Finally, it recommends that the federal government and the First Nations negotiate an early resolution of the issue of transferring control over oil and gas resources and/or revenues and that those negotiations be based on the principle that with control goes responsibility.
As this is probably the last report of the standing committee in this session I would particularly like to thank the members who have participated for their excellent work and the support that they have given to the committee.
Also I would like to thank the clerk, Mr. Stephen Knowles, and the researchers who have helped so much in the preparation of this and other reports.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the special joint committee on Bill C-116, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of public office holders, to establish a conflict of interests commission, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The special joint committee reports that Bill C-116 should not be further proceeded with.
I was the chairman of the joint committee studying Bill C-43 last winter and spring. That committee reported to the House last June. The unanimous report of that committee included a draft bill. The essence of that report was disclosure. The government received the report and the committee felt that the government understood the report.
Unfortunately Bill C-116 is a confusing bill that attempts to resurrect Bill C-43. The committee unanimously believes the philosophy contained in Bill C-116 and Bill C-43, indeed the nature of the bill in total, is so wrong as to create a situation where the committee unanimously recommends to this House that Bill C-116 not be proceeded with.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This is perhaps one of the most unusual committee reports that the House has been seized with in a very long time.
I would like to take the opportunity to indicate that members of the committee from all sides of the House were unanimous about this bill. I want to compliment all members from all political parties and in both Houses who worked on this unanimous report for the thorough work they have done.
At the staff level we were fortunate to have the highest calibre of experts we could get. In no way do I or anyone else who sat on this committee hold any member of the committee responsible for the demise of that bill. The situation that we are living with today is an unfortunate one, given the years that have been spent on this issue by many members of this House.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-126, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, in both official languages.
This is the anti-stalking legislation which also makes changes that give more protection to children. There were half a dozen changes made at the committee, all of which strengthened the bill.

%

*
June 3, 1993


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-85, an act respecting the control of psychoactive substances and their precursors and to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (money laundering) Act and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, with amendments, in both official languages.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, relating to a study of elderly abuse.
The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.



SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the ninth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
In this report the joint committee reaffirms its firm opposition to the grant of individual exemptions from the application of subordinate laws without express authorization from Parliament. This practice was last denounced by our committee in 1977 as being both illegal and subversive of constitutional government.
The adoption of this report was prompted by the apparent renewal by the executive of its claim to have the power to dispense with the application of subordi-
Routine Proceedings
nate legislation in favour of individuals or in specific circumstances. That authority can only expressly be granted by Parliament.
The report refers to two cases in particular: a provision of the Income Tax Act regulations and the 1990 Kemano completion project guidelines order.
The committee also expresses its firm disagreement with the recent obiter dicta in a ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal which appears to endorse the executive's claim to have such a power of dispensation.
I am disappointed at the apparent lack of attention of that court to the constitutional principles outlined in our report. They are the rule of law, the supremacy of Parliament and the express prohibition of such exemptions in section 12 in the 1689 Bill of Rights, which is a corner stone of our Canadian Constitution.
I also have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. In this report the committee recalls that in its response to a 1987 report by the joint committee, the government had undertaken to introduce legislation to retroactively validate certain otherwise invalid proclamations issued under section 4 of the Indian Act.
The joint committee wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it continues to regard the proclamations as illegal and that the undertaking given five years ago by the government remains unfulfilled.
We find it regrettable that the matters raised in the sixth report remain unaddressed and would express the hope that the government will in the near future and without the need for further action by the committee introduce legislation to retroactively validate these proclamations and questions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by dozens of residents of the city of Niagara Falls.

Government Orders
These residents are concerned about the problem of child poverty and its debilitating effect on children and on all of society.
They ask this Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000, and I certainly agree with that.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the first petition I have the honour to present is from petitioners who ask that child care deductions be deductible from income tax, particularly for families with special needs children and especially for single parent families.
Some children with disabilities require special facilities and services and these can be extremely costly. These petitioners believe, as I do, that the current laws are unfair, insensitive and can be deemed discriminatory.
They ask that these be reviewed and they hope that the government will do so. I think it is a laudable request.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition. The petitioners ask that the indexing of seniors' pensions reflect the needs of that age group. They indicate that indexing does not reflect those people's financial needs at this time. They find that often seniors who receive pensions, even with the supplement that is available to them, live in poverty. As you know, many seniors live below the poverty line. They say that many seniors are in a critical situation due to lack of income.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in this final instance, you will know that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council was created in 1977 to respond to certain needs in Canadian society.
Some of our greatest challenges are issues such as poverty, employment equity, and unemployment.
These petitioners ask that the current plans of the government to merge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council be put off. They ask that it be studied again and that a decision be taken. I concur with their request.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-124, an act to amend the Currency Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, can I take it that Bill C-124 was reported as amended and concurred in? I did not detect that in Your Honour's remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member is right. The bill at report stage as amended is carried.


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to broaden the ability of the government that holds approximately, if everything was converted into Canadian dollars including our gold holdings, about $20 billion worth of our assets.
June 3, 1993

This would enable us to better manage those assets by investing them not just in the restricted way that currently is in the bill in assets of the United States. It would enable us to purchase securities more broadly of German or Japanese origin in order to increase the income from the exchange fund.
The exchange fund is a very substantial bit of money, $20 billion or so, and we have to borrow that money on markets. It is important that as far as possible the exchange fund carry itself. In that sense the government is getting considerably better investment potential from the exchange fund with the amended bill as now presented for third reading.
Two amendments were made in committee moved by the Official Opposition and supported by the government. The first amendment involves the publication in The Canada Gazette of currencies eligible for exchange fund investment and the designation of the criteria used for the government and financial institutions.
We believe that making this information public will underscore the point that Canada's reserves are invested only in the soundest of currency assets belonging to the strongest economies in the world. It will further show that the broadening of investment to include government supported institutions poses no further additional credit risks.
The second amendment involves publication in The Canada Gazette of the minister's agent and derivative products held in the fund. It should be noted in this context the Bank of Canada has been the agent for the government since the exchange fund was created in 1954. No change in this designation is contemplated nor do I say desired. This clause does however provide for public notice should there be any change in the future.
With regard to derivatives, a number of the main derivative products are already spelled out in the bill. However some additional flexibility is needed because the capital markets are evolving quite quickly. We believe it is important and appropriate to have a means of communicating the evolving strategy of the government in this area. I want to make it clear that in the case of derivatives the highest quality credit standards will continue to be maintained.
Government Orders
This is an important bill and should substantially increase the returns on the exchange fund. I think that is good for all of us.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mississauga South has done a very good job in describing precisely what this bill now involves with the amendments. I would only want to add an explanation to his quite comprehensive remarks.
The thought behind the amendments which were made at committee relate to the unfolding expansion in the number of products and the type of investments that the Bank of Canada as agent for the Government of Canada would want to be in a position to use when it dealt in the world financial markets in protecting the Canadian currency.
The bill authorizes increased flexibility in terms of the maturities of the instruments in which the bank may invest as agent. It also appears to create greater flexibility in terms of designation of who may carry on this work for the minister. In theory it can go beyond the Bank of Canada but there is not any present intention to do that as I understand it.
The number of products or financial instruments that may be invested in will also be expanded. In the face of that expansion of authority and flexibility we have asked and obtained a statutory requirement of increased reporting back to the public through The Canada Gazette. There would be publication of those ministerial designations of the units of account of agents and of the derivative product or instrument in which the bank will invest the Canadian or other assets that it has.
We are all hopeful that with this new flexibility the Bank of Canada will maintain its traditionally very conservative investment portfolio. I am sure it will and that it has every intention of doing that and in so doing it will advance the financial interest of the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: On behalf of the New Democratic Party I am pleased to rise to support these amendments. They are technical amendments. If they will help the Canadian currency in any way, we are pleased to support them.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
I am a little less sure about helping the Bank of Canada in any way, given as my hon. friend the chair of the finance committee must have also noticed in yesterday's newspaper. I found it very interesting that according to the newspaper, Mr. Dodge, who I believe is now the deputy minister, said that the bank put the squeeze on the Canadian economy because of the economy being overheated, I think in 1988 and 1989, especially the Ontario economy. It squeezed it a bit too much and put it into a recession.
Those are not his words about putting it into a recession, but his words were: "As a result of what the bank did, there was an adjustments problem". That surely is the understatement of the decade. An adjustments problem, meaning a major recession in Canada, 12 per cent unemployment, 25 per cent employment among youth, a lot of hardship and poverty and tremendous problems for the country.
We on this side of the House are not too keen about the Bank of Canada's track record in the last little while. However, these are technical amendments and so we are pleased to be able to agree to them. I will keep the rest of the debate for later.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circumstances, as reported (with amendments) by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are two motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circumstances.

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	if Motion No. 1 carries, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 2;
(b)	if Motion No. 1 is negatived, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 2.
I shall now submit Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House. [English]


MEASURE TO ENACT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-123 be amended in clause 16 by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall be credited seventy per cent to the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account established by the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and applied thirty per cent to supplement the funding of crime prevention programs administered in whole or in part by the Attorney General."


Hon. Marcel Danis (for the Minister of Justice) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-123 be amended in Clause 16 by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall be credited to such account in the accounts of Canada as is prescribed."
June 3, 1993


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this is the proceeds of crime bill in which property from crime is forfeited to the government. It deals with how that is to happen, how it is to be shared with the provinces and so on.
I know the figures vary. One figure being bandied about is $20 million. I have heard the figure $60 million and others. I will operate under the figure of $20 million. It is a substantial amount of money.
I am the justice critic in the New Democratic Party. We are not opposed to the bill, but we are very much opposed to what the government is going to do with the proceeds of crime. We think the proceeds of crime should go to crime prevention. That is what my amendment is about. It is very simple. The proceeds of crime should go into crime prevention, or at least part of it.
The government wants some money for debt reduction. It could put 70 per cent of the proceeds of crime into debt reduction but keep a part of the money for crime prevention. That is what my amendment says. The reason, as I will explain in my speech, is very important because it follows a principle set out in a unanimous report of the justice committee of this House of Commons called Crime Prevention in Canada-Towards a National Strategy, dated February 1993.
Recommendation No. 3 of the report states that we should spend some money on crime prevention and take some money from the proceeds of crime. It is very simple, but let us look at the bill and deal with the technicalities. Clause 16 reads:
At the prescribed times, all amounts credited to the Proceeds
Account that are not shared pursuant to sections 10 and 11, less
such amounts as are reserved
(a)	for future losses,
(b)	to pay claims arisings from undertakings given by the Attorney
General pursuant to subsections 462.32(6) and 462.33(7) of the
Criminal Code, and
(c)	for ongoing expenses,
shall be credited to the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account
established by the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act.
The government proposes to amend this point and put them, as I understand it, into the general revenues. Whether it is debt reduction or into the general revenues, it still does not meet the test of the justice committee. I have proposed a change to this clause. My motion states that this money:
Government Orders
"shall be credited seventy per cent to the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account established by the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and applied thirty per cent to supplement the funding of crime prevention programs administered in whole or in part by the Attorney General".
We are not interfering with the provinces. It is the Attorney General of Canada. We in the NDP want the government to commit some of the proceeds from crime to crime prevention, and here is why.
The report I mentioned of the justice committee was an all-party report. The committee was chaired by the hon. member for Mississauga West. Recommendation No. 3 reads:
The committee recommends that a share of the moneys forfeited as proceeds of crime be allocated to crime prevention activities and that the federal government allocate 1 per cent a year of the current federal budget for police courts and corrections to crime prevention over a five-year period.
At the end of five years, Canada should spend 5 per cent of the current criminal justice budget on crime prevention.
The report clearly says that moneys forfeited as proceeds of crime should be allocated to crime prevention activities. My friends in the government say they will do that, but will they do it? We cannot be sure. We do not know. The amendment says a certain amount of moneys will be allocated.
I draw attention to recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 of the same justice report. I think this is a great report. It is a great step forward in fighting crime in Canada. Here is what it says:
The committee recommends that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, take on a national leadership role in crime prevention and develop a national crime prevention policy.
That is what I want to see, a national crime prevention policy. Money is needed to pay for it, right? The distinguished hon. member from Mississauga, the chair of the finance committee who is in the House, keeps telling the House: "Look at the money. You need money to pay for these programs".
The crime prevention policy should set out the following principles and initiatives:
a.	Crime prevention will be included in the mandates of the federal departments
b.	All levels of government are responsible for crime and they must work together
Crime occurs in communities and priorities concerning crime prevention are best determined at the local level. The primary approach taken to prevent crime and create safer communities entails a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary effort to address the root causes of crime.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
Finally:
e. Prevention measures include law enforcement, community-based policing, social development and reduction of criminal opportunities.
Recommendation No. 2 which goes along with this says:
The committee recommends the federal government, in consultation with the provinces and territories and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, support the development of a national crime prevention council.
The council's job would be to promote safety, to provide the federal government with advice and to gather and analyse information.
We found that while the community of Coquitlam may be doing some great stuff in community-based policing, the community of Montreal did not know about it. Whereas the community of Montreal may have been doing some wonderful work in neighbourhood programs, the community of Coquitlam did not know about it.
Therefore we want to bring them together. We do not want to reinvent the wheel. We will do it through the national crime prevention council.
As a matter of fact the present Minister of Justice who has the right intentions and who is a good man has started the beginnings of a national crime prevention council. We have to give it some money. What better way to do it than to earmark some of those moneys from the drug dealers, criminals and so on. When we get that money it should be put it back into crime prevention.
They also say that the national crime prevention council should provide training, research, evaluation and public education on the prevention of crime. That takes money. They say that it should provide funding assistance to local governments and community organizations to implement safety initiatives.
In my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam a number of people are involved in Block Watch and Crime Stoppers. Even the insurance industry is now involved in community programs. The local police, the social workers, the teachers, everybody wants to get involved in crime prevention and they are doing it on the community basis. That is where it is really happening. They need some funding.
Here is a way to get some funding:
f. include membership from federal, provincial and municipal governments, and professionals and practitioners involved in crime prevention
This is a great report of the justice committee. It is in the right direction. It received critical acclaim in the press. I will remind the government once again that recommendation No. 3 says:
The committee recommends that a share of the moneys forfeited as proceeds of crime be allocated to crime prevention activities
That is exactly what my motion does and that is why the government should support this motion. It is the litmus test of how much this government is committed to crime prevention.
When the report came out some of the sceptics, the media and various people in Canada said: "We do not believe it. This government is actually doing something right." They said: "We will wait and see".
They take one step forward and two steps backward. That seems to be this government. Daniel Drolet who is a distinguished journalist writing recently in The Ottawa Citizen said the other day:
Some critics wonder how committed the government is to crime prevention.
Now we have the answer. This is how committed it is. It is missing an opportunity to show its commitment.
I see my friend in the House, the distinguished critic for the Liberal Party. I look at the Liberal policy paper on crime prevention. It says that the Liberal Party is committed to money going for crime prevention. It also cites with approval the justice committee.
I see reported in Vancouver Sun of June 1 my friend, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, the justice critic of the Liberal Party quoted as saying this: "He thinks it is a lousy idea to funnel the proceeds of crime back into prevention". He wants a separate budget. The journalist asked: "When is that going to happen?" That is a good question because it is not going to happen. I hope the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and the Liberal Party change their minds. Right now we have the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party not wanting to follow the unanimous report-
June 3, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had 20 minutes for this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I remind the hon. member that as shown in the Projected Order of Business and also in the Order Paper, speeches at report stage are limited to 10 minutes. Therefore time is up.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would make a request to the House that I be allowed to take one minute to just sum up. 1 will not abuse it.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are in fine spirits, they give me much more than I deserve sometimes.
In closing I will say this because I want to hear from the hon. member from the Liberal Party and the government. Perhaps they will accept my amendment.
The Ottawa Citizen has an editorial today saying the Tories are missing a good investment, that this is a smart investment. It says: "The committee recommended more action to prevent crime. By identifying people at risk of becoming criminals, kids in poverty and abusive homes with bad schooling, governments can save on both crime and punishment".
I think the committee report was right. We have to earmark that money. I only ask that it be 30 per cent of the federal moneys, but it will be in there. It will be earmarked and it will be a commitment to crime prevention. It may not be historic but it will be important and it will show that the government is prepared to take seriously its own unanimous report of a House of Commons committee.
I urge the members of the House to support this amendment. I am not trying to delay the bill. I think the bill could get through today. I would like to see a commitment from the government. If I cannot get my motion by some miracle and it does not pass, I hope the government will give at least a verbal commitment from the ministry that moneys will go to the crime prevention because it is very important in Canada. Canadians want us to fight crime and the way to fight crime is to prevent it in the first place. The NDP says get tough with violent
Government Orders
criminals, but we also say put money into crime prevention, especially among young people and stop crime from happening in the first place.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak on both the amendment of the government and the amendment brought forward by my friend from the New Democratic Party.
First I want to deal with the one from the government.
I am rather at a loss to explain why the amendment is here. I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice could give some explanation.
With respect to the amendment of my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, he is certainly wrong when he says we do not support his motion because we do. That piece that he quoted from a Vancouver newspaper is inaccurate. At no time did I ever say that using the proceeds of crime for crime prevention was a lousy idea. He and I were both members of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General's task force on crime prevention.
We both supported the report. The report "calls for a share of the moneys forfeited as proceeds of crime be allocated to crime prevention". Also in our party paper on justice we advocate that some of the proceeds of crime be used to fund drug education programs, arguably another mode of crime prevention activity and crime prevention.
As the hon. member knows, I supported him on his motion in the legislative committee on using the funds from the proceeds of crime for crime prevention. That is fundamentally the thing to do. The misrepresentation arose when I was trying to explain to the journalists what the position of the government was. The position of the government was that it does not favour this even though, as the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has said, it goes against the report of the standing committee.
The government says it does not want to do this because it needs to be assured in a budget how much money is applicable to crime prevention. It says that if we did this from the proceeds of crime, it would be an uncertain amount and we would not have any fixed amount. If it is going to have a budget for crime prevention, it should be allotted in the estimates and should be something that everyone can rely upon.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
I can understand the government's concern for wanting a fixed budget. However it is using that as a red herring. We can certainly have a budget but use the proceeds of crime for that budget. If the proceeds of crime from some event do not match what is budgeted for crime prevention, the government can supplement the amount. There is no reason it cannot be done.
As has been said, communities want crime prevention. This government used the standing committee's report on crime prevention as a linchpin for its symposium in Toronto the first week of March. If it was good enough to use as a linchpin for a symposium, why in the name of heaven can it not adopt the report?
We heard ministers at this symposium speaking time after time about how great a report this was and how we needed to work for crime prevention. But there is no commitment from the government for this report or for crime prevention.
If the government wants to have a fixed amount in the estimates, or whatever it wants to do, I can condone that as long as it is doing something for crime prevention. But it is not. It has not supported crime prevention in any sense of the word other than to speak about it and to use it as a means of glossing over the intentions and the aspirations of people who were at the symposium.
That is not good enough. There has to be a commitment. The amendment of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam gives teeth to what the standing committee says in its report. I support that because it is the first thing we have seen in this House as a means of having funding for crime prevention. If the government has an alternative, then have the government put it forward.
We in the Liberal Party are on record as having supported entirely the report on crime prevention by the standing committee. Why can the government not do that? Why can the government not come forward with tangible recommendations on the funding of crime prevention? It says that it does not want to support this amendment. Then fine, come forward with something it does want to do to fund crime prevention. It will not do it and you wonder what its intentions are. Does it really
support crime prevention at all? There is nothing tangible to show that it does. We in the Liberal Party want something tangible and we are asking the government for something tangible. We are supporting the hon. member's amendment.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with two amendments to Bill C-123. This is the proceeds of crime bill. It is a good bill. I believe it has support on all sides of the House and I think justifiably so.
The proceeds of crime bill is part of our drug prevention scheme. I believe, and I hope other members agree, that one of the best ways to attack crime is to attack the profits of crime. Bill C-123 fits into our strategy. It provides an effective method for managing assets that have been seized by the Crown. As well, it provides a framework for sharing the proceeds of crime with other law enforcement jurisdictions.
In my riding of Niagara Falls I heard this on a number of occasions in response to questionnaires that I regularly send out to the people. When I asked them this question they said: "Yes, share it with the jurisdictions that are on the front lines and are in the business of seizing the proceeds of crime".
This is a tremendous step in the right direction. It fits in with all the other things the government is doing. Members of the opposition can stand up and say: "We are all in favour of crime prevention. We are tough on crime but we just do not like the things that the government is doing". The government is doing an awful lot in this area.
One bill that will come before Parliament in the next couple of days that I hope will get the support of everyone is the new anti-stalking legislation. It makes it a crime for individuals who want to repeatedly follow and communicate with individuals and put individuals in fear for their safety. That is a step in the right direction. I believe and hope that it will get the support of all hon. members.
June 3, 1993

However, this is just part of it. One of the other things that we are doing, since this whole question of the government's crime prevention strategy has been raised in the House this morning, is allowing for the first time in Canadian law a prohibition order against people who like to molest children. These are convicted paedophiles. We now make it possible for a lifetime ban to be imposed, keeping them from being anywhere near public parks, swimming pools and other places where children frequent.
As well, just last night, not even 12 hours ago, we changed that bill again to affect those individuals who want to participate in voluntary organizations. I am thinking of things like the Boy Scouts and the Big Brothers organizations. We put that in the bill.
All of these things are part of a larger strategy which is to rebalance the system to make sure that victims are protected and that the rights of law-abiding citizens are considered at all times. I look at the proceeds of crime bill as just part of that particular strategy.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys says: "Why with the government motion are you changing the present provisions which state that the proceeds of crime will immediately go to the debt servicing reduction account". This is a laudable goal by the way. The taxpayers in this country are very interested in things going to debt reduction. However he asks why we are changing that to use the wording: "The proceeds of crime shall be credited to such account in the accounts of Canada as is prescribed". This actually gives us some flexibility. We can by regulation then decide if we want different accounts or where we want it to go so that the legislation does not tie our hands and say that it must exclusively go into the debt servicing reduction account.
I will address the point the hon. member made. He said this is the way we should fund crime prevention. Make sure of a certain percentage. In his case the amendment says 30 per cent.
Let us just look at 1992. Let us see how that would work. The figure that was quoted this morning was that the Crown seized $20 million in the profits of crime in 1992. This is not $20 million that we have in our hands to decide what we want to do with it. That is not the case at all. Most people would be aware that when assets are seized we have to effectively manage those assets be-
Government Orders
cause they are still the property of the individual from whom they have been seized. The forfeiture is not final. There are appeal processes. One example was given of a resort seized by the government. We are still within the appeal process and that has been several years.
In fact if we want to talk figures $2 million was forfeited to the Crown in 1992. Consider using the scheme of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam where 30 per cent is directed toward drug prevention.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No. To supplement.


Rob Nicholson: To supplement. I will pick up with what the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys said: "If it goes down one year and up the other then the government will just fill in".
I have news for this House. I do not think it is news to the members who sit on this side. We spend an awful lot more on crime prevention than 30 per cent of $2 million and we spend more than 30 per cent of the $20 million figure that was quoted. Concerning the national strategy on drug prevention, 70 per cent of those millions of dollars committed to that is for reducing demand and trying to get at the source of the problem.
There are many worth-while projects that all of us in this House are aware of which are directed toward the very laudable goal of crime prevention.
A scheme whereby the priority is set that in one year we may have $50 million of assets that are forfeited to the Crown and the next year it is $2 million or zero is not what groups that are in this area would want. It would add an uncertainty as to what they are going to get.
I know that in the land of the NDP, money is never a problem but I believe the groups we are involved with-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Ask the premier of Ontario.


Rob Nicholson: I say that sincerely. I know there is no problem ever with spending money and there is no problem with cash.
I believe we have to plan these things in a manner that is responsible and will be helpful to people who are trying to work in this area and responsible to the taxpayers who are paying us. Say that in one year the Crown seizes $500 million and according to the NDP it is $470 million. If that does not accord with what it is then it says: "Just write a cheque for the extra $30 million. Top it up. Just send the cheque out".

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
I do not think that is a good way to do it. I believe we should evaluate each project that we get involved in to make sure it does the job of reducing the demand for drugs or that it is used for crime prevention. We should be very careful without arbitrarily making up our minds in advance as to how we are going to do this.
I am asking the House to reject the NDP amendment. I believe the government amendment is a more evenhanded approach to this in saying that it may be our decision. We think we can make this amount go here to supplement or replace whatever we have but at least it is open-ended and we are not tying ourselves in with legislation by insisting that it go to the debt reduction account.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.


Mr. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for applying the results of the vote we just had to the government's amendment, but in reverse.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote we just had in reverse?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ouellet:: Madam Speaker, I would like my vote on the second motion to be registered with the opposition.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [English]


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I think you may find unanimous consent in the House to immediately proceed with third reading of this bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, we would be prepared to give our consent provided that either the minister or the parliamentary secretary indicate that they would take seriously the goal of putting proceeds of crime money toward crime prevention in this country, which I think we all agree to in this House because a parliamentary committee, the justice committee, was unanimous.
If the minister or the parliamentary secretary could give some indication I would be pleased to give unanimous consent.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, to follow up on what the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has said, I think it is important in light of the all-party support in the standing committee report on crime prevention that we have some commitment from the government on exactly what it is going to do with the proceeds of crime. The standing committee report calls for the proceeds to go toward crime prevention. We want something from the government to support that and to give us an indication on this very important point.


Pierre Blais: My provincial counterparts and the municipalities, particularly at the symposium on crime prevention last March, agreed on the direction we are going. Negotiations are not yet completed but obviously I am listening to the message I received today and I am very sensitive to those opinions.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, I am astonished that after the amendment proposed by the NDP was negatived, members simply wanted the minister to promise that these amounts may be applied to crime prevention. I think that is unacceptable. Either he is prepared to allocate these amounts to crime prevention, or I refuse to give my consent.


Mr. Attewell:: I wonder if we might hear from the member for Mississauga West who is chairman of the justice committee and has been very involved in this issue.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House was asked to proceed with third reading of the bill. Consent was not given. Is it still the idea of the hon. member for Calgary that we cannot proceed with third reading? No, yes. Would the hon. member please clarify his view? No, yes, does not help me much.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, no, I do not give my consent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent has not been given.


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-125, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those statutes and to repeal certain provisions of those statutes that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Pierre Blais: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-125, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act 1993 is a technical bill which amends a series of federal statutes. These amendments are not controversial. They do not involve the spending of public funds. They do not prejudicially affect the rights of persons and they do not
June 3. 1993

create new offences or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.
The bill corrects anomalies, inconsistencies, archaic expressions and errors in federal statutes and deals exclusively with non-controversial matters.
The bill also repeals statutes that have ceased to have effect. The provisions of this bill were submitted as proposals to the House Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs last February. Both committees have examined the proposals and reported to the House and the Senate. Only proposals which have been unanimously approved by both committees are entered into this bill.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, we did a pre-study in the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General on Bill C-125. We noted the recommendations and made suggestions. We had second reading and then went back to committee and reviewed it.
My party and I find the bill acceptable. As the parliamentary secretary has said, it is really of a technical nature.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we are in agreement with what the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has said. We are in agreement with this bill.
While I am on my feet I would just remind the hon. member from Calgary of a good quote from Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you might just find you get what you need". Maybe he could ponder that a little bit with respect to the proceedings in the House in the last few minutes.
In any case, we are in agreement that Bill C-125 should go through. It is basically technical and cleans up some statutes.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I think if it is simply a bill to clean up statutes it is certainly in order to pass it. I do not know what the justice committee studied but apparently it made some corrections. I suppose they are right.
Government Orders
In answer to what my friend from B.C. said, I think if one has an amendment one has to believe in that amendment. That amendment was defeated and we did not get a commitment from the minister. A commitment from the minister is not worth the paper it is written on therefore I cannot support and give unanimous consent to pass the bill.
As far as the present one goes, I have no problems with its passage.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to use the next few moments to bring something to the attention of this House while speaking on Bill C-125.
A few moments ago we were debating Bill C-123. We dealt with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam and I believe the amendment he was proposing to that bill was good. It was worthy of support. I supported it and so did my colleagues.
All members of Parliament should remember that there is a difference between a good bill and one that is already good which we want to make even better. The bill we were discussing at the time was already good and we wanted to make it better. That amendment was defeated but we still have to work on the premise that the bill was good because we initially said it was.
I live in a riding where smuggling is a terrible problem. It is taking a terrible toll on the constituents of my area. My colleague for Stormont-Dundas who represents a riding in Ontario that adjoins with mine told me of a recent auction sale in Cornwall where 250 cars were sold that had been seized because of smuggling at that port of entry. The fines right now are so low that it is a farce and we need to increase them. We need to do what is necessary to cut down smuggling and hopefully even stop it. Unless we get Bill C-123 passed in the very few days left in this Parliament, we are not going to have that.
We saw the shootings in my riding not that long ago. People were shooting at each other for control of that trade. That is terrible and it is incumbent upon all of us in the few days that we have left to pass that legislation which is so vital. That unanimous consent was refused earlier but I ask all colleagues in the House to take a few minutes to pause and reflect. Just maybe common sense will prevail and consent will be given. We will then debate that legislation and do what is good for the people of Canada and the people who I have the honour and privilege to represent in this House.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, read the third time and passed.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something that is somewhat unusual. I am going to ask for unanimous consent that we revert to the bill that was denied earlier. It is unusual for an opposition member to ask for the unanimous consent to deal with a government bill but I will do that now because of the reasons I have already explained in this House. I hope that compassion and common sense will prevail and we will be able to do what I am asking.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to the House the hon. member for Calgary is quite correct that the motion from the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam was defeated. It specified a percentage of the proceeds of crime that would go to crime prevention and what would stay or otherwise, as directed by the government.
The government motion that was concurred in by the House actually opens up the possibility that the government can direct the proceeds of crime to an account to be decided upon by regulation. That is a change from the original bill that indicated that all funds that came to the Crown must go into the debt reduction account. We made a change to that.
I did not get an opportunity but I should have touched on the report of the standing committee. It had very impressive recommendations. Certainly the minister has an ad hoc committee looking at that. I expect we will probably be getting recommendations as well from the ad hoc committee that advises the minister as to where and how the funds should be spent. I do not want the House to be left with the impression that the door was
closed on this or that this was not an outstanding report by the standing committee on justice.
I think the words of the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell should be heeded by the House. It is an excellent bill, supported on all sides of the House and the window of opportunity for passing something that our constituents have been asking for is very small. I hope all hon. members, in considering this request, will give that unanimous consent so we can move to third reading on this bill.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the hon. member. My experience as a former member on the justice committee is that if it is just left to regulations and the bureaucracy, the advice is never going to be followed to put the money in a fund to reduce our debt or for crime prevention.
If we are serious about this matter and if the government had been serious about this matter, it would have accepted the amendment because it was a good amendment. It was very simple for government members to vote for it because it would have directed 70 per cent of the funds to debt reduction and 30 per cent to crime prevention. If the government is still serious, it still can bring it back and have debate and so on therefore I cannot give my consent.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to recognize that having been reported, there is no longer an option to make further amendments in this room. The other House can amend it if it so chooses. To even delay third reading in no way provides an opportunity for the government to amend the bill.
The only way we could do that is if by unanimous agreement the House reverted to report stage. I am not suggesting we do that. There comes a point in time in which we have to recognize that we tried. We did not get there, so let us move on with it.
I would encourage the hon. member to reconsider whether or not he grants unanimous consent to allow us to move this bill through third reading to get it into the other place so it can be passed into law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.
June 3, 1993


EXPLOSIVES ACT
Marcel Danis: that Bill C-107, an act to amend the Explosives Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address my colleagues in the House of Commons on the occasion of the second reading of Bill C-107, an act to amend the Explosives Act.
First enacted in 1914, the Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which regulates the composition, quality and character of explosive, pyrotechnic substances and articles which contain such substances. The manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage of such substances are also regulated under the Explosives Act. Bill C-107 is a practical piece of legislation with a very clear purpose and I will take a few minutes to elaborate on that statement.
The proposed bill contains five principal provisions. To begin with, the definition of an explosive has been rewritten for greater clarity. Furthermore, dangerous explosives being used for non-explosive purposes may be brought under the act by regulation and innocuous pyrotechnics that are best left unregulated or regulated under other legislation may be excluded by regulation.
An example of a dangerous explosive that would be pulled into the definition would be picric acid, a currently unregulated substance that is more sensitive and powerful than TNT. An example of a relatively harmless pyrotechnic that would be excluded is a Christmas cracker. In addition to improving the definition of an explosive, authority is being sought for the exemption of innocuous items in whole or in part from the provisions of the Explosives Act or regulations.
The net effect of these changes will be to provide the flexibility necessary for the tailoring of the degree of regulation to match the explosive. Instances of overregulation created by the current definition will be eliminated.
Second, another provision of the bill will restrict the possession of certain specialty explosives to particular
Government Orders
individuals or groups. This will add an element of safety to the handling and use of those materials, while at the same time addressing the security issues associated with their distribution. For example, the non-military possession or use of plastic explosives will be restricted except in highly unusual circumstances in police explosive disposal units.
There remains some existing entry and arrest powers of inspectors and peace officers which are viewed to be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will be eliminated. At present inspectors may enter private dwellings without even a suspicion of wrongdoing and without a search warrant. This situation, reminiscent of a much earlier era, is intolerable in the 1990s. In recognition of the current inappropriate authority of inspectors, the changes being sought with this legislation should permit only those powers of entry and arrest which are reasonably required to protect the public from immediate danger.
Another provision of this bill will allow for the stipulation of particular conditions, licences, permits and certificates which are designed to protect property, the public and explosives workers.
Another point is it has been some time since these penalties under the act have been updated. This bill imposes increases in the fines for summary convictions that essentially offset nearly two decades of inflation. Additionally indictable offences with somewhat greater penalties have been introduced for violations which are of a serious nature.
Even with these proposed increases, the penalty structure remains less severe than that associated with other public safety related legislation. This is reflected in the long established consultative approach to regulating the explosives industry that relies on prosecution as a last resort.
In addition to the major provisions that I have just reviewed there are other improvements contained in the bill that merit discussion at this time. This bill also addresses the need to apply safety markings to explosives packages as well as to provide instructions for safe handling, storage and use. Provision for safety related markings and information is clearly of significant importance to the safety of shippers, handlers and end users of explosives products.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
A further enhancement of regulatory authority involves the provision for drafting safety standards for explosives research and large-scale testing as well as for factories and magazine locations. The objective is to create a system that will require careful evaluation from a safety perspective of all operations involving higher risks such as research, testing and manufacture.
A provision to grant inspectors the power to direct the taking of safety measures to remedy contraventions of the act and regulations as it applies to the manufacture, transportation, testing or storage of explosives or the use of fireworks will enable such situations to be resolved efficiently and effectively.
The final proposed change I would like to discuss at this time pertains to charging fees for the testing and authorizing of explosives as well as providing for the recovery of costs associated with the disposal of explosives forfeited to the Crown voluntarily or as a result of a conviction of an offence under the Explosives Act. These changes are felt necessary to eliminate an unfair cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
Consultation is well known as an important exercise in any legislative initiative. I am pleased to say that 44 different bodies were consulted with prior to the tabling of Bill C-107. Federal, provincial and territorial departments, as well as police agencies who were known to have a keen interest in this legislation, were consulted not only directly but through correspondence and other meetings.
The Canadian Explosive Distributors Association, a private sector organization which represents the interests of Canadian explosive manufacturers and distributors, has had an opportunity to examine the contents of Bill C-107. I am happy to say that they are in favour of the proposed changes.
I would like to emphasize that these amendments if passed by Parliament would not have any significant impact on other businesses or private citizens. It is also expected that competitiveness in the explosives industry will be affected in a positive way in that the foundation for regulation will be more clearly stated.
The modernization of the Explosives Act will provide the platform necessary for the complete revision and
reform of the explosives regulations. This will result in a regulatory system that is clear, concise and focused.
The proposed Bill C-107 will allow for a more efficient and effective approach to the control of explosive and pyrotechnic materials in Canada. Such modernization initiatives will contribute to greater public safety with respect to explosive items.
Surely the revisions contained in Bill C-107 are beyond argument. It would be hard to imagine anyone wanting to seriously challenge the proposed amendments which were intended to update a low profile yet important piece of legislation.
I trust that my remarks clearly illustrate that the proposed revisions to Bill C-107 are entirely pragmatic, realistic and beneficial and that they will be readily accepted by both industry and consumers.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-107, the legislation that regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives in addition to their manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage.
Bill C-107 takes into account the significant changes that have occurred in the past 20 years, including the introduction of the charter of rights. It will bring the investigatory and seizure powers into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It will also introduce other significant changes to the regulatory structure. For example, it will provide for restricting the use of certain specialty explosives to specific persons or groups and will allow the minister when issuing a licence to stipulate conditions for the protection of the public and employees. In other words, the legislation would greatly contribute to increased safety conditions of Canadians working with explosives.
As the associate energy critic for my party, I am deeply concerned about safety conditions in our mine sector in general and in coal mining in particular.
For the past months the eyes of the country have been focused on the Westray coal mine in Nova Scotia where 26 miners died tragically in an underground explosion on May 9, 1992. Ever since coal was discovered in Pictou county the price of mining there has been measured in human lives.
June 3, 1993

In recent memory alone there was the early morning explosion in 1979 in Glace Bay where 12 men died. The biggest disaster was at Springhill in 1891 when 125 men and boys were lost in an explosion. The most miraculous incident took place at Springhill again in 1956 where 36 miners were killed but 54 survived more than five days underground.
The Pictou county mines have taken more than 244 lives to date in explosions. To this grim total another 26 names were added last year.
According to historical evidence more than 2,400 lives have been lost in the Nova Scotia coal mines since 1867. Miners died in floods, were asphyxiated, were crushed by the falling rock and coal and were burned in fires and explosions.
Better than anyone else, coal miners know the perils of their profession. One of their remarkable historical achievements has been their ability to enforce rules and regulations to improve the safety of their work place.
It comes as a shocking surprise that safety concerns voiced by miners at Westray were largely ignored by the management. In the 12 months before the fatal explosion in 1992 inspectors from the Nova Scotia labour department recorded dangerous incidents and hazards in 22 reports. At the time of the blast the mine was evidently under orders to bring in a safety plan to prevent coal dust explosion.
Lethal levels of explosive methane gas and coal dust and repeated problems with collapsing roofs were regular safety concerns at the Westray mine. Miners frequently worked in dangerous conditions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as the mine struggled to meet production quotas. Many coal mines operate five days a week devoting the other two days to maintenance and servicing.
Many experienced miners left Westray for safety reasons. As one of them put it: "There were crews that said their prayers of thanks every night when they came up out of the mine. They had made it to another day".
According to evidence seized by the RCMP many reports written at the time by maintenance staff dealt with safely problems. The statement obtained from the employees further indicates that company officials were
Government Orders
aware of safety concerns yet ordered employees to work in hazardous conditions. At the approach of the disaster's anniversary, there are no real answers yet to what happened, only more and more questions.
Another controversial case comes to mind in connection with safety measures at mine sites such as the Giant Yellowknife gold mine where nine miners were killed in a massive underground explosion last year. As a bitter strike had been bubbling over for months there was speculation that commercial explosives used in mining operations were used in a booby trap. On September 1 dynamite was planted in a building used to pump fresh air to underground workers. A week after, dynamite was used to blow up a nearby television satellite dish.
Employees sought among other things improved safety standards such as a ban on transporting explosives with workers no matter how much time or money it might save. The union claimed it believed the men were travelling through the mine with 20-kilogram bags containing powdered nitrogen mixed with diesel fuel and two boxes of detonators. While the town lived in a state of terror, confusion and anger for four months, the company did not know if it had been missing any explosives from its many underground depots because it did not keep track of the powder once it was in the mine.
If the introduced legislation helps eliminate this sort of negligence it would considerably diminish risks related to dealing with explosives at the workplace.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that safety conditions are among many other issues challenging our vital mining sector. Mining today, which accounts for about 4.4 per cent of Canada's gross national product and supports about 330,000 direct and indirect jobs, faces serious difficulties because of existing federal-provincial tax policies, environmental assessment and regulations and problems of land access and security of tenure, all of which create major investment uncertainty.
Mining exploration spending for instance is at its lowest in a decade. It fell in 1991 to $646 million from $751 million in 1990 and $1.3 billion in 1988. Generally, reserves of many of Canada's metals have dropped significantly since the early 1980s. For instance proven and probable reserves of copper, nickel and zinc were almost two-thirds of those reported in 1981 while lead was down to 60 per cent of its 1981 level.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
For the first time in recent history, mineral production is exceeding reserve additions and opportunities for mineral exploration and development continue to be squeezed. Mineral exploration is of course high risk and a high dollar is attached. It is very important that mineral exploration in Canada be returned to high levels to replace depleting reserves but this is only possible if sufficient incentives are provided to attract investment to the high risks of mineral exploration. Without steps toward rejuvenating the Canadian mineral industry it faces a future in which its position as a world class producer would be in jeopardy.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is consent to do all stages of Bill C-107 including Committee of the Whole to complete consideration of this bill today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Carried.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to say a few words about Bill C-107, an act to amend the Explosives Act.
The present Explosives Act has not been updated for almost 20 years and this bill modernizes the existing act. The main focus is on bringing investigatory and seizure powers into line with the charter and clarifying and modifying various provisions, including the definition of explosives. Let me concentrate initially on just one aspect of this bill as I think it presents a very real concern.
It is a fact that Bill C-107 does not contain WHMIS-style protection for workers handling explosives. The government has given assurances that such concerns will be addressed through the regulations of this bill. I would like to explain this point by backtracking a bit.
In June 1987 amendments to the Hazardous Products Act or HPA, were passed to establish the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System or WHMIS as it is known in the work place.
WHMIS is a national system created to provide Canadian workers with information on the proper handling of hazardous materials in the work place with the purpose of reducing accidents, illness and injuries. WHMIS is founded on a consensus reached by industry, labour and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. WHMIS legislation came into force in October 1988.
As a condition of selling and importing hazardous work place material the Hazardous Products Act requires two conditions from suppliers. Suppliers must label containers and they must provide hazard information through detailed documents called material safety data sheets or MSDS.
At the same time complementaiy federal, provincial and territorial occupational safety and health legislation imposes similar requirements on employers. Employers are required to label hazardous materials used or stored in the work place. They have to make material safety data sheets available to workers and they are required to provide worker education programs.
The Hazardous Products Act contains a number of exclusions, one of which is explosives, thus explosives are not covered by WHMIS protection. These exclusions were required to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations with a report to be presented in April 1992.
Recommendations were developed on the basis of a need to continue the exclusions and whether the objectives of WHMIS were being met. When WHMIS was implemented it was felt that explosives could be excluded because workers were protected by other legislation such as the Explosives Act and its regulations, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and its regulations, and provincial mining and labour acts dealing with safety.
This was endorsed by the groups making representations to the standing committee but they wanted to ensure that the explosives industry would comply. They could not reach consensus on whether this was best achieved by bringing explosives under the Hazardous Products Act or amending the regulations under the Explosives Act.
June 3, 1993

The explosives manufacturers felt that hazards posed by explosives were unique and best addressed outside of WHMIS. The continuation of the exclusion with amendments to the Explosives Act received support from the chief inspector of explosives who noted that specialized knowledge was required for the proper administration of safety legislation.
The Canadian Labour Congress recommended that a parallel hazard information system should not be created for explosives. Others such as the Ontario Ministry of Labour agreed saying that a single system under the Hazardous Products Act would simplify administration and enforcement.
There was disagreement however from some Canadian explosives manufacturers. These manufacturers recommended that WHMIS-type information for explosives be provided under the Explosives Act. Bringing explosives under WHMIS according to them could result in less prominence being given to important information and about the explosive characteristics of a product and the possible confusion of different types of hazard information.
Also these manufacturers felt that the explosives branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that currently regulates explosives would be best to administer WHMIS-type provisions for explosives. The different sectors agreed that worker protection was needed for those handling explosives. It was how best to provide that protection where there was a disagreement.
The choices are to either remove explosives from the WHMIS exclusions, thus bringing it under the Hazardous Products Act, or amend the regulations of the Explosives Act, thus creating a separate system specifically for explosives.
Although consensus in the exclusion review process was not reached, the standing committee did make a number of recommendations for amending the explosives regulations. The committee felt that while a consistent national hazardous information system was preferable to a proliferation of parallel systems, the Explosives Act was the better vehicle for dealing with the unique characteristics of explosives.
Government Orders
Two strong points support this. One is that the explosives industry wishes to deal with a single regulatory body and the other is that a great deal of expertise is necessary to regulate explosives.
The recommendations of the standing committee are that WHMIS-type labelling and material safety data sheets be instituted for explosives; explosives continue to be excluded from the provisions of part II of the Hazardous Products Act and the recommendations of the sectoral committee on explosives be implemented under the Explosives Act and regulations.
The standing committee also dealt with another aspect. It was determined that there was potential for problems to arise if explosives were regulated as hazardous waste. According to the committee report the chief inspector of explosives felt that the regulation of explosives should be consistent throughout their life cycle. Hazards could occur if explosives were shipped as waste and therefore not subject to the safety measures identified in the Explosives Act and regulations. Thus the committee made a third recommendation that substances and articles that are explosives within the meaning of the Explosives Act not be classified as waste.
In a response dated May 12, 1993 to the standing committee's report, the government agreed to implement the latter two recommendations with assistance from a tripartite working group made up of representatives from industry, labour and occupational health and safety regulators. However on the first recommendation that WHMIS-type labelling and material safety data sheets be instituted for explosives, the government response states: "Only the intent of WHMIS and not the existing formats can be adopted".
I believe this intent must be reflected and strengthened in the regulations to Bill C-107.1 hope that as we enter into the clause by clause review in Committee of the Whole the government will be able to respond positively to this request.
Those are my comments at the moment. I may have something more to add once we get to third reading later today.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.

Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and by uninimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: House is in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-107, an act to amend the Explosives Act.
Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, on the title, I wonder if I can put a question to the minister with regard to the request from the standing committee which recommended that WHMIS-type labelling and material safety data sheets be instituted for explosives. The government's response which was dated May 12 was that only the intent of WHMIS and not the existing formats can be adopted.
I wonder if the minister can explain to the House why it is not possible to take an already existing mechanism, for example the forms that are provided under WHMIS, and through regulations adopt them for explosives handling for those workers who are exposed to it.
If the minister is not in a position himself to provide that technical answer I wonder if he would undertake to review the specific request of the standing committee and, as it is drafting the regulations, see if there is a way an existing form which is known and used well by people can be adopted rather than trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak to accommodate an existing act.
I wonder if the minister could give consideration to accepting the recommendation of the standing committee's report that asked that WHMIS-type labelling and material safety data sheets be instituted for explosives. As I remind the minister, it was only the intent that was accepted.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in my previous incarnation as Minister of
Transport I had some dealings with the issue of packaging and transportation of dangerous goods.
My hon. friend makes an eminently sensible comment when he suggests that I undertake to ask that any regulations be written with the view of using existing, well understood forms and I would presume wording. Since the issue is really the safety of people, whether they are workers on the job or workers trying to clean up an accident, I have no difficulty whatsoever in giving the undertaking of the government to keep the intent issue in mind when regulations are being drafted.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, since the acting minister is the Solicitor General as well, I wonder if this legislation would have been beneficial in preventing the kind of action that occurred in Giant Yellowknife where a number of lives were lost. I wonder whether the strengthening of the Explosives Act would be beneficial in preventing that kind of incident again since he obviously would be aware of the investigation and details of that tragic event.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in my present incarnation as Solicitor General I am not in a position to make any comment on whether or not these changes would have had any effect on the incident in Yellowknife mines.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the bill be concurred in at the report stage.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
June 3, 1993


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third lime and passed.
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the House was so efficient this morning that we have more or less finished consideration of all bills on the Order Paper. I therefore suggest we call it one o'clock. I also wish to give notice to the House that after Question Period, at three o'clock, we will call Bill C-128, on child pornography.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The silting of the House is therefore suspended until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.41 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, the help wanted index is one indication of economic recovery. The index went up eight points in May, and StatsCan said yesterday that at 95. it was the index's best performance since it dropped to 85, which was 15 months ago.
A significant sign of future labour demand, the index measures changes in the number of help wanted ads published in 20 of our major urban centres. The help wanted index has gone up 9 per cent in Quebec, and the figures show a 17 per cent increase in Quebec between May 1992 and May 1993.


CANADIAN CROSSROADS INTERNATIONAL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, today we are pleased to welcome in the House of Commons a delegation of international representatives from more than 25 countries here to participate with Canadian volunteers in Canadian Crossroads International's 1993 international consultation.
These representatives and their counterparts across Canada are part of a dynamic organization which is giving a uniquely Canadian expression to the pursuit of a goal which we all share, that of greater understanding, harmony and equality among the world's peoples and cultures.
[Stage Direction]
Every year, Canadian Crossroads International sends some 300 participants to 30 countries, to work on education, health care and community development projects. The experience is unforgettable and is often the beginning of what may become a lifetime commitment.
[Stage Direction]
As a former crossroader to Zambia in 1975 I share membership in this special family with our colleague, the leader of the New Democratic Party, more than 3,500 Canadians and more than 1,000 citizens from developing countries around the world.
Since 1970 Crossroads has received more than $18 million from the Canadian government for which the volunteers expressed their gratitude this week.
This public support combined with private sector donations-
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member as the member's time has expired.


THE AUDIOTHEQUE
Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I would like to wish the team at the Audiotheque du Quebec a happy 10th birthday. In 1983, this project was designed, created and developed by Pierre Schram and Sylvie Ouellet, who are visually impaired, as a Canada community development project. The main objective was to provide an audio information service for the visually impaired.

June 3, 1993
Ten years later, the Audiotheque has maintained that focus by providing access to information found in newspapers, magazines and folders; by helping the visually impaired with their correspondence, and by showing them how to use existing services and where to find these resources.
The type of services now offered by the Audiotheque is very diverse and covers all aspects of human activity. I say three cheers for the Audiotheque team and its many volunteers who are living proof that the volunteer spirit consists in helping others and enhancing the well-being of those around us.
*	4=	4<


PENDER ISLAND
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell you a David and Goliath story. David is the Pender Island residents who did not want a communications tower erected on their beautiful island. Goliath is Rogers Cantel, which went against the wishes of local residents and local government, received a building permit through dubious circumstances and erected its tower. Now the decision rests with Communications Canada. Will the tower stay or go?
The department has asked the parties to resolve their differences within 60 days before a final decision is made. In the meantime, Cantel is using the tower because it has already had assurances from the federal government that the tower will be staying.
It has no incentive to bargain with the local folks. After all, it knows the Conservative government, in true Tory fashion, is already secretly on its side.
1 raised this matter in the House only two days ago, urging the minister to prevent Goliath from stamping all over tiny David.
Unfortunately the minister chose to slip away and issued a temporary licence, content that the profits of a corporation would, as usual, triumph-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, Canadians have endured a great deal of change over the last while but, as the latest economic reports show, we are beginning to reap our just rewards.
Both the OECD and the IMF have forecast that Canada will lead the G-7 in growth both in 1993 and 1994. As well, both organizations show that Canada's inflation rate of 1.8 per cent is one of the lowest among all of the industrialized nations.
Other signs of improvement include the GDP, which rose in the first quarter of 1993 by an amazing annual rate of 4 per cent, and job creation, as 69,000 new jobs were created in the same first quarter.
The job creation is almost solely the result of the free trade agreement, which in 1992 saw exports to the U.S. reach a record high level of $122.3 billion. That is $19.6 billion more than it was in 1988.
The facts are clear. New jobs are being created and the economy is on the rise. Canada is well on its way to new prosperity-


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


SAFE GRAD
Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, high school graduations are upon us.
Graduating parties will be taking place throughout the month. Students could choose to have an alcohol and drug-free party, and that is an option I hope they would consider. However they could also consider another option, the Safe Grad program.
Safe Grad combines students' graduation celebrations with realistic measures to prevent accidents and other problems associated with drinking and driving. It is a student-run program that is geared toward the needs and wishes of individual schools.
June 3, 1993

The aim of the program is to enable graduates to have their graduation parties but to ensure that others look after transportation afterwards.
I am most impressed with the actions of the students of Manitoba and their support for Safe Grad and would like to take this opportunity to commend their actions.
I recommend it as an option to all Canadian students. I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members to wish all graduates a safe and happy graduation.


VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, this past week the government introduced a new law to protect the public from dangerous offenders. This initiative is in response to the clear consensus among Canadians that the government must have the power to keep violent offenders in custody as long as their release poses a serious threat to society.
This legislation makes it possible for the courts to detain dangerous high-risk offenders beyond their original sentences and prevent them from committing more violent acts against innocent Canadians, especially women and children.


FINANCE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, over the past two days the hearings of the finance committee have been very interesting.
Two days ago the deputy minister of finance, David Dodge, stated that in retrospect the Bank of Canada made some mistakes with its high interest rate, inflation fighting policy. It began too late and went on for too long.
Yesterday, when confronted with this evidence, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, disagreed with David Dodge, the deputy minister of finance. He said that he would have to have a talk with Mr. Dodge.
It is very unique to have the deputy minister of finance saying something different from the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Whose side is the government on? Who speaks for the Government of Canada? Is it the Governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, or the deputy minister of finance, David Dodge?
The time has come for the government to resign and call an election so that we can have new ideas and a new government that will put the people of this country back to work.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, today is the ninth anniversary of the military attack on the Darbar Sahib, the Golden Temple.
All people abhor the ongoing communal violence from which thousands of men, women and children have been killed. Canada should encourage the UN Secretary General to take an active role in the creation of a lasting peace in India and in the Punjab.
The Canadian government should fulfil its stated commitment to link aid to a recipient country's record on human rights. It is imperative that we seek non-violent solutions to these problem areas.
When we are speaking about incidents at home or abroad Canadians should be sending the message that non-violent solutions must be found. The use of violence to achieve political ends is totally unacceptable.
We must continue to encourage the Indian government and all sides involved in the conflict to explore avenues to bring about a peaceful resolution to the ongoing violence.


THE GREAT LAKES
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, considering that 25 per cent of all Canadians draw their water from the Great Lakes it is shocking to learn from a new study that in 1990 American manufacturing plants pumped more than 680 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the Great Lakes. That was down from 750 million pounds in 1989 because of lower production brought on by the recession.
The three worst offenders in the eight states bordering the Great Lakes were the 3M Corporation in Minnesota, GE Plastics in Indiana and Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York.

June 3, 1993
Occidental Chemical Corporation of Niagara Falls, New York, infamous for its association with the Love Canal, the Hyde Park chemical dump, the S Area dump and the 102nd Street dump, was not far behind.
Is it any wonder we are having trouble cleaning up the Great Lakes?


CAMBODIA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, in spite of violence and intimidation the people of Cambodia turned out by the millions last week to participate in that country's national elections.
These were the first free and fair elections in 14 years of civil war in Cambodia. Despite the threat of disruption by the Khmer Rouge this event paves the way for a new constitution through elected government.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris and I were both proud to serve as electoral observers of UNTAC, the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, but we were not the only ones from Canada participating in this tremendous international effort. Over 330 Canadians served as UN civilian volunteers, peacekeepers, or as electoral officials supplied by Elections Canada.
In view of the fact that eight UN officials were killed and another 32 were wounded before the election commenced I call upon this House to salute the braveiy of all the Canadian women and men who put their lives on the line in the name of humanity and democracy.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, May 31 marked the beginning of National Access Awareness Week, a time to focus on the concerns and aspirations of persons with disabilities.
National Access Awareness Week is a partnership, involving the government, disabled communities, voluntary organizations, business and corporate sponsors, committed to removing barriers for the 4.2 million Canadians with disabilities.
National Access Awareness Week encourages communities to evaluate their levels of accessibility in the areas of transportation, housing, employment, recreation and education, to foster greater public awareness of existing barriers and to take action to dismantle them.
As we observe this special week I invite all hon. members to renew their commitment to a Canada in which persons with disabilities are full and equal social partners.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, it takes a lot of work to change old ways but it would seem that the B.C. government is doing that with new forestry legislation.
The government is introducing a new forest practices code and is building into its plans for the Clayoquot area reduced clear cuts, public input into planning, a model forest and a UNESCO biosphere reserve.
It is appropriate to raise this matter today given the tabling of the forestry minister's annual report to Parliament. Regrettably, at the same time the federal government, by giving notice of its intentions to allow forest agreements to expire, is taking a step backward in the role it can play in the sustainable development of our forests.
We are all making an effort to better manage our forests and we ask the federal government to rethink its plans for scrapping the FRDAs and to work toward better forest management with all participants in our forest community.


SAINT JOHN RIVER SOCIETY
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, the Saint John River has frequently been called the Rhine of America. It flows through hundreds of miles of countryside in New Brunswick, Quebec, and Maine. It binds tens of thousands of citizens together in a state of international and intercultural friendship.
June 3, 1993

I want to recognize the formation of the Saint John River Society which will celebrate the existence of this wonderful resource and foster appreciation of its history and its potential.
The inauguration of this society will be marked on June 24, 389 years after the naming of the river by Samuel de Champlain and Sieur Demonts.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I would like to read the following headlines: "Factory output climbs- Canada leads industrial nations", "Canada bucks global economic trend", "Canadian economic growth hits two-year high", and "Canada poised to top G-7 growth".
It is no coincidence that the nine years preceding these newspaper headlines contained the tough choices and the real commitment to long-term economic prosperity which today are so popularly criticized.
What evidence exists to persuade Canadians that our economic strategy is on the right track? As we proceed from a cyclical economic downturn which is global in scope, growth in Canada's manufacturing output is stronger than that of any other major industrialized nation. At 4 per cent Canada's GDP growth has been steadily rising since January 1991, and in the first quarter of 1993 it was four times higher than that in the United States.
With the prediction that the Canadian economy will grow faster than that of any other major industrialized nation the OECD said yesterday that recovery in Canada-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the member's time has expired.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is graduation time again. Across Canada thousands and thousands of students will graduate this year.
Many of those students will graduate with a debt load of approximately $15,000 to $20,000. The job market that existed 30 or 40 years ago is no longer there. Graduating from high school or university is no longer the happy occasion it used to be for family members, including the grandparents.
Oral Questions
Take for instance what this government has done over the past few years. Last year it increased by $3 million the funds for the Summer Employment and Experience Development program. That was a drop in the bucket for a student unemployment rate at 18 per cent and more.
This year the government has only added $5 million which leaves the funding for the program at approximately $88 million. That is away below the 1985 figures.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, the United States administration has stated that NAFTA will not be implemented without environmental and labour side agreements enforced by trade sanctions.
However yesterday after his meeting with President Clinton, the Prime Minister stated that trade sanctions are "totally unacceptable to Canada". The logic of this position is that Canada will either have to accept U.S. demands or refuse to proclaim NAFTA.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. Is the government prepared to walk away from NAFTA over the trade sanctions issue? Yes or no?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, what I indicated yesterday in Washington is that we would not accept amendments to the North American free trade agreement that impinged upon the sovereignty of Canada. If my hon. friend is suggesting something otherwise on behalf of the Liberal Party, then he ought to tell the House of Commons if that is his position.
I indicated we would not accept this and that I could not understand the logic of anybody proposing that trade sanctions be used with a view to destroying a dispute settlement mechanism which is the causa causans of the trade agreement in the first place. That being said, I expressed the hope and the belief that this could be worked out by way of negotiations and that appears to be the case.

Oral Questions
President Clinton indicated to me yesterday and to the media that he fully expected that NAFTA would pass the American Congress.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to answer the Prime Minister's questions on another occasion. Today of course we are asking the Prime Minister to explain to the Canadian people what the policy of Canada is.
The Prime Minister must be aware that in the NAFTA negotiations a year ago Canada proposed an investment chapter which would have made any infringement subject to binding resolution. In other words, Canada itself proposed trade sanctions, an idea which the Bush administration subsequently rejected.
Why has the government reversed its position on sanctions? Why did Canada promote the idea of sanctions last year only to state that they are unacceptable today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is of course inadvertently distorting the position of the government. That happens so infrequently with him that I will not ask him to withdraw.
I do not know why he is so concerned about the well-being of the United States in regard to this. It seems to be quite able to look after itself-


Rex Crawford: More so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says more so. Then he will be pleased to hear that Mickey Kantor, the United States trade representative, a few hours ago in Paris said that there was reason for optimism about resolving the sanctions dispute. "We are making progress", he told American reporters at a private luncheon. "We have narrowed our differences on this point".
The hon. member can stop worrying about the Americans, his friends. They are saying things are okay.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, it is not a question of the Prime Minister answering for the United States. The question we are posing to the Prime Minister is: What is the Canadian position?
Basically the government's position has been that nothing in the side accords impinges or influences the
treaty itself. That is why the government railroaded NAFTA through the House of Commons. It pushed it through the House of Commons without adequate discussion by the Canadian people.
The government knows that only last month the United States said that NAFTA would be modified and interpreted by the environmental and labour side accords which are not yet negotiated.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that this confirms that NAFTA itself will be changed by the negotiation of the two side accords? In those circumstances, why did he push NAFTA through the House of Commons?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I pushed NAFTA through the House of Commons because the House of Commons wanted to pass the legislation.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I walked into the House one day and
the House rose up at once and said: "We want to pass NAFTA". So we went ahead and passed NAFTA.
Yesterday President Clinton said on NAFTA: "I think we can pass it with a very concerted effort, if the Congress has some assurances on the environmental and labour issues". We are ready to provide assurances on the environmental and labour issues. We are not ready to provide assurances that could be construed as an impingement on the sovereignty of Canada. We will not surrender the sovereignty of Canada. This government never has and never will.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is increasingly obvious that Canada was short-changed in the free trade agreement with the United States. There is plenty of evidence. Last week, it was durum wheat. This week, it's steel. Now that we know that the Americans are manipulating the trade rules to a shocking degree and that the Mexicans will be even more opportunistic, why does the government not first negotiate the same rules for all three partners before adopting NAFTA?

June 3, 1993


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the hon. member from Montreal says that Canada was short-changed in the negotiations with Mexico and the United States. That should come as a real surprise to the U.S. Congress. It is reluctant to endorse and sign the free trade agreement, and so are Ross Perot and the U.S. labour unions. They are saying publicly in the United States that Canada was so clever it obtained practically everything it wanted in these negotiations, and so did Mexico. We say that we got results that were good for us and for all three parties. So my friend should know that in the United States, the Americans are being accused of giving in too much to the Canadians and the Mexicans, which should be music to the ears of the hon. member for LaSalle- Emard.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, Mr. Perot was talking about Mexico, but I can understand how this Prime Minister might get the countries mixed up.
If you look at durum wheat or Canadian steel, the fact is that the Americans are running roughshod over this government.
In yesterday's decision on wire rod, for example, the Americans nailed Canada to the wall. But then miracle of miracles, they exempted Trinidad because that country was part of the Caribbean basin initiative.
This Prime Minister says he knows how to negotiate. Why was it that even Trinidad in the CBI was able to negotiate a better deal for its steel mills than was mighty Canada in the free trade agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now he
is picking on Trinidad. I tell you. Madam Speaker, with these Liberals, nobody is safe.
Since the free trade agreement, Canadian exports to the United States have increased by approximately 25 per cent. Our job creation is up as a result of many billions of dollars of new exports to the United States.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Steel mills in Trinidad, Brian. That is the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The fact of the matter is that most countries would give their eye teeth to have a dispute
Oral Questions
settlement mechanism such as the one we have with the United States of America.
It has served us extremely well. Canada has won more disputes under the independent dispute settlement mechanism than the United States has. It has been extremely advantageous to us. It gives Canada an instrument no one else has.
My hon. friend has some background in business. He knows full well how advantageous the free trade agreement is. He knows how advantageous the North American free trade agreement is.
Although it would not happen in my lifetime, if ever the Liberals formed a government, long after I am gone to the great beyond, decades and decades from now, even the Liberals would rise up and support the free trade agreement and NAFTA.


POVERTY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, last week the United Nations released its third report in as many months criticizing this government's social policies. That report harshly criticized the government for making no measurable progress on alleviating poverty or the severity of poverty.
My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will know that social groups and the poor themselves have been saying the same thing. Now even the government's own advisory board, the National Council of Welfare, has concluded in its report that: "Clearly the federal government has contributed to the financial plight of welfare recipients''.
Poverty is on the rise. The National Council of Welfare, the government's own advisory board, has said that the government is part of the problem.
When will this government change its social and economic policies? When will it become part of the solution, rather than part of problem?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Madam Speaker, I could quarrel with the results of those two reports but I will not. I will say that there is no member in this House who is not concerned about poverty in Canada. It is one of the reasons that last year this government spent so much money on initiatives relating to children.

June 3, 1993
Oral Questions
In the last budget we did not cut transfers to individuals who had those particular problems. However, Canada, like all industrialized countries, has faced a recession and has faced tough times in terms of jobs and so on.
As I believe we are now coming into a new reality, we will continue to improve on what we have done. Once again, as other countries have done, Canada must face reality.
Even though I have great respect for the UN report, I believe that it does not refer particularly to what has been done in Canada since 1991.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is not just the UN. The government's own advisory board has told the government that it is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Surely it is time the government listened to its own advisors.
The National Council of Welfare also said something we all know as well, that social assistance rates across Canada are far below the poverty line. I do not have to remind the minister that the Canada Assistance Plan Act requires social assistance rates to be adequate to ensure the basic requirements of food, shelter, clothing, fuel and so on.
Given the clear statement in the act, when will the government take the necessary steps to ensure that the basic needs of 2.8 million Canadians, men, women and children are met? When will the government act to reduce poverty rather than create poverty?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier in English. The Government of Canada has introduced a number of measures to try and deal with the problem of poverty in this country, which has increased-I agree with the hon. member-while bearing in mind our current economic constraints.
As for the report by the National Council of Welfare, I think the hon. member should explain that the Council stresses a number of facts that relate directly to the responsibility of the provinces. It is not up to the federal government to do the provinces' job, although the federal government has continued to transfer increasing amounts for social assistance.
Last year, for instance, over $7.3 billion was transferred, and these amounts are increasing steadily, but, I repeat, always in proportion to our current ability to meet these obligations, considering our budgetary constraints.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister finally recognizes that poverty is on the increase in Canada. It is about time this government recognized that.
If I can relate a slightly different question. The minister will know about the controversy of poverty lines being generated by his colleague, the chair of the subcommittee on poverty. She wants to redefine poverty rather than do anything to fix it.
The National Council of Welfare has said: "It regards the Statistics Canada low income cut-offs as poverty lines". Will the minister take this opportunity to publicly indicate that he accepts the view of the National Council of Welfare and repudiates the view of the member for Don Valley North?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, first, if the member had been in the House he would know that many times I have said that poverty is a problem for this government. It is not the first time I have said that.
Second, I do not want to deal with a report which has not yet been tabled by the committee. When the report is received, we will deal with it.
In the meantime I believe that we have to do the best we can with regard to poverty in Canada. We have done and will continue to do that in regard to that capacity that we have to do something.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On two occasions in the last week the government has denied any wrongdoing in the decision by the Minister of the Environment to provide $200,000 in untendered contracts to Mr. David Small, the minister's current leadership campaign manager.
June 3, 1993

In addition to Mr. Small, I now have information that at least five other contract employees in the Department of the Environment's green plan operations group were involved in organizing a leadership campaign prior to the leadership being called and while these five additional employees were still on the public payroll.
What action is the Prime Minister prepared to take to investigate this improper use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize a Tory leadership campaign?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is usually casting aspersions and slurs without having the facts.
Individuals who work for the government on contract or otherwise on their own time, after hours when they are not working, are free to do whatever they want. They can get involved in campaign activities on behalf of Conservatives, Liberals or NDPers. There is no restriction on that.
It is quite improper for the hon. member to slur these admittedly unnamed individuals at this point and to suggest there is something morally wrong with them getting involved in politics in their own free time.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, the minister would be interested in knowing that in addition to Mr. Small, the campaign manager who received the $200,000 contract, Mr. Tim Ralfe, the director of communications for the Minister of the Environment's campaign, was also on contract. Mr. Mitch Patten, the director of delegate tracking, was also on a contract and three others I will not name here and now.
I want to say to the minister it is very clear that an entire campaign organization was being run out of the Jules Leger building on the 14th floor in Hull in advance of the leadership campaign and the minister knows that is an improper use of taxpayer funds.
What action is the minister prepared to take to ensure that the taxpayers see recovered funds improperly spent without their consent or permission?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is totally false in his accusation. I would ask him to read this week's Maclean's magazine. He will see that when the Minister of the
Oral Questions
Environment got on a bus to go to Sherbrooke he still had not made up his mind whether he was going to announce his candidacy.
The moment he announced his candidacy neither Mr. Ralfe nor Mr. Small had received any remuneration. I have looked into the other members. The hon. member is totally and absolutely false and irresponsible in his accusations.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. What we are talking about here is not what people do in their spare time. We are talking about people getting untendered contracts from this government against Treasury Board rules and then going on, if not at the same time, to work in the leadership campaign. That is the issue.
Will the Prime Minister, in the last few days that he is in office, for once stand on behalf of the people of Canada rather than on behalf of Tory leadership hopefuls?


Harvie Andre: What I would like to see in the last few days of this Parliament is the hon. member acting responsibly. He keeps making the totally false accusation that Treasury Board guidelines were violated. They were not.
He knows that Mr. Small's contract was in respect of the Rio summit and that as a result of the work he did there the post-summit activities were also contacted to him. He knows that in fact as soon as he assumed the position with Mr. Charest's campaign he ceased receiving any remuneration from the government. He also knows if he is being fair and honest, that Mr. Charest himself did not know until virtually hours before his own announcement.
To suggest that the guidelines were broken is a totally false accusation. To suggest there is something inappropriate here is to suggest there is something wrong with that hon. member's mind.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, only a week ago today the Prime Minister made similar accusations against me. The person about whom he had to retract later on was forced to resign.

Oral Questions
I want to ask the person who is answering questions now, the government House leader-

-is he denying today that the contracts were awarded to Mr. Small in violation of Treasury Board regulations? Is he telling us that awarding such contracts is a perfectly legitimate procedure in this government? Is he telling us that Treasury Board approves this kind of procedure? If so, I suggest he talk to his colleague two seats down!


Harvie Andre: I am saying again, as has been said in this House several times, that the accusation by the hon. member of violation of Treasury Board guidelines is false.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Last Friday the federal government unilaterally dumped responsibility for 10,000 treaty Indian people receiving social assistance from Indian Affairs on to the provincial welfare system in Saskatchewan.
This move is causing organizational chaos, all kinds of stress and anxiety for society's most vulnerable families, and amounts to a $25 million off-load on to the already beleaguered taxpayers of Saskatchewan.
Can the minister tell us today that he is reversing this utterly callous and irresponsible move?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the government has been trying to persuade the province of Saskatchewan for over two years to accept the realignment of constitutional responsibility for native social services programming off reserve on the following basis.
All provinces have a responsibility under the Constitution for health and social services to all Canadians living within their precincts. This has been upheld by the courts. Of reserve the province of Saskatchewan has responsibility for social services for aboriginal and nonaboriginal persons without discrimination, and we intend
to use funding to enhance the programs on reserve to the equivalent level.


Raymond John Funk: Just because the government has managed to off-load its fiduciary responsibility on to other provinces does not make it right in Saskatchewan, and especially not the way it was done here.
My supplementary is for the Prime Minister. In the last budget the government cut the budget for Indian economic development by 28 per cent. It eliminated the rural and native housing program for Metis people and off reserve Indians and it failed again to address the chronic housing shortage that has been well documented in our Indian communities.
Therefore I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the deliberate policy of this government to force Indian people out of their communities by denying them jobs and housing and then to shirk any responsibility for them at all in the communities that receive them? Is this his policy or does it just look that way?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in terms of the preamble to the question about off-loading, the federal government pays 50 cents of every dollar contributed to health and social services for all residents in Saskatchewan, notwithstanding the fact that it is a 100 per cent provincial responsibility.
In terms of the federal budget for aboriginal programs, it now exceeds $5 billion. There was a $350 million increase in the last budget. There is a $347 million allocation to economic development, and the International Labour Organization-interestingly enough-recently found that Canada is one of the few nations in the world that has made significant progress on behalf of native peoples.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that yesterday on both sides of the House there was an expression of how heartsick Canadians are about the continuing slaughter in the former Yugoslavia and in the lack of action by the world community to stop that.
June 3, 1993

Yesterday in Washington, after his meeting with the President, the Prime Minister was suggesting that the United States might be sending troops under a new UN resolution. There is a new UN resolution presently being looked at by the Security Council today and to be voted on tomorrow which proposes:
That the UN would take necessary measures including the use of
force to stop attacks against all civilians.
Is this the kind of UN resolution that the Prime Minister was referring to? Does Canada support this resolution? Are we prepared to see the mandate of our own troops in Bosnia be changed in order to be able to protect civilians as this resolution suggests?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, yes, we support the resolution which is presently being debated before the Security Council because, along with my hon. friend, I think most Canadians are dissatisfied and dispirited with the lack of progress in bringing to a halt this murderous civil war in the Balkans.
That being said, I just point out to my hon. friend that I did not indicate yesterday that this resolution would be required for the United States to dispatch troops. They are quite capable of dispatching troops themselves without a United Nations resolution. They might choose to do so for example in Macedonia. That signal itself might be deemed to be positive.
Clearly the ultimate resolution of this must come through a new resolution from the Security Council of the United Nations particularly in regard to countries such as Canada which has already deployed thousands of peacekeepers on the terrain in the former Yugoslavia.
We are supportive of what is going on at the United Nations. The Secretary of State for External Affiars and I continue to work very closely with our ambassador, Madame Frechette, at the United Nations to see if we can be helpful in this process.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, with Canada's support of this resolution and looking at its potential or the fact that it will be voted upon tomorrow, considering that there is only a week left in this Parliament before we close for the Conservative convention, can we get an undertaking from the Prime Minister that the government will bring into the Flouse a clear resolution that will mandate a change in the
Oral Questions
responsibilities and rules of engagement of any Canadian forces to fit this new resolution?
Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be very important that before we authorized Canadian UN peacekeeping troops to use force that it be approved by the Canadian people through their Parliament?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, many of the important points contained in the Security Council resolution today my hon. friend will find in a speech that I made in London a number of weeks ago in regard not only to the Security Council action, but the role of the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada might play in this.
We have some 2,500 peacekeepers on the ground now. Their protection and their safety is the prime concern of the Government of Canada. If there is going to be a change in their assignment or if the United Nations or any member thereof is going to undertake unilateral action that could compromise the well-being of those Canadians and other peacekeepers, we obviously want this to go to the Security Council for a new resolution.
The only manner in which there can be a change in our position is if it is blessed by the Security Council of the United Nations.
My hon. friend's position is not unreasonable. If we have the opportunity and if it moves along, I would be happy to consult both him and all members of the House in regard to any changes because the well-being of our troops there plus the effectiveness of Canada's contribution is always enhanced with the benefit of parliamentary consultation and debate.


FINANCE
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, in this country, the Minister of Finance, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is ultimately responsible for monetary policy.
In the form of a deathbed repentance the top bureaucrat of the Department of Finance has admitted that the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy started too late and lasted too long, in effect exacerbating our debt and deficit positions.

June 3, 1993
Oral Questions
Why did the Prime Minister stand by and allow so much damage? Is he prepared to demand a more balanced approach?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I find the comments coming from my hon. friend rather interesting. She says that the government dictates the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada when she knows full well that does not happen.
The Bank of Canada runs the affairs of the country through financial matters and the market dictates levels of interest rates. We agree with the Bank of Canada in getting interest rates and inflation down. They did that.
Governor Crow and the deputy minister of finance are having an interesting debate right now. I guess hindsight is 20/20. Anybody can go back and say they should have done this or they should have done that. That is an honest discussion on what has gone on in the past. However we believe and the governor believes the actions he took were the right ones.
I think we are finding that the results were right. The reports coming out of the OECD today indicate that we are poised for the best job creation, the best growth over the next two years, the lowest inflation and the lowest interest rates, all good signs for the economy. One of these days the Liberals are going to wake up and say that was the right thing to do.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Does the minister share the opinion of the deputy minister of finance that our monetary policy was too rigid and lasted too long? If so, will he ask for a more flexible monetary policy, because then it is easier to make changes once the results are in? Yes, or no?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is interpreting the words of the deputy minister rather loosely, if I can put it that way.
What has gone on in the past was a decision that we had to get inflation under control and that we had to get interest rates down in order for us to get through the
recession and come out the other end on top. That is exactly what is happening.
We can question till the cows come home whether the move should have been done a month earlier or a month later, whether we should have stayed on a month longer or a month less. We can question that and the economists will have a field day with that over the next number of years. They will discuss it in economics classes throughout Canada and probably the world.
The fact is that we are coming out of the recession in the best shape of any country in the G-7.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: We are going to have the best job creation of all the countries of the OECD and we are going to have the best growth over the next couple of years. That is what is important to Canadians. One of these days the Liberals will wake up and realize that.


KEMANO PROJECT
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
After a year's deliberation the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations has ruled in a report tabled in the House this morning that cabinet acted illegally in exempting the controversial Kemano water diversion project from an environmental review.
This is part of a growing mountain of evidence that the government has acted improperly in this case. It is a growing scandal of monumental proportions.
Will the minister accept this report and finally admit that their actions or lack thereof are threatening the future of the Nechako River in northern B.C.?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the committee members for the report tabled in the House today.
I understand the opinion expressed in that report differs from that administered by the Federal Court of Appeal which concluded the Kemano completion project guidelines were valid. We also understand this case went to the Supreme Court but it was not reviewed as the request to be heard was denied.
June 3, 1993

I want to assure the hon. member that the government will review the report and will report back to the House of Commons as a result of it being tabled in the House.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice who refused to answer a question the other day about a letter written by officials in his department threatening or warding off the B.C. Utilities Commission inquiry into this particular project in British Columbia.
Will the Minister of Justice remove this threatened gag order and finally release all the information on the project, join with the B.C. government, and conduct a full and proper review into the project?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, the Kemano project has been under review within the court system for a number of years. The Federal Court of Appeal has made a decision on it. No other higher court has agreed to take this particular case.
We now have before the Parliament of Canada the report of the joint committee. The government will review that report and report back to the House.


LANGUAGE MINORITIES
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the funding, development and promotion of arts and culture for minority francophone communities.
We learned today that they receive only 50 cents from the federal government for arts and culture for every dollar other Canadian citizens receive on average. This is my question: What will he do to correct this serious injustice to French speaking Canadians living outside Quebec?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: I thank the hon. member for her question. The minister is unfortunately away today on government business. I know that she is a defender of the rights of official language minorities throughout the country and I am sure that she will answer the questions when she returns to the House.
Oral Questions


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is supposed to protect minority languages and language rights throughout Canada. In this regard, I ask the Prime Minister this: When will he or his Minister of Communications recognize that there are francophone communities outside Quebec? When will he apply the spirit of the Official Languages Act which was passed in 1988? Does he personally promise to urge the Minister of Communications to meet the French Canadian Cultural Federation in the next seven days? They have been waiting for two years for a meeting with this Minister of Communications.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: As I said, I will raise the question with the Minister of Communications later today, and I am sure that he will answer the hon. member shortly.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Madam
Speaker, in the absence of any minister responsible for employment my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister must be aware that Canada's youth are having an extremely hard time finding firsttime jobs. In fact the number of young people who have never held a first-time job has gone up 53 per cent since 1989.
Why does the Minister of State for Youth not have in his department a specific program or a strategy to put these young people back to work?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the question on behalf of the Minister of State for Youth and as the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration.
I think the hon. member has missed a lot in the last few years. We have put in place a stay-in-school project for young people to get information on getting skills and training. We have also put in place literacy programs, the sectoral councils and the apprenticeship programs working with the provinces. With the youth employment that has been put in place in terms of 179,000 jobs last year under the Challenge '92 program and the increase of $5 million for 1993 for youth employment, I think the record shows that we have done a great deal in terms of assistance for youth.

June 3, 1993
Oral Questions


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, that is why there is 20 per cent unemployment among Canadian youth. This department and this minister have no specific labour market programs.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Young Canadians have been hardest hit by this recession. In fact it accounts for 84 per cent of net job losses since 1989. What specific new programs or new ideas does the Prime Minister have to help this crisis and to put young Canadians back to work?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, besides the Challenge '93 project which is some $88 million in terms of getting young people back to work and some 400 youth employment centres across Canada, we have put in place student business loans for young people to start businesses, the business drive for jobs in partnership with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and federal hiring of students within our own government projects.
I am very pleased with the number of young people who have decided to start their own businesses. In North America we have the first youth centre, New Ventures, for young people to begin their own jobs. That is the kind of work that we are doing in terms of young people getting jobs by starting their own businesses.


MINING EXPLORATION
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
To stimulate mining exploration in Quebec, especially in Abitibi, on May 10 I rose in the Elouse twice during Question Period to send a message, loud and clear, so the minister would understand the current situation in the mining and exploration industry in Abitibi.
Could the deputy minister come to Abitibi for a one-day study session this month, to discuss the situation in the mining and exploration industry in that area with the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec? Yes or no?

Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, the deputy or the minister would have to be deaf or absent not to recognize the interest my colleague has in the mining industry within his riding. I compliment him for that.
He would know, as others know, that Canada has one of the most favourable regimes for investment in the mining and exploration industry. As he also knows, the federal income tax rules allow for 100 per cent write-off for development and exploration. We have made that assistance available because we recognize, as he does, the importance of the mining industry.
We have also undertaken the Whitehorse mining initiative in co-operation with labour, the mining industry and our provincial partners to further encourage and further develop this important activity.
As my colleague knows, the deputy minister has indicated to me that he would be pleased to travel anywhere to meet members of the mining industry and particularly to the fine riding of Abitibi.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to welcome him back to the House. I saw him taking off in a White House helicopter; he looked just like George Bush.
In a very important ruling today the CRTC once again allowed cable companies to take more money out of the pockets of ordinary consumers to pay for Canadian programming.
Given that the cable companies make three times more profit than the broadcasting companies, and given that his government has power to direct the CRTC, will the government direct the CRTC to fully regulate the cable companies and take some of the programming money, the $300 million the CRTC wants, out of the fat pockets of the cable companies, not out of the slim pockets of the consumers?
June 3, 1993


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, first may I say that the last words I heard when I left Washington came from George Bush and he said: "Give my affectionate respects to Ian Waddell".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hope he is not watching this after what the member just said, and I know he watches regularly.
I thank my hon. friend for his views with regard to a CRTC decision. We will examine the decision very carefully and give his views the careful consideration we usually give them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I won some of it today, Brian.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, since today is Thursday, could the government House leader give us an indication what the business of the House will be for the rest of this week and next week?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I think we have agreement this afternoon to do second reading of Bill C-128, Criminal Code amendments dealing with child pornography.
Tomorrow we hope to pass the two Nunavut bills which provide for the creation of the Nunavut territory and put into effect the Inuit land claims in that territory. After that we hope to complete Bill C-103, the Land Titles Act.
On Monday we will begin with Bill C-101, the Canada Labour Code, for third reading and Bill C-122, the Textile Tariffs Act, and Bill C-121, the Canada Shipping Act.
On Tuesday we would like to compete report stage of Bill C-62, the telecommunications act.
Routine Proceedings
I will be in contact with House leaders with respect to the rest of the week, but in all likelihood Wednesday would follow with third reading of Bill C-62.
As for the other days of that week I would seek the support of the House for the courtesy of adjourning next Friday, a week tomorrow, as a result of the Progressive Conservative leadership convention and would ask that the House not sit that day.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, would the government House leader comment on the possibility of the Yukon land claims act being introduced before the Conservative convention a week Friday?


Harvie Andre: The drafting is ongoing with the active participation of native groups from Yukon. I understand it is literally a matter of days of defining some of the details and then agreeing to them.
I will be meeting later this day with officials from the Privy Council Office to see what progress has been made on that bill. I am still hopeful. I have certainly been putting what pressure I can on them to bring forward that bill before we adjourn for the summer. I cannot be more specific than that at this time.


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent to table a report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) to table the report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Governments of the United States and Canada for the period October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1992.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1993
Government Orders


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff (child pornography and corrupting morals), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-128. This bill amends the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff to specifically prohibit child pornography. We are taking important steps to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
The government is responding to the calls of the Canadian public to curb the flow of child pornography. I share that concern.
As I stated at the National Symposium on Community Safety and Crime Prevention held in Toronto in March, children matter. They are the most vulnerable members of our society. They are vulnerable to emotional, sexual and physical abuse. Our children must have the opportunity to grow up in safe, nurturing communities protected from such abuse.
The purpose of a law specifically addressing child pornography is to deal with the sexual exploitation of children and to make a statement regarding the inappropriate use and portrayal of children in media and art which have sexual aspects.
Our message is that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of child sexual abuse and exploitation and are not appropriate sexual partners.
By way of background, hon. members will recall that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the definition of obscenity in the Criminal Code in its February 1992 decision in the Butler case.
In that decision the court was asked to determine the constitutional validity of the current definition of what is
obscene as found in section 1638 of the Criminal Code. This definition is intended to deal with material where a dominant characteristic is the undue exploitation of sex, or sex combined with one or more of the subjects of crime, horror, cruelty and violence.
In the Butler judgment there is a clear statement from the Supreme Court that pornography which contains explicit sex and employs children in its production qualifies as the undue exploitation of sex. As such its production and distribution are prohibited by the provisions currently in the Criminal Code.
What the Criminal Code does not currently prohibit is the simple possession of child pornography, nor does it contain specific statutory prohibitions against such pornography.
Members of this House will recall that two special committee reports commissioned by the federal government, the Badgley report in 1984 and the Fraser report in the following year, recommended that there be amendments to the Criminal Code to specifically prohibit child pornography. It was also recommended that such amendments be limited to visual representations or depictions of explicit sexual conduct involving persons under the age of 18 years.
There was concern then and there is concern now with the especially compelling nature of visual materials in delivering a message.
More recently, in 1990 the special advisor on child abuse to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Rix Rogers, recommended that legislation be introduced to address the protection of children from the harmful effects of pornography. This would include a revision of the Criminal Code with harsher penalties for using children in the production of sexually explicit material.
Bill C-128 introduces those specific amendments to the Criminal Code which address the problem of child pornography. The proposed legislation includes a definition of child pornography and new offences for the distribution, sale, production and possession of child pornography based on this definition.
As I have stated, the production and distribution of these forms of child pornography are currently prohibited but their possession is not.
June 3, 1993

While child pornography may not now be generally available on a commercial basis in Canada, we know that it is home-made by paedophiles who have communication networks and exchange clubs. These are persons who share an interest in sexual activity involving children and commonly exchange photographs they have taken of children who have been the objects of their abuse. These photographs and videos are palpable evidence of the sexual abuse of these children.
By making simple possession of child pornography an offence it is our intention to dissuade such activity. We have been urged to take this step by many, including law enforcement personnel who have seen the lack of an offence for the simple possession of such materials as a barrier to curbing the flow of child pornography.
In addition, by creating an offence for simple possession and introducing legal sanctions against the consumer, we attack any commercial market for these materials such as videos, magazines or computer programs which involve or depict children engaged in explicit sexual activity and reduce the incentive for their production.
The definition proposed refers to a photographic, film, video, or other visual representation whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of 18 years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaging in explicit sexual activity.
Hon. members will note that the proposed definition refers to a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of 18 years. We have chosen to include depiction of persons as being under the age of 18. That is because failing to include depictions would be seen as failing to address an issue of concern to many Canadians, that the children not perceived as appropriate objects of sexual interest including depictions in the definition serve to prohibit pseudo child pornography, that is where adult models are presented to appear as children which is more openly distributed than other forms of child pornography, but still nonetheless promotes the sexual abuse of children.
It is important to protect children who directly suffer the harms of sexual abuse and exploitation in the
Government Orders
production of child pornography, but also others, by denouncing the message that child pornography conveys to the consumer of these materials: that children are somehow appropriate sexual partners.
In limiting the proposed definition of child pornography to visual representations, we have focused on those materials which most clearly require or motivate the sexual use and exploitation of children in order to protect them from child sexual abuse and related harms.
Written materials will continue to be dealt with under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, as upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Butler.
Offences have been created for the production, distribution and sale of child pornography which are subject to terms of imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years. In addition, the possession of child pornography is subject to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. These offences are hybrid. That is, they can be made on an indictable or a summary conviction offence, depending of course on the circumstances of each particular case.
The defence of artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose in Bill C-128 is not one which places a persuasive burden on the person charged with one of the child pornography offences. The availability of such a defence is important for ensuring that the reach of the legislation does not extend to forms of expression which the courts consider beneficial to society, such as health education.
It is essential to include this defence in the proposed legislation in order to protect the freedom of expression rights which are clearly entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There may be materials which depict children under the age of 18 which may represent some artistic merit or for some other purpose and, as such, deserve the protection of the Criminal Code.
We have also introduced consequential amendments to the Criminal Code which would serve to include the child pornography offences in the definition of offence in part VI of the Criminal Code so that the electronic surveillance provisions will apply. In the definition of enterprise crime offence of the Criminal Code they will fall under the proceeds of crime provisions as well.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
As a consequential amendment to the Customs Tariff Act the definition of child pornography will be incorporated in schedule VII to the tariff. This will provide customs officials with the necessary authority to ban the importation of these materials into Canada. This, of course, will be bad news for those individuals who would love to try to import this sort of material into the country. We have seen to it that they will continue to be blocked.
In summary, Bill C-128 will amend the Criminal Code to include a specific definition of child pornography and offences for the possession, production, distribution and sale of such materials as defined. It would subject those accused of these offences to greater penalties upon conviction than those currently associated with the obscenity sections of the Criminal Code.
We need to reinforce the message that children are in need of protection, that they are not appropriate sexual partners. Conduct which fosters and exploits the harm and humiliation to which children are exposed must be punished.
Bill C-128 supports the government's commitment to the well-being of children as outlined in the protection component of the Brighter Futures initiative which was announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in April of last year.
This bill is yet another step in ensuring a brighter future for all of Canada's children. I urge the members of this House to deal with this legislation expeditiously. If and when this becomes the law of Canada, and I believe it will, hon. members can take the satisfaction of going home this summer knowing that this country is a better place in which to live because we have criminalized the possession of child pornography.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if there is any time left when we have completed second reading of Bill C-128 today, I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with third reading of Bill C-123 later today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-128.1 guess we could say that it is about time. There has been a flood of justice legislation over the last number of weeks. We are always faced with time constraints in trying to get legislation passed before Parliament is through for good and we are into an election.
We on this side are faced with the conundrum of not wanting to pass legislation in haste but at the same time wanting to do something that is good. We faced that dilemma with Bill C-126, the stalking bill. The committee met until last night at 10 o'clock to try to get a good bill before Parliament and finished before the session is over.
This is another example of a piece of good legislation that probably needs some fine-tuning by committee. I only hope the government will allow enough study of this particular bill while it is in committee. I hope it will not adopt the jackboot tactics it has used with other legislation, particularly Bill C-90, of trying to force legislation that needs to be studied through in a matter of hours or minutes.
That being said, we are supportive of this bill going to committee and receiving the necessary study. I do not think anyone would question that pornography has been with us almost since the beginning of history, from the time we learned how to draw.
We have seen the pornography industry grow from a $5 million industry in the seventies to a $10 billion business today. That is reprehensible when one considers that kind of money is generated from that kind of trade.
What is really even more reprehensible is the growth in child pornography. For that we say to the government: Good for you, that you are bringing this legislation forward. One thing that is a little irksome is that in the minister's own background documentation it says that the government has been urged to bring this legislation forward since 1984. Here we are in 1993, in the dying days of this Parliament, and now we are presented with the bill.
June 3, 1993

There are some complications in the legislation. This is not easy legislation with which to deal. Pornography is difficult to define and difficult to legislate so that it is not struck down once the courts start to have their effect.
I am sure we have all been through the number of different decisions and concerns. It was gratifying to see that the Butler decision of the Supreme Court of Canada opened the door to allow us to legislate in this area. It allowed legislation on all pornography which is degrading, dehumanizing and violent. I do not think there is anything more dehumanizing than child pornography.
I have some concerns as to whether the definition as contained in Bill C-128 goes far enough. I will read proposed subsection 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code into the record because I think it is important:
163.1(1) In this section, "child pornography" means a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity.
That definition is very broad and leaves it open for an interpretation as to what constitutes explicit sexual activity and how far that would go.
I am looking forward to hearing some evidence from experts in the field as to how we could tighten up that definition and describe what we are prepared to allow and what we are not prepared to allow.
There are other sections in the legislation which are positive. The parliamentary secretary referred to it. This is going to be an interesting one because again in proposed subsection 163.1(4) it says that every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an offence, either an indictable offence or a summary conviction. It is going to be interesting to see how that is going to be applied. I think it is a good idea and I am hopeful that it can be effective. However it is a very broad ranging situation as to what constitutes possession and what type of offence will flow from that.
Again we see a very clear indication as to why the committee needs to spend the time and effort to come up with a good law. I know that in our deliberations on Bill C-126 dealing with the anti- stalking legislation the committee worked hard and made the changes that were necessary to make good law.
Government Orders
It seems that the opposition members are always stuck with the responsibility of trying to improve on what the government puts forward. They never really get it right the first time. I think there are some loose ends in this legislation that are going to require those types of efforts from opposition members.
It is a good piece of legislation in general. There is another excellent section on making child pornography an indictable offence as well with a penalty not to exceed 10 years. This again is an excellent idea. It shows that we take this thing seriously and that it is not a matter of a summary conviction or a small sentence of a year or two.
When we in Parliament indicate that 10 years is the maximum then we are signifying our concern with respect to child pornography. We are signifying our concern about all of pornography when we start on this basis.
We on this side of the House are pleased really for two reasons. First, it is here. I believe we will have enough time to get the legislation through. Second, it is another time in which the Conservative government has taken one of the Liberal planks and has tried to adopt it before we are the government.
A few weeks ago after I had introduced a private member's bill on anti-stalking, the government finally came forward with some legislation. We had announced our crime prevention platform. In it was included crime prevention and anti-stalking legislation. Lo and behold shortly thereafter the government came forward with this type of legislation.
We did the same thing with respect to child pornography that was a platform of the Liberal Party. Now this government has come forward with child pornography legislation.
I think that if we keep announcing our platform we will finally see some good legislation starting to come from this government but perhaps there is not enough time left.
In any event I know that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Dartmouth and for that reason I will simply say that we are supportive of this going to committee. We are supportive of giving the committee enough time to really study this legislation to finally get the legislation correct.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues from Moncton and Cape Breton-The Sydneys for the work that they have done in their critic portfolios, not just recently but over the last number of years, in dealing with issues such as this.
Surely one of the issues that must seize all parliamentarians and I guess all Canadians is the safety of our children. Clearly one of the things that constitutes an abuse or violation of the safety of our children is pornography.
The Liberal Party and my friends from Moncton and Cape Breton-The Sydneys have worked very hard and diligently on this particular issue over the last number of years. Indeed the Liberal Party policy position just a few weeks ago clearly indicated some of the things we felt should be done in the field of justice administration in order to try to rectify some of the abuses that currently are no longer acceptable and perhaps were never acceptable to Canadian society.
I also want to commend my colleague from Saskatoon. About a week ago he had a private member's motion before this place dealing with this exact subject matter. I said in my speech at that point in time that it was unfortunate that the partisan nature of this House does not allow for members to seek unanimity on issues even as important as this. It is an issue that I think all members of the House would agree has to be dealt with in an expeditious manner in this place.
Clearly one of the problems we have, as my colleague said, is that there has been a number of pieces of legislation which have been long overdue that were brought in by the government in the last five days that this Parliament sits.
It is very clear it is using these real issues, such as stalking, child pornography and a whole host of justice issues, to put pieces of legislation on the floor of the House in the dying days of the Parliament. It will probably not pass many-if any-of them and then it will run a law and order platform in the upcoming election campaign. If it does that then they should be condemned and damned for it.
We are talking about fundamental changes to protect our youth, our children, in this country. I do not know why these changes were not brought forward a long time ago.
We have heard from our critic, the member from Moncton, and we will hear from the New Democratic Party. There is a unanimity of opinion in this House that this issue has to be addressed. There is a unanimity of opinion in this House that a law dealing with stalking has to be addressed.
The difficulty is when the government opposite decides that it is much too busy doing other things and it is only going to try to showcase at the end of a Parliament some pieces of progressive legislation so they can run on it. It is truly despicable.
I hope that the government opposite is serious about pursuing this matter in a proper fashion and allowing the committee to hold quick but detailed hearings on it so that for once we can say that this Parliament has produced some legislation which has corrected some flaws in our laws and has protected the most vulnerable in our society and that is our children.
I think everybody would agree that people who exploit children for a sexual purpose and for profit are pretty despicable and low lifes. There is no question. To take the most precious of our resources, that is our children, and to use them in that manner for profit or for whatever other reason is simply despicable but it happens all too often.
I was just reading something about pornography and the increased availability of pornography. It clearly indicates that there are tens of thousands of children per year in Canada who are used by these unscrupulous- and the word I am thinking about is not parliamentary-individuals who sexually exploit young people and juveniles for profit.
There may be some problems with the bill and I am hoping that we will be able to deal with them quickly at committee. I am not the justice critic. I am just an individual who has real concerns because I have three children. This is the type of legislation that has to be passed.
June 3, 1993

One of the things that concerns me is right at the beginning of the bill and it deals with the definition of child pornography. The definition says:
"child pornography" means a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity.
That is the definition under this bill of child pornography. I have a little difficulty with that and perhaps some of the legal minds who will be looking at this in committee will make me feel a little more comfortable.
It is not just enough to talk about explicit sexual activity. There are people who prey upon young people for profit and take pictures of our children in positions of undress so that they can sell them to people who get their sexual pleasure this way. I think the definition should be broadened so that any exploitation or exploitative measure that is meant to sexually stimulate other individuals by way of the depiction should be considered obscene.
The difference between the definition of pornography and erotica is vastly different when we are not not dealing with juveniles. When we are dealing with juveniles it is surely a much different situation. The definition of what is pornographic must be tougher when we are dealing with juveniles than when we are dealing with adults.
Clearly most of the provisions of this bill are laudable. It is something with which we absolutely have to grapple. There may be some technical things that we have to fine tune. One of the things the opposition is hoping is that the government will fully co-operate with us in allowing this bill to go to committee and make available immediately all of the appropriate officials from the Department of Justice so that we can get on with our business of fixing this particular piece of the Criminal Code.
The other thing that has to be looked at seriously is the issue of sentences. When we are dealing with sentences for the production of this material and for the distribution of this material then a maximum sentence of 10 years is probably pretty appropriate. We must have a sentence that is long enough to act as a deterrent to those individuals who are intent upon exploiting our children for sexual purposes and for profit.
I would like to once again say that our party and the New Democratic Party, members of both parties, have over the past number of years continued to raise this
Government Orders
issue. We have tried to put it on the front burner of the government opposite when we are dealing with legislation.
Indeed, the former Minister of Justice, the pretender to the Tory throne-


Rob Nicholson: The next Prime Minister.


Ronald MacDonald: The Minister of the Environment might have something to say about that. The former Minister of Justice, who likes to tout herself as somebody who has been extremely progressive and has brought forward all these pieces of legislation that Canadians have long needed, told us back in 1990 that the government was looking at it. It was a very complex matter.
For anybody out there who wants to know why we have had to wait from 1990 until the sixth last day of this sitting to get the bill I want to show why. It is because altogether this bill has four pages. It took this government three solid years to put together a four-page piece of legislation to try to stop the bottom dwelling, pond scum who exploit our children sexually.
.(1535 )
The Liberal Party on this side of the House, I know the New Democratic Party, who will speak next, and I would hope all members of the House will support this legislation as a priority, that we would have very quick hearings, that the Minister of Justice would give us his assurance today that he will treat this in an expeditious manner and make available the appropriate departmental and justice officials so that by the time this Parliament rises we will have a bill that will put an end to the exploitation of our children.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge you and welcome you to the chair. It is good to have an Albertan in the chair.
I am going to speak for 10 minutes and then let my friend the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, another westerner, speak for the remaining time.
I want to be quite plain. Since this government was elected in 1984 there has been a special committee on child pornography in 1984, 1985 and 1990 that recommended that Ottawa address this issue. It was not until May 13 of this year, with 24 days scheduled in Parliament at that time, with the House supposed to finish on June 23 but now it may shut down before then, that the government chose to introduce this bill.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
If one were a suspicious person one would think that maybe the government is just doing this for a little bit of window dressing and for a future election campaign. However we will treat it as serious because it is a serious matter that has to be addressed.
I would like to explain why we in the New Democratic Party are supporting this bill, although we have some questions and some concerns. I have some concerns because I am basically a civil libertarian and I worry about the restriction of personal freedoms and especially the freedom of the press and the print. However the real question we have to examine concerns why most rightthinking people are against child pornography.
The reason is that the victims of child pornography, the children who are exploited to do this, can later become abusers themselves. A professor in Simon Fraser University's department of criminology, Dr. Ezzat Fat-tah, is a distinguished criminologist, and one of my constituents, and has written extensively on this issue. He shows how the victims become the criminals.
We in the NDP have set forward a policy, and I know there is support in other places in this House. We would get tough on violent crime and violent criminals but we would also work toward crime prevention.
This bill encompasses both because I think it is ultimately aimed at crime prevention. The Badgley commission recommended such a bill, although I am not sure it dealt with possession. The previous law did not deal with possession and this bill does. The Fraser commission recommended it. In a report to the ministry Dr. Rix Rogers talked about protecting children.
I think all of us in the House feel that we want to protect children and we want this matter dealt with. There is not an industry in Canada or the United States. It comes from offshore. This material is circulated privately.
One of the statements that concerns me is a statement by a metropolitan Toronto police officer. Sometimes the police have been guilty of seizing too many things and of being too zealous in these matters. However he made an interesting statement. He said: "You cannot have child pornography without having child abuse". That is why we are supporting this bill.
We have a whole slew of justice bills, about she bills. They are all going into the committee. I was joking today that I feel like I have the legs of a Texas line dancer, going from committee to committee to committee. We want to give this a hearing.
Remember what the former Minister of Justice said: "Let us have inclusive justice". Inclusive justice means that people from all sides come in and discuss the bill, we have a good hearing and then we get the best bill possible. Then it will hold up in the courts and will not be thrown out as unconstitutional.
I understand that the government can proceed on this partly due to the Butler decision in the Supreme Court, which clearly gives an opening for a law that deals with child pornography. That is another reason that we are supporting the bill.
I want to strongly draw it to the attention of the House, and it might take a little bit of courage to do this at this time, that there is a civil liberties angle to this. We have to be careful not to restrict people's right of disseminating information, no matter how much we dislike the information or what people are saying or arguing. People have a right to argue positions and we may not like them. I am not talking about visually depicting child pornography. I do not think there is any argument there. There is some argument with respect to the written word and what different groups have been advocating. This is a tough area. It is not in the bill and I do not think it should be in the bill. Others may have different viewpoints.
Alan Borovoy, who is the distinguished head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, says that he supports the goal of protecting children but not the part of the bill that covers adults who play the part of children.
He says:
It's hard to fathom why in the world the government would want to make it an offence to prohibit adult actors from portraying youngsters.
He continues:
Once again, you have a bill aimed at sleaze that could wind up imperilling legitimate materials, even works of art.

June 3, 1993

I hope not, but I think we should call Alan Borovoy before this committee and find out what more he has to say about this and we should examine the clauses of the bill.
Keith Kelly, who is the distinguished director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts and the Writers Guild, is concerned about the onus of proof in the bill. I will quote what he says in The Toronto Star to Mr. David Vienneau, a reporter for The Toronto Star. Mr. Kelly says:
The defence of artistic merit exists but the burden of proof-and
that is a costly burden-would rest with the person who is charged. We
have some very real concerns about this.
Let us get him before the justice committee to tell us what the matter is.
I want to hear from my hon. friend from Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing who has had a private member's bill on this and has done a lot of work on it.
However let me recap as NDP justice critic. We are in favour of this bill. We are concerned about where it impinges on the artistic community and freedom of expression. Let us hear about that in the committee. We want to have an inclusive process. We want to tackle violent crime and at the same time we want to balance that with dealing with crime prevention. All too often the children, the victims of child pornography, end up being abusers themselves. We have to protect those children.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the aims and objectives of this bill to criminalize child pornography and to make the possession of and all other activities dealing with child pornography a crime.
I would like to thank the member for Port Moody- Coquitlam and the member for Dartmouth for their support of my private member's bill. If that private member's bill had any small part to play in moving along the government then I am pleased that has happened.
It is late in the parliamentary session but I do not think that should prevent us from moving as quickly as possible on this bill. Like my colleagues who have already spoken I look forward to the passage of this bill. However I do have a couple of concerns that I would like to raise and have the government mull over. Hopefully in committee we can expeditiously deal with the issues, hear witnesses
Government Orders
on some of these complex points and make the bill an even better bill. I will just briefly relate each one.
One that has been raised already is the issue of the definition of child pornography. It is never easy to define these subjects in pieces of legislation. I do think that we should look very carefully at the restrictive definition which, as has already been indicated, really narrows child pornography to the depiction of explicit sexual activity.
I think the vast majority of Canadians would view other areas than explicit sexual activity as pornographic when children are involved. We should explore the opportunity to expand that definition. At the moment I think it is too narrow.
Another point which is worth exploring is the issue of making importation or attempted importation of child pornography a criminal offence. That is not the case under this bill. It seems to me that it is not the case under any other legislation either.
It is clearly the case that child pornography brought into Canada if apprehended by the customs officers would be confiscated, but it is not clear that anybody would be committing an offence by importing or attempting to import it. We should look at that.
Also the bill does not cover pornographic performances involving children. Perhaps we should look at that.
Last, what we have seen in Canada with regard pornography but particularly with regard to child pornography because of the underground nature of it, is that new technology has enabled child pornography to be imported into Canada and then moved around the country very easily through the use of word processors and video recorders.
We need a process-and it was a part of my private member's bill-whereby from time to time we review the way in which child pornography is brought into Canada, produced in Canada and circulated within Canada because of the opportunities which are generated by new developments in technology. I suggest we do something like that.
While I support the government's intentions behind this bill and the thrust of it, and I know that my colleagues in the Liberal Party feel the same, there are a few things we should look at. I look forward to exploring those in the committee.

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That the motion for second reading of Bill C-128 be amended by having the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, rather than a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.

Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circumstances be read the third time and passed.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker I am pleased to rise and speak on third reading of this bill.
Right off the top, I want to say I am not prepared to apologize, nor is the Minister of Justice or anyone on this side of the House, for the justice bills or the number of them that are before the House.
The record of this Parliament will show that there has been continuous government action taken in making this country a better place and a safer place in which to live. When people say: "My heavens, you are doing something with child pornography; you have wire-tap legislation", I make no apologies for it at all. It is part of a continuing process.
To my knowledge, there has not been one month in the last four and a half years in which this Parliament has not been seized with justice legislation. Most of my colleagues on this side of the House have welcomed that and are very pleased to see it.
Hon. members will know that just the changes to the Young Offenders Act alone were a considerable improvement over the provisions that prevailed in the Young Offenders Act when we began this session of Parliament.
Of course we have to react and we have to react quickly. Some of the wire-tap provisions in the Criminal Code were struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. At that point we did not simply throw up our hands and say: "Well, that is it. We will not revisit this as we do not want to upset somebody in the opposition because we have so much in the area of justice". We did not say that. We said: "All right. If there is a problem with one of the wire-tap sections, let us have a look at it", and we have changed it.
In the area of child pornography I hope members of the House will support and expedite that. We have already had a couple of attempts at it. It was very difficult, quite frankly, to get that kind of co-operation to move a bill on pornography through the House.
The bill before us now deals with the proceeds of crime. It works in conjunction with a whole host of initiatives and I mentioned the wire-tap legislation. I will explain why we are bringing them in.
The people working against making Canada a wonderful place to live, the people involved with crime in this country, are very sophisticated. There is quite a bit of money involved with these things. Therefore, should the law be constantly updated and reviewed to make sure we have the tools to effectively combat crime?
My answer and that of members on this side of the House is that yes, Canadians want us to do that. This has been confirmed in every questionnaire I have sent out in my riding. I questioned people on a whole host of issues, including crime prevention. I asked them what they thought about the distribution of the proceeds of crime, sharing it with law enforcement jurisdictions. Overwhelmingly people said that it was a good idea.
So when my colleague, the Minister of Justice, introduces a piece of legislation I can say that it certainly goes with my complete blessing and full support. That is what we have here. This bill which deals with the proceeds of crime is a good one.
June 3, 1993

When people ask me about crime prevention, I say we must get at the profits from crime. That is one way to help prevent crime. This was mentioned in the debate on the previous bill. There is big money in pornography. Let us get to the source of that.
This bill provides for effective management of assets that are seized by the Crown. As well it gives us a regime, a framework whereby we can share the proceeds of crime with the law enforcement community. People may say: "Well, you do not have the regulations". Of course the regulations are not there but we will work that out. It is important for Parliament to state its intention to distribute the proceeds of crime in a fair manner.
Forfeiture and seizure is not an easy process. We had the example of a skiing resort in Quebec that was seized by the Crown at least three years ago. There is still an appeal process going on. The ownership of that does not preside with the Crown at the present time, but we have an obligation to effectively manage it on behalf of the individual from whom it was taken. We owe that individual an obligation until the case is decided one way or another. If it is forfeited to the Crown, we need to have a regime in place for the distribution of that.
This is one part of the government's program but it is an important part. As I say, for my money every month since this Parliament was sworn in over four years ago, we have been seized with justice issues. These issues have the support of people in my riding of Niagara Falls and a lot of ridings across the country.
I do not apologize for the fact that this Parliament is spending time on this. Most Canadians worry about these things and they are reassured when they see their parliamentarians bringing legislation forward that will help make this country a safer one in which to live.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Moncton who also has some things to say on this piece of legislation.
I listened with interest to the introduction of the remarks by my hon. colleague who is representing the government on this legislation. Maybe he protests just a little too much. He is unusually sensitive today to observations by the opposition.
I think it was the New Democratic member who said that some people would be cynical in wondering why the
Government Orders
government waited until five days before probably the end of its time in office before it came in with this law and order series of legislation.
When trying to support his minister, the current Minister of Justice, the hon. member indicated that he has worked quite hard. There has been a bill a minute, a bill a day, or something like coming into the House lately dealing with justice reform.
It is too bad the former Minister of Justice was not as diligent. The former Minister of Justice, every time I read an article in the newspaper or Maclean's, likes to claim about all the tough work she has done in the Department of Justice. It is just too bad she did not suffer from the same work ethic the hon. member feels the current Minister of Justice has as he brings these bills in hand over fist, faster than a speeding bullet. But I guess that is what happens when a minister's eyesight is focused on another seat to occupy in the House of Commons.
Let us just say that Bill C-123 on the proceeds of crime should have been here a heck of a long time ago. This bill simply changes the legislation that has been on the books since about 1989 dealing with the proceeds of crime.
When somebody is convicted of trafficking in illegal drugs, the assets would be seized and those assets would be disposed of. The value of those assets or the assets themselves would revert to the Crown.
Clearly this was an attempt by the Crown to get right down to the root cause of this, as my colleague has said. People who sell drugs or are engaged in child pornography do so for a profit. If we could seize the profits then that would be an additional penalty to the incarceration or fine they would get under the law. It is about time that this has happened.
It is not really the federal government. We make the laws here. With the exception of the RCMP which is a federal force, it nearly always goes to the municipal police force. The municipal police force, which is controlled and paid for by municipal taxes, hunts out these low life and arrests them. It builds a case against them, takes it to the courts and sees them properly prosecuted and if convicted, incarcerated. It is the provincial and not the federal government in most cases and the municipal governments that bear the costs of the administration of justice in these and other cases.

Government Orders
The legislation of 1989 was good in its intent in that it was seizing the assets or the profits of the criminal activity. However, one would beg to ask why the value of that would go over to the federal government and not the provincial one.
Just to highlight my point, in my riding of Dartmouth there are two police forces. There is the RCMP in the county. It is woefully understaffed and that has caused big problems with morale and its pursuit of the administration of justice in keeping the community safe. It does the best job it can with the resources it is given.
However, to give an idea of what the municipal police forces are facing, in times of recession these types of crimes go up. In times of recession there are more break and enters. There is more violent crime. There is more trafficking in drugs. There is an increase in all kinds of criminal activity where there is a profit to be made.
In my riding of Dartmouth the current chief of police, Chief McRae, and the former chief, Chief Cole, will tell you that in the last two years because of cutbacks in transfers to the provinces by the federal government and then cutbacks in transfers from the provincial government to the municipal government, they have had to freeze their budgets.
They have frozen their budgets at $11 million over the last two years but there has been no freeze on the crime rate. The crime rate continues to accelerate but because of the type of downloading of debt from the federal government there has not been a corresponding increase in the level of resources given to municipal police forces like the police force in Dartmouth.
They tell me in Dartmouth that not only is crime going up as resources are frozen but they are now absorbing costs previously absorbed by the RCMP, the federal law enforcement agency. In affect costs have been downloaded from the federal government to the provincial or municipal level.
Budgets are frozen, crime is on the increase, there is no money coming to help them from anywhere and even the RCMP, which has seen its budget frozen over the last few years is now talking about charging municipal police
forces user fees for forensic work. As budgets have been frozen and other costs have continued to escalate Dartmouth has lost 13 officers over a period of two years which is a 10 per cent reduction.
I called just before this bill came up and was told the cost of undercover work, if it was contracted out, would be $60 per hour per officer. Usually in drug undercover work there are at least two officers required as well as a patrol car. The work is not usually done during daylight hours so overtime is paid in many cases.
The cost of law enforcement when it comes to trying to break some of these drug rings and crack down on the distribution and sale of illegal drugs in our communities is excessive. In Dartmouth in the last year we have statistics showing there were 108 trafficking charges in a city of 68,000 to 70,000 people. There were 73 possession charges and 181 people taken into custody.
They tell me in Dartmouth there has been a significant increase in the level of crime since 1991, primarily because of the economy and this government-made recession, however there has been no increase in the level of resources given to combat these crimes. This bill goes somewhat in the direction of rectifying this.
Instead of the federal government getting the value of the assets that are confiscated in cases of criminal activity, particularly dealing with illegal drugs, some of these proceeds will go down to the provincial and municipal governments. They will not be going down to the respective police forces but hopefully they will find their way to the forces that are expending resources to get rid of the low life that is infecting our communities far too often.
This is the type of legislation that perhaps we should have more debate on. We are at third reading so it has gone to committee but there are some questions that will probably still have to be asked. It is unfortunate that we are pushing this through as quickly as we are but in the dying days of the government, with six days left before these guys opposite are kicked out of office for a good long time, I guess they are trying their very best to at least put it on the record that after nine years they did try to address some of the serious flaws in the criminal justice system.
June 3, 1993


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dartmouth has really captured the spirit of what is going on here. There is no question that in the dying days of a dying government this type of legislation will be put on the record with no hope that it will ever be adopted.
I think we are fooling the government because we have been working night and day in order to see some of this legislation passed and see some progress. In this particular bill on the proceeds of crime I think we are all supportive of what is going on.
I can tell the member for Dartmouth who really captured the spirit of it, I know of what he speaks. I was the mayor of Moncton a few years ago and I have a real appreciation of what it is like to run a municipal police force. I appreciate the costs associated with it and the number of men and women needed on the force to just tiy to stem the tide of crime. As the member from Dartmouth has so eloquently said, throw in a government-made recession and the cost escalates that much more.
We were successful in Moncton in negotiating with the provincial government on something completely different. We had to look after traffic violations, speeders and those types of people and all the fines went to the province. We were able to negotiate with the province to get some of the money from fines returned to the municipality. It could be reinvested in our police forces so they could arrest more speeders and use it for other types of crime prevention.
I think that is what we have to be concerned about with this legislation. There is no question that the legislation has indicated that the minister can and does have the power to distribute the proceeds of crime to other levels of government.
The concern I have as I read the definitions and look at what is going on is that this legislation just provides the minister with authority. It does not make distribution mandatory. It makes it questionable as to how this money is going to be divided and whether it will actually get down to the police force that is doing the work. I think that is the critical thing.
If it just ends up in the general revenue of the provincial or municipal government coffers and is not
Government Orders
earmarked for crime prevention, investigation and all the things that have to be done then I do not think we are really serving the citizens properly.
I am sure each and every one of us has seen some of the alarming statistics concerning the amount of money that is now earned by the drug barons of the world and the sophistication and type of equipment that is now being used by elicit drug traders. If we are not going to match that expenditure with similar expenditures within our forces then we are going to face some very serious problems.
They are simply going to dominate the situation by sheer weight of wealth and they certainly have done that in the past. At the same time we in government and particularly at the federal government level have been passing restraint on and on down the line until it gets to the municipality that is not capable of providing or having the resources to provide the proper equipment for the police force. Yet we demand that those forces arrest and control the situation.
We on this side are supportive of this legislation. We are anxious to see it better defined so we know exactly where the dollars are going. We want to see it earmarked for use primarily against the drug traffic as well as on the front lines. The troops on the front lines need the resources to fight crime. That is why we are supportive of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. Boniface-Student aid; the hon. member for Parkdale- High Park-Crime prevention; the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap-Trade; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-Health care.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the justice committee report, Crime Prevention in Canada, says clearly in recommendation No. 3 that the share of the moneys forfeited as proceeds of crime be allocated to crime prevention activities.
This is the bill the government is presenting. It is about forfeiture of moneys and property the police have been able to get. It seems to me the government had a golden opportunity to take the second step toward a national program of crime prevention and that was to have a

June 3, 1993
Government Orders
guaranteed means of funding crime prevention through this mechanism. I think it would be supported by the public. An editorial in The Ottawa Citizen said the government missed a good investment.
The government did make an amendment to the bill today which originally said that the moneys were supposed to go to the debt reduction fund. Now it has left it open and by regulation it can still go to crime prevention.
As I said to the hon. member for Calgary a few hours ago quoting Mick Jagger: "You can't always get what you want but you will find sometimes you might get what you need". What we need is money for crime prevention. What we have is a clause that allows it to happen. I give the parliamentary secretary his due here. He said today that he would do his best to see that those moneys were allocated for crime prevention and so did the Minister of Justice. That is on the record here of the House of Commons. He can rest assured that we will keep reminding him of that particular record. Let us not lose a golden opportunity. Let us get some funds to crime prevention.
Before I sit down I want to add two more points. The first point is that in terms of crime prevention and moneys, the government should not forget that jobs and employment are related to violence and crime. We are seeing the beginning of youth violence in this country and it is scary whether they are breaking into the legislature in B.C. on an environmental process or whether it is the Nazi youth here in Ottawa last week against another group of youth who were protesting against the Nazis. It is scary and it is beginning.
There is overwhelming evidence to show that there is a strong connection between employment and crime, particularly violent crime. An extensive 1990 study of data from the preceding 40 years prepared by the British home office of the United Kingdom dramatically identified: "the profound importance of economic factors in the determination of crime. A comparison of personal consumption per capita, with both property and personal crimes in Britain and other countries, revealed that the
significance of these factors goes beyond national borders". It goes to Canada as well.
When the study examined unemployment rates it found: "Growth in offences of violence against the person was also found to be associated with growth in unemployment during the previous year-the relation was strong". These are real studies. I have them and I will show them to the House.
There is also evidence to show that Canadians understand this connection and view crime prevention as a broadly applied policy. While politicians in general continue to subscribe to the myth of neo-Conservative, tough on crime rhetoric, recent survey data suggests that Canadians do not see an increasingly punitive justice system alone as an effective defence against crime.
A survey done for the Canadian Sentencing Commission found that the most popular solution to crime was to reduce the level of unemployment. In a poll regarding the effective ways to control crime, 41 per cent of Canadians said to reduce the level of unemployment; 27 per cent said to make sentences harsher; 13 per cent said to increase the use of non-imprisonment sentencing such as restitution to community service officers; 4 per cent said to increase the number of police officers and 10 per cent said to increase the number of social programs.
The government, in its so-called law and order agenda which is mainly full of rhetoric, is basically phoney and on the wrong track. The right track is to be tough on violent crime and criminals but at the same time balance this with a crime prevention program. We must get at people, particularly young people, before they become criminals.
Did you see the news last night and the story from Cape Breton about the 20-year old kid who murdered the people in the McDonald's? We wonder how we could have reached that obviously disturbed person earlier and perhaps helped him or the family or taken that person right out of society if that was the necessary thing to do. That is the real challenge for crime prevention in the future. That is what I call getting tough on crime. That is what I call being effective on crime. We owe it to the kids.
June 3, 1993

A kindergarten teacher could tell us about children who could be in trouble in the future. We need to intervene early and have programs for crime prevention, but we have to fund those programs.
We in the NDP give our consent today to the third reading of this bill so it gets through. We urge the government to implement its promises to this House today that money taken from criminal activities, from the forfeiture of moneys from crime, go toward crime prevention because crime prevention is the way of the future.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my understanding that we can call it five o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member for Abitibi were here we could carry on, or I could suspend the House.


Some hon. members:: Suspend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will suspend the House to the call of the Chair.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Maybe the Whip can get a hold of the hon. member.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.16 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 4.25 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Guy St-Julien: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider paying a salary to women who remain at home.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we all know that, in 1991, I received many petitions from men and women in my constituency saying that a salary should be paid to women who remain at home. I tabled the petition which was deemed out of order because it requested an amount of $12,000. Immediately following this refusal, and in compliance with the procedure of the House of Commons, I took the initiative of presenting the petition in the form of a motion which read: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider paying a salary to women who remain at home". We all know that the procedure of the House of Commons consists of a draw. I was lucky last month, since my name was drawn. Among the 21 motions which I tabled in this House, and which are the result of consultations with my constituents about what can be done for my constituency, I chose this particular motion.
We all know that most Canadian women spend at least part of their life being at home full time. Almost half of these women do not belong to the work force, and less than one third of those who have preschool children hold a full time job.
When it comes to raising children, Canadian parents seem full of good intentions regarding work sharing. However, for better or worse, work at home remains a woman's job.
Genetically, nothing predisposes women to housework. In practice, however, women do most of the housework. That is why I am referring to "women who remain at home" here, meaning mothers at home.
In Canada, women who stay at home work full time and even do overtime. Studies show that they work between 41 and 60 hours a week, depending on how many children they have and how old they are. Women at home are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Try to find a more demanding job.

June 3, 1993
Private Members' Business
These women work mainly at home. Their husbands, children and other family members benefit most directly from their work, but they are not the only ones. Thus, paying a salary to women who remain at home would stimulate the economy because they would spend this money on basic necessities such as better food, more durable clothes and so on.
Employers also benefit in other ways from women at home. The fact that women at home run the household and look after the other members of the family makes it easier for their husbands to devote all their energies to a gainful, full-time job outside the home.
Finally, in a more general way, women at home prepare the future in that they are raising the next generation of citizens. To reproduce generation after generation, we need a dynamic, healthy population.
What price should we put on the work of these women who are on the front lines 24 hours a day to do everything? It is estimated that if housework were included in the gross national product, it would amount to 35 or 40 per cent of the GNP, or at least $136 billion.
That is a lot of money. Yet women at home have no way of converting this work into cash. Unlike other workers in our society, women at home are not paid a salary. And because they are unpaid, they have no days off, no unemployment insurance and no accident, disability or sickness benefits. Even more serious in the long run, they do not have a pension plan.
But like all other workers, women at home do reach retirement age too. There comes a time when they can no longer perform all the tasks they used to. What happens then? After serving their families and society for all those years, many women at home end their days in poverty. It is sad to see the personal economic contribution of these women go completely unrecognized.
The former Social Credit member, Mr. Lambert, who lives in Berthier-sur-Mer, was telling me today that no government has ever calculated how much the work of women at home is worth. Ms. Judith Richard, who was an assistant to the late Real Caouette and whom I met
today at the same time, told me to convey the same message to the people of Canada.
It is unacceptable that women at home live in financial insecurity all their lives, especially when they reach retirement age, after a lifetime of working for their families and society as a whole. Mothers who decide to start working, often under poor conditions, do so because they receive no salary to stay at home, raise children and do all the work that entails. This is extra work on top of the work they still have to do at home.
Mothers are divided into two categories: working mothers and mothers who stay at home full time. Even those expressions are charged with emotion. If some women are working mothers, what are women who do not work? If some women are full-time mothers, does that mean that those who work outside the home are part-time mothers?
Housewives do not get any personal benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. Proposals aimed at sharing pension credits between spouses are good, but they do not take into account the value of the work performed by the housewife, since the couple's total pension is not increased.
Kathy Cooke said that women who stay at home sacrifice the production capacity of half our potential active labour force.
It is obvious that, for some people, the words "employment" and "work" apply to everything except the situation of mothers who stay at home.
Here is what was written on a recent census form from the government of Saskatchewan: If you have worked at home all your life, indicate never worked. People think that value and money are synonymous.
Mr. Gerard Amyotte, program director at Health and Welfare Canada's Social Service Programs Branch wrote this: "Often times, women who stay at home with their children are not considered as workers because they receive no salary. In our society, unpaid work is often not recognized and not appreciated. Social values are focused on the worth of an individual as measured by his or her professional status or pay cheque, instead of the amount of time spent on caring for others".
Jure 3, 1993

Kid First, an organization established in 1987 in Calgary, has put forward a suggestion. They want to protect the right of families to choose the type of child care best suited to their needs. They want to restore the right to choose and are aiming for equal rights and financial treatment for every possible option.
In 1970, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women said: "The housewife who remains at home is just as much a producer of goods and services as the paid worker."
There is hope when we hear a federal minister like the minister responsible for the status of women say that she would like to give women some money to spend on food, clothes or day care for their children.
Health Canada Inc., an insurance company, recently announced that it intends to provide disability insurance for spouses who remain at home, hence recognizing the value of the work they do at home.
Glenda Simms, president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, acknowledged on April 4, 1992 that the present definition of work does discriminate against women who remain at home.
We also take heart from statements made in the House of Commons such as the one the hon. member for Calgary North made on May 15, 1992: "We have to review our approach and make laws which would be above all fair to every family, reaffirm the first and foremost responsbility of parents and allow them to choose what they feel is the best way to raise their children".
An article published in the February 1992 issue of Chatelaine showed that many professional women are now deciding to remain at home with their children. That is what they want.
Here are some thoughts on the legal aspects: Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that every individual has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. The present tax laws do not give mothers equal treatment. Some are favoured but not others, which is contrary to the democratic principle of equal opportunity.
Linder subsection 136(1), the government is committed to promoting equal opportunity for the welfare of Canadians. The present tax laws do not give equal opportunity to parents who decide that one of the spouses should stay at home.
Private Members' Business
Here are some thoughts on legal definitions: work-a woman at home works, does something besides looking after her own welfare, is useful to society and contributes to the GNP. We must show that her work is useful to the proper running of society, to the welfare of the children and spouse she looks after so her spouse can work at a paid job with peace of mind. We must show that the work of women at home contributes to society because they prepare a generation of healthy, well-educated, stable citizens who will provide services when we are old.
We are not alone in the world and Canadians are not the only ones to try to solve the problem of full-time mothers. Most other countries are grappling with the same issue. In 1970 the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recognized that child care is a responsibility which must be shared by mothers, fathers and society. In 1983, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, a Conservative minister, said: "I agree that more must be done to recognize the contribution to society of women who work at home".
In February 1983, the Hon. Judy Erola, the Liberal minister responsible for the status of women, said: "I think that we must find ways to strengthen the family by reviewing the family benefits in our tax system." "I think it is important to extend these benefits to all types of families: those with children, whether one of the spouses stays at home or both are in the labour force-which is the case for most families with children-, and families with only one parent who stays at home or is in the labour force."
In 1983, the member for Kamloops, an NDP member, said in the House of Commons: "I will continue to ask the minister to reform the tax system so as to favour all family situations, a system which recognizes the cost and work involved in raising children, regardless of marital status or income level, a system which gives women at home the same status and recognition as those in the labour market". In 1984, a national survey showed that 81 per cent of Canadians were in favour of spouses participating in the Canada or Quebec Pension Plan. Spouses at home are still not entitled to a pension, however.
In June 1986, the Minister of State (Transport) a Conservative minister, was quoted in the Western Producer as saying: "If we pay for a universal day care program, why not provide money for women who stay at home, if that is their choice? Almost 50 per cent of Canadian women still stay at home to look after their children". In October 1986, Michael D. Harris, a member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, said: "We must certainly not refuse those women who want to make a career in

Private Members' Business
various fields, but we must still recognize and help those who dedicate their lives to their families".
I quote what Fred Driscoll, the acting minister of health and social services of Prince Edward Island, said in April 1986: "If we consider public funding for day care, we should ask whether women who stay at home do not have rights as well. This is a group that may have been neglected". As far as I am concerned, it is a group that has been neglected.
I believe that some social policies should be tried out, especially a salary to women who remain at home. The Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, the Macdonald commission, proposed a thorough overhaul of our social security system. It suggested that Canada implement a universal income security program, UISP, which basically meant a guaranteed annual income for all families.
The idea that the government should offer everyone a guaranteed annual income, which was controversial in the 1960s, became a fundamental recommendation of a royal commission. Are experiments with policies yesterday's failure or tomorrow's hope? Labour supply is an important issue in evaluating income support and other social policies, because disincentives to work are a powerful argument against such programs.
Proposals to reform income support or social insurance programs in Canada have many times run up against the fear that changing the benefits for those who are able to work could be counter-productive. Basically, the fear is that money transfers may reduce the incentive to work.
Since a guaranteed annual income is far superior as a way to supplement the income of all those who need it, not only low-income workers according to the 1986 paper by Humm and Simpson, the idea of a guaranteed annual income to eliminate poverty is strengthened, since we must not hide the fact that poverty is a persistent social problem in Canada.
I urge the government to make the situation of women at home a priority and to take the necessary action to recognize their rights to fair compensation.
In closing, I would like to thank all the many women and men who have expressed their support to me since
1991,	as well as all those who signed petitions and who telephoned me. I cannot name them all here and I trust that they will excuse me, but nevertheless, I would like to thank especially Beverley Smith of Calgary, whose study "Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater" was very helpful to me in this debate, as well as the newspaper Vers demain, or Michael, as it is known in English.
We have often seen posters in federal and provincial ridings demanding $12,000 as a salary for women at home. I wish to thank them and the National Federation of French Canadian Women for the sound ideas they defend in this cause.
We know today that I have waited since 1991 to discuss this subject in the House of Commons, but today I have the opportunity of putting in the Notice Paper some questions concerning payment of a salary to women who remain at home. I will also have an opportunity to repeat this motion in the House of Commons. I say especially to women throughout Canada and mothers at home and children: Don't give up.
We still make speeches. I mentioned some distinguished Canadians who had made speeches in legislative assemblies, national assemblies, the House of Commons, on paying a salary to women who remain at home, that is mothers at home.
We have an example in the bill respecting precautionary cessation of work for pregnant women. Since 1990, thanks to women in the government and in the labour movement and working women, we have fought for three years to have precautionary cessation of employment recognized in the Canada Labour Code. We will begin third reading of it on Monday. It took us three years. Today in this House we are beginning to try to find a solution for mothers who stay at home, who work 24 hours a day, who are awakened at night when their children have problems.
I say to people and to members of this House in all political parties: Let us work together and try to find a solution on salaries for women who remain at home. I say that in a few months, it would be an excellent idea from a government, of whatever stripe that government is. It is important today when we talk about poverty. We talk a lot about all sorts of federal and provincial programs, but we never had a royal commission on salaries for women who remain at home, that is mothers at home.
June 3, 1993

1 want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish all women good luck. I also say to all men who want to help us that they should write with their member of Parliament in every federal riding in Canada. It is free, because when you write to your MP, you do not have to pay postage. But the important thing is to contact your MP of whatever party so that the message gets through, even if it takes months. We must not stop, we must win this victory.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend the member for Abitibi for raising this issue in the House of Commons and for putting forward the motion that the government should consider paying a salary to women who remain at home. For far too long, I suppose from the beginning of time, society has undervalued the work women do in raising children and in the unpaid work they often do in the home. It is well past the time we should be considering what to do about this particular issue and how to find a solution to the evaluation of the quantification of work in the home which is presently unpaid and how we are going to provide payment for that work.
Canada was a signatory to the 1985 World Conference on Women wherein the so-called Nairobi forward looking strategies on the advancement of women were adopted. That international commitment on the part of Canada was included. It called on all nations including Canada to ensure that women's paid work and unpaid work are quantified and valued.
Canada has made an international commitment to address the issue of unpaid work by women who remain at home. We also have the problem of work that women perform as caregivers even though they may be working outside the home at another job. They come home and spend many hours on the very important activity of raising children. We do not compensate them for that.
We have an international commitment. We have various statements of support from government members and from ministers, but as yet no action and not even any investigation into the issue of paying women for what is presently unpaid work or any effort to work on the best way to ensure the quantification and the payment.
Private Members' Business
As with all social issues and as with all options and choices countries and governments have available to them, it is an issue that must be looked at in a wider context. Women who have worked in the home all their lives and have not worked outside the home have very severe difficulties when they reach the age of receiving the pension, particularly if their partners do not live with them or have died. Their limitations to pension obligations, pensions from Canada, mean they very often live in poverty.
We have the problem of how to quantify the work women do that is presently unpaid, how to pay for that work, and how to change the pension legislation in Canada to ensure the work done provides eligibility for the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Women are disadvantaged in many respects with regard to their eligibility for pensions and with regard to not being paid for the work they do.
We have to bear in mind the work being done in the home by women. It is done by men also but it is primarily done by women in Canada. The raising of children, our most important resource, is one of the most, if not the most, important functions we ask any citizen to perform. To continue to see this contribution as one which should not be paid for, as one which is not valued in the sense that it does receive compensation is something, I think we would all agree, in need of change. We have that context to bear in mind too.
There is one last point we need to bear in mind as well. It falls within the same difficulties of quantifying, valuing and so on.
On average women receive something like two-thirds of what men receive in terms of income. There are enormous inequities in terms of equal pay for work of equal value. Women over time and to this day receive less than men for the same work in some instances and certainly less than men for work of equal value. We have to address that issue too.
To get to the main point raised by the member opposite, until we recognize the value of the work women perform in the home which is presently unpaid and recognize it as giving rise to an entitlement to payment, we will never recognize the important role women play in society to the extent we need to. We will continue to see other problems of equal pay for work of equal value and so on not receiving the attention they deserve.

Private Members' Business
In closing let me confirm my support and my party's support for the member's motion. Let me congratulate him for raising it. I look forward in the not too distant future to action being taken so that the work women do which is presently unpaid will be paid. It is important for the government to make a commitment to ensure progress in this area.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to join my colleague from Abitibi and the previous speaker for the New Democratic Party in a discussion of this sensitive and very important issue of compensation for women who remain at home.
I am sure no one objects to the principle as such. I would say the government's efforts in this respect, especially during the past eight years, are reflected in the way it is channelling benefits to women, one example being the benefits that have just been endorsed by this House.
However, although I agree with the principle, I intend to demonstrate that implementing this motion raises a number of practical questions as well as the question of equity.
In any case, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this item of Private Members' Business, Motion No. 563, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider paying a salary to women who remain at home.
First of all, let us look at the objectives of this motion. It proposes that the government pay a salary to a group of persons under certain conditions. Payment of a salary implies that such payment is made for services rendered.
Today I would like to discuss how these services would be defined and how they would be quantified under this kind of government program. I would also like to consider how a government program could offer a salary exclusively to women, for such is the wording of the motion, who remain in the home and not to other persons who might provide the same services.
Subsequently, I intend to show that any attempt to implement such a program would soon face serious
problems, whether we are talking about equity or practical aspects, that would probably be insurmountable.
When developing a government program that provides for paying a salary to a group of persons, we must assume, first of all, that this group can be clearly defined, and second, that payment would be made for the services they provide. However, the proposal put forward in the motion by the member for Abitibi does not meet either of these fundamental criteria.
Let me explain. First, let us look at how the target clientele, women who remain in the home-according to the wording of the motion-would be defined for the purposes of eligibility for a government benefit.
The group "women" is a group that is readily identifiable, of course, and could be defined so as to include all persons of the female sex, 18 years of age or over, for instance. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and the government has had to change its own programs to eliminate this concept, because it constituted discrimination.
This means the government cannot introduce a program that discriminates against members of one sex, as this motion sets out to do. A way would have to be found to include men who remain at home and look after the children, for instance. It will be necessary to identify persons, and I say "persons" who remain at home, without reference to men or women.
How would a government program implement this concept? The government could not simply ask people whether they see themselves as "remaining at home", since the question would be too subjective. Another criterion could be labour market participation. For instance, all gainfully employed workers could be excluded. But in that case, what about self-employed workers who work at home and who apply for a salary as persons who "remain at home"? Should these workers be excluded? And if so, how? What about part-time workers who spend part of their time at home? So you see how hard it would be to implement this kind of concept.
June 3, 1993

What about the unemployed who are at home? Should all these people be included as well, and if so, according to what criteria?
And finally, as we all know, because of the way the unemployment insurance system works, paying benefits to people who are not employed can often have undesirable side effects. People normally want to maximize their consumption of products, services and leisure, including products and services they can produce by themselves. This means that if the government were to provide benefits to people who are not on the job market, some people would see this as an incentive to get out of the job market in order to get the so-called "free" benefits offered by the government under this kind of system. Does the government really want to encourage this attitude? The answer is pretty obvious.
It is clear that it is not easy to find a fool-proof criterion for identifying persons who "remain at home". I think that is obvious from the few examples I gave and the questions I raised. There would perhaps be a way to establish a link between "salary" and "remain at the home". The link between salary and individual income could ensure that all women who remain at home receive an income. However, most programs that are based on an assessment of the level of income already take into account the family income, which is the best yardstick for the resources available to each member of the family.
Another way would be to tie the salary to the presence of children in the home, in the case of either men or women, or perhaps to the care of parents or other family members who are disabled. Establishing this link between salary and the presence of children in the home is fairly easy. We already use this criterion for the child tax credit and the Canada Pension Plan exclusion clause for raising children, for instance. Tying salary to care provided for disabled family members may be more difficult to do on a permanent basis. However, assuming this problem can be solved, let us consider the concept of "salary" in the proposal presented by the hon. member for Abitibi.
As I said earlier, the salary concept presupposes that payment is made for services rendered.
Adjournment Debate
We are all familiar with the many and sometimes difficult tasks performed by those men or women who stay at home. These would include raising children, looking after the whole family, or perhaps just taking care of a spouse or even themselves. Furthermore, many people who remain at home become caregivers for the elderly or handicapped relatives living with them. Others give their time as volunteer workers to all kinds of charitable organizations.
I am sure most people will agree that, in practical or realistic terms, the government could not consider implementing such a policy. On the one hand, there would be discrimination and, on the other hand, it would be impossible to quantify the work of men and women staying at home according to the type of services.
For those reasons, I am unable to endorse this motion whose objective, although worthwhile, is beyond any conceivable implementation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As no other member wishes to speak, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant ot Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, on March 17 I asked a question of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada about the recommendations made at the national symposium in Toronto.
I reminded the minister that at the symposium four ministers confirmed that the way to reduce crime and make our community safer is to do something about poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and the lack of adequate housing. Four ministers said that the true roots of crime are poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and the lack of adequate housing. In his reply the minister did not say

Adjournment Debate
what the government is doing to address those four issues.
I went on in my supplementary to ask the minister what he is doing about responding to a letter from Toronto City Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Toronto Metropolitan Councillor Derwyn Shea, the MPP for Parkdale, Tony Ruprecht, and myself. We sent it in November 1992 to the current defence minister who was then Minister of Justice. To this day we have received no reply from that minister. I guess she was busy preparing for her leadership race even back then. To this date there are no programs based on the recommendations from the national symposium.
It is one thing to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to call a forum in the city of Toronto where there is a high crime rate, make recommendations and then do nothing about it. I do want to congratulate the minister for listening to our recommendations about returning seized property and assets to local jurisdictions when there is a crime bust. I was pleased that we passed Bill C-123 in this House today. I do compliment the government for its action on that issue. It finally listened to what the people were asking for.
I hope the parliamentary secretary can highlight what the recommendations of this national symposium were and what legislation the government has in place now. I do not know why it took the government nine years to introduce legislation to make our community safer. I guess it is because there is an election coming up. All of a sudden, they are coming up with the legislation that should have been implemented four, five or nine years ago.
Mr. Speaker, you are giving me the signal that my time is up. I hope you will give the parliamentary secretary a little more time so that he can provide better answers than the minister did during Question Period.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I will try to provide the most accurate answers to the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.
I want to tell him that the justice system is in a good position to be a true leader in terms of improving safety of our communities and urging all sectors of our society to work together toward community development, while at the same time limiting crime to a minimum. The Minister of Justice is committed to developing a national strategy on community safety and crime prevention, in co-operation with the numerous governmental and nongovernmental agencies which promote safety.
Last March the national symposium on community safety and crime prevention gathered officials from these organizations. The participants reached an exceptional consensus after in-depth discussions on issues such as violence, fear of crime, vulnerable groups in society, search for a balance, and the creation of communities and partnerships.
The participants developed a set of principles for a national strategy. First, this strategy should provide for a comprehensive approach, in that it should go beyond the traditional notion of justice, which focuses strictly on the offender, and take into account the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.
Second, the strategy should be aimed at the causes and not only at the symptoms. The discussions held reflected the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General on this issue. In Canada, as well as at the international level, it is increasingly recognized that poverty, unemployment, racism, sexism, drug addictions, and limited education and training opportunities are conducive to crime. It is also recognized that measures to improve these conditions will directly contribute to making communities safer.
In conclusion, this strategy should be based on a partnership which includes community organizations, police forces, local authorities, the governments of the First Nations, provincial and federal authorities, as well as non-governmental organizations.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I raised a question in the House about water diversions and bulk water transports being vulnerable or part of the provisions of the North American free trade agreement.
June 3, 1993

The government has hidden behind its argument that water is not included in the North American free trade agreement nor is there any provision for the bulk transport of water through either this agreement or the FTA.
The fact is that without a specific exclusion for bulk water transports, whether they be through interbasin transfers, tanker transports or pipeline transports, water is very much part and parcel of both the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement. There has been considerable expert opinion tabled in this regard, some of it tabled right in the legislative committee for the NAFTA agreement.
I want to clarify some of the misconceptions that the government has by reading a submission from the Raw-son Academy of Aquatic Science regarding NAFTA and water exports. It says: "Without an exclusion water is certainly part of the agreement". That is referring to the NAFTA. "Any good or service covered by a tariff heading annexed to the NAFTA is subject to the rights and obligations set out in the agreement itself". Tariff heading 22.01 of the North American free trade agreement is as follows: "Waters including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, ice and snow".
The document from the Rawson Academy of Sciences goes on to explain the specific exclusion of water as a commodity of trade under tariff item article 22.01 which is referred to in both the North American free trade agreement and the FTA. This is an article I should add that was just released a short time ago, April 1993. It goes on to say: "It has been upheld by recognized and respected Canadian experts in international trade and resource law that naturally flowing water is indeed covered under tariff heading 22.01. Even the Ottawa law firm that the federal government referenced in the water trade debate of 1988 has in fact acknowledged this".
If we make reference to the specific provisions of the North American free trade agreement we see that the trade agreement is about reducing trade barriers to goods and services between parties or between nations.
Adjournment Debate
It goes on in article 22.01 to say that the goods of a party are identified as products as understood in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades.
If we go a little further we see in looking at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades that the harmonized commodity coding system identifies as a good of a party tariff item 22.01. When we look at that long list of numeric codes we find article 22.01 actually being defined in the GATT as ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea water.
Whether you look under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades or the referenced agreement that is included both in the NAFTA and the FTA, there is water sitting there as article 22.01, ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea water. There is no question about it. Water is definitely included as a good of trade in both the FTA and the NAFTA.
The point I have been making time and time again is that there is no specific provision to exclude the possibility of bulk water transport as they have excluded the possibility of the export of raw logs or the possibility of exporting unprocessed fish written into the North American trade agreement.
Despite any implementing legislation that may say otherwise, despite any federal water policy that may say otherwise, without a specific exclusion that would exempt water exports, the possibility of exporting Canada's water is made vulnerable under the provisions of both the free trade agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement.
In summary we have a unique opportunity here with the call from the President of the United States for an environmental review to place in parallel agreements specific exclusions for the possibility of bulk export of water which would assist this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, water in its natural state is not covered by NAFTA. It is not covered by the free trade agreement, the GATT or any other trade agreement. Lakes and rivers are simply not goods or products any

June 3, 1993
Adjournment Debate
more than are the fish swimming in them or the oil and gas trapped under them.
Trade agreements only cover water when water has entered into commerce as a product. Canada's growing exports of water products benefits from such coverage. There is absolutely nothing in the NAFTA or any other trade agreement that forces Canada to either exploit its water for commercial use or to export its water.
What is in the NAFTA is the right to restrict or prohibit the export of water products when necessary to safeguard the environment or to protect human, animal, plant life or health.
Canada's 1987 federal water policy prohibits large scale exports of water by interbasin transfer or diversion. Therefore since we do not engage in large scale exports of water in any form, the proportionality requirement would have no real impact on Canada. A proportion of zero is zero.
Under the NAFTA, U.S. and Mexican investors and service providers will be subject to the same domestic laws and regulations as Canadians. The NAFTA creates absolutely no new obligation or right for anyone to exploit or export water as a good.
Why did we not dispel any lingering doubt by simply exempting water from the agreement? The answer is plain. There is no exemption for water in NAFTA simply because it is not necessary to insert an exemption from obligations that do not exist.
To do so would throw into doubt whether obligations exist for other natural resources in their natural state such as trees on the ground where clearly no such obligation exists either.
The bottom line is that Canadian governments both now and under the NAFTA have the freedom of action required to regulate the exploitation of our water resources. Until it is exploited and entered into commerce as goods, water is not covered by the NAFTA or any other trade agreement.


HEALTH CARE
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 of this year I rose in the Ffouse and asked the minister of health a question regarding the alleged extra billing that was being done by
physicians and doctors in Prince George, British Columbia and other parts of that province.
The minister provided what I thought was a very instructive and good reply in that he acknowledged some awareness of the situation. He acknowledged that under the Canada Health Act the government does have an ability to move in this regard and that it was looking into the matter with the provincial government.
Following the March 16 intervention in the House I wrote to the minister to inquire further and he suggested in his letter that his staff was looking into the matter. More recently, he also mentioned that he has written to the B.C. minister of health, the Hon. Elizabeth Cull, to get information to determine from the department's point of view whether the extra billing was taking place.
Obviously some time has passed since that question. I would look forward to the answer tonight from the government to get an indication as to what further progress has been made in this area. I have consulted with and talked on the phone late yesterday with the staff in my constituency office in Prince George. I can tell the government that we are still getting phone calls and reports from people in Prince George alleging either extra billing or that people are being asked to pay for medical services up front.
I report that to the government. I am very interested to hear what the government has to say about this particular issue and what kind of progress has been made.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the questions brought before this House by the hon. member.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is on record in this House as saying that he will enforce the Canada Health Act and impose dollar for dollar financial penalties on any province in which patients are being extra billed for necessary medical services.
The Canada Health Act recognizes that it is our provincial and territorial governments that are responsible for determining how our health care services are to be delivered and financed. The act does not give the federal minister the power to stop extra billing in any province or territory. However it does give the minister the authority to withhold a portion of federal transfer payments for health from the province in which the extra
June 3, 1993

billing is occurring. This reduction in federal contributions serves as a disincentive to the practice of extra billing.
The Canada Health Act defines extra billing as charges to a patient for an insured health service in an amount that exceeds the provincial health plan payment. The act requires the cash health transfer payment to the province to be reduced by an amount equal to the amount of the extra billing occurring in the province. In other words, for each dollar of extra billing a dollar is deducted. However we must be sure before we decide to withhold any transfer funds.
The minister is very concerned about the possibility of some British Columbia physicians charging extra fees for insured services. Such fees would leave patients having to pay out of their own pockets when they have already paid for health care services through their taxes.
The fees would also represent a financial barrier to
Adjournment Debate
some patients seeking or receiving needed medical care. This is something that goes against the principles upon which our health care system is based.
In conclusion, this government is opposed strongly to extra billing in principle and in practice. The minister is prepared to use his authority under the Canada Health Act and respond accordingly if any legitimate threat in the form of extra billing occurs.
That investigation to assure the hon. member is currently in process and it is the intent of the minister to deal with it in the way he sees fit in the event the member's claims are found to be true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 4, 1993