1993-06-01

['I have the honour to lay on the table the report of the Parliamentary Librarian for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1992.']
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Mr. Derek Blackburn, member for the electoral district of Brant, by resignation effective Monday, May 31, 1993.

In accordance with paragraph 25(l)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, today I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to lay on the table the report of the Parliamentary Librarian for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1992.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



ENVIRONMENT


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Environment entitled Our Planet, Our Future, in both official languages.
This volume, which is very large, contains the text of each of the committee's major reports with index of this Parliament and the government's response to all these reports.
In addition the report contains new material and the results of two round tables held with five distinguished Canadians including Mr. Maurice Strong, the secretary general of the earth summit, Mr. Jim MacNeill, who was the secretary general of the Brundtland commission, and the Speaker, who was gracious enough to open these hearings and offer some very important insights to our report.
This report is an attempt to say to the next Parliament what we think are the crucial survival and development issues that affect both the environment and the world's population. It is hoped this report will provide useful suggestions to our successors in Parliament on the crucial issues that need to be tackled.
Finally, as this is our last report to this Parliament, it is only fitting that we should thank the numerous individuals who have made this work possible: our clerks and their staff; the research officers; Secretary of State translation services; and the Centralized Support and Publications Service of the House. Without their collective efforts and professionalism we would not have been so well served.

Routine Proceedings
I also wish to pay special thanks to the indexing branch for preparing on very short notice the index to this publication which provides complete coverage of the last four and a half years.
Finally, I would personally like to thank the members of the committee on both sides and all those witnesses. Without their active participation and support we would not have achieved what I think has been a memorable contribution. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to serve as chair of the environment committee.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, in both official languages.
The committee enthusiastically pursued the task of reviewing the Lobbyists Registration Act and made several recommendations that will significantly improve it.
The report entitled A Blueprint for Transparency, a review of the Lobbyists Registration Act, calls for disclosure of more information about the lobbyists and their activities. It also asks lobbyists to establish a professional association and an industry-wide code of ethics to govern their conduct.
The first initiatives toward a registration system for lobbyists came from members of Parliament. It is the committee's sincere hope that our findings will build upon the past work of our colleagues and provide a blueprint for the next generation of the Lobbyists Registration Act.
I would personally like to thank all members who participated, my colleagues from all parties who sat on the committee as well as those who attended committee hearings from all parties to add what I think was valuable information and come up with the support for the unanimous recommendations, which I am sure are the blueprint for the future.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: for leave to introduce Bill C-440, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for gasoline purchases).


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


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this private member's bill which will create a tax deduction or credit to help address the cross-border purchases of gasoline.
For Canadian consumers who reside within close proximity of a Canada-U.S. land border crossing American gas prices, which are some 16 cents per litre cheaper, continue to draw them across the border.
Taxes, federal and provincial together, account for some 92 per cent of our higher prices. This proposed gas tax benefit will help offset our higher taxes on gasoline purchases for those consumers who are most affected.
As such it will encourage the purchase of gasoline on this side of the border, which would be of significant economic benefit to these communities and to the Canadian economy.
I would like to thank the member for Brome-Missis-quoi who has had a great interest in the problem of cross-border shopping and who has seconded this motion.


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




Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-441, an act to amend the Income Thx Act (dependant students over 18 years of age).
June 1, 1993


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


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is my pleasure to introduce this private member's bill this morning.
It seems to me that it is rather anomalous that we can have our sister, brother, mother or father living with us and they can be claimed for income tax purposes, but if we have our own sons or daughters resident with us and they are students but have passed the age of 18 we can no longer claim them as an income tax dependant.
We all know the difficulties for students in financing their education and for parents in assisting them. This bill would extend the child tax credit benefit to an eligible individual taxpayer who is a parent responsible for the care and upbringing of a child who is a student living at home until the dependent student attains the age of 26 years, commencing in 1993 taxation year.
I think this would be helpful to a lot of parents and a lot of students. Therefore I am proud to introduce it and I commend it to the House.


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


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, some constituents of mine have signed a petition and have asked me to present it in the House. I am pleased to honour their request and therefore table this petition as requested by them since this subject is important to these constituents.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition from employees of the
Routine Proceedings
House of Commons stating that parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act have remained unproclaimed since 1986. As a result, employees of the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and members' staff have no legal protection with respect to occupational health and safety and do not participate in joint consultations on employer-employee relations and occupational health and safety. These employees are not covered by standards set forth in the Canada Labour Code.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to put pressure on the government to proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from a variety of communities in western Canada, primarily in British Columbia.
They draw the attention of the House to the fact that a firm out of Vancouver has announced its intention to divert part of the North Thompson River in order to sell water in the San Diego, California area. It plans to move one million acre feet a year through the Rocky Mountain trench and eventually, using water diversion schemes, to sell the water in California.
These constituents believe, as I do, that the North American free trade agreement would facilitate the sale of this water, as was demonstrated conclusively in the House last Friday. Therefore they are asking the Government of Canada to bring forward legislation as was originally proposed in 1988 and which it promised to do then but has forgotten ever since, that would prohibit the interbasin transfer of water in Canada.


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

Government Orders


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-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, as reported, with amendments from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are six motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Motions Nos. 1 and 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, and Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No.
4;
(b)	if Motion No. 1 carries, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 6;
(c)	if Motion No. 1 is negatived, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 6.

Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River will not be selected as it is identical to Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West will not be selected as it is identical to Motion No. 4.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 6 to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-101 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-101 be amended by deleting Clause 42. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have Motion No. 6 but the member who is moving the motion is absent now, so this motion will not be considered.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to discuss the amendments to Bill C-101. However with regard to Motions Nos. 1 and 4 it is a very sad day because on one hand the government took an initiative to work consultatively with industry and with the labour movement to seek consensus for the Canada Labour Code amendments. Then, once that consensus was arrived at, it included in drafting the bill clauses 2 and 42 without consultation. It blew the good work that had been done by all parties out of the water by creating a bill that could not be supported by the New Democratic Party.
Clauses 2 and 42 of this bill allow for the Minister of Labour to order members of a bargaining unit to vote on an employer's last offer. The problem with this provision was not only that it was not part of a consultative process. In fact it is an unwarranted intrusion into the collective bargaining process. Given the experience of other jurisdictions it is an ineffective means of resolving a potential labour dispute. I say potential because these clauses provide for the intervention of the minister at any time after notice to bargain has been given.
In the normal process of things an orderly process takes place in collective bargaining. Bargaining means sitting down and exchanging ideas, exchanging positions sometimes in a more tense situation than others, and coming to a conclusion both parties can live with.
These clauses create a situation both in the public sector under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, clause 42, and in the private sector under federal jurisdiction, clause 2, which would come under the Canada Labour Code. This creates a situation whereby immediately upon providing notice to bargain at any time
June 1, 1993

following that the minister may intervene at the request of the employer.
Talk about going at something with a hammer. It is like hitting the rat before it gets out of the cage. It creates a climate for collective bargaining or a scenario wherein the bargaining agents go into the bargaining session with this hanging over their heads. It creates an untenable situation for collective bargaining. Under this directed vote provision we could anticipate not only resentment but an interruption to any kind of momentum toward a settlement. We find ourselves in a situation where employers in many cases would not be required to bargain in good faith.
I would like to quote the preamble to part I of the current Canada Labour Code which states in part: "The Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their co-operative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress".
That is what we thought was the tenor and the commitment to future collective bargaining of this government and this country. It is still in there, but now we have the intrusion of these clauses both in the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
I want us to consider going to the bargaining table. Most of the jurisdictions under the public sector are huge. For example, Canada Post has a country-wide union and is a country-wide employer. The airlines have bargaining units across the country with a number of jurisdictions in the bargaining units. The Public Service, an enormous group of working people, has several bargaining agents including the Public Service Alliance of Canada and PIPS. I would like us to think about the implications of a directed vote immediately after bargaining commences.
Even if it is not immediately after, when we have large groups of bargaining units like we have under federal jurisdiction coming to the table, we do not have five people on each side of the table. We have a number of tables representing various components. The issues that
Government Orders
are important to a lighthouse keeper on the west coast of Canada are quite different from those that are important to a clerk in Revenue Canada in Ottawa. There are a number of tables where the bargaining takes place. It is the same in Canada Post. We have a number of tables to discuss issues that are common but also issues that are separate based on the region and based on the type of work being done.
Now we have a situation somewhere in the process where the employers, whether it is private sector for Canada Post, or Treasury Board for the Public Service Staff Relations Act, decide they have had enough. They go to the minister and ask for a directed vote.
First the directed vote says that we do not believe the bargaining unit represents its members. If we do not believe the bargaining unit represents its members, I am quite surprised those members are allowing that bargaining unit to be at the table on their behalf because they have voted on what their bargaining proposals are.
We have created this directed vote and what happens? Do we stop bargaining, try to determine what is outstanding on table one, table two, table three, table four, table five or however many tables? Do we take the agreed to things to the vote and outline what is still outstanding? Once we have done that, once we have taken it to a vote, can we imagine what an interruption that has been to the collective bargaining process and what it takes to try to determine who is eligible to vote, where the list is, get it in the mail and get the results back?
Where does the government go, particularly when we are talking about the Public Service Staff Relations Act? If the government's final offer is what is being voted on and the workers say no in a directed vote, where does the government go? It has left itself no room to move, no room to bargain, no room to come to a resolution.
Assuming Public Service workers say no, the government-and in this case the Treasury Board is the bargaining agent-is in a position of deciding how to get the bargaining back on track. I submit this is an intrusion into the collective bargaining process. We were very clear about it in committee.

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
The hon. minister responsible for Canada Post who dreamed up this idea by watching an isolated collective bargaining process in Ontario saw a similar clause but forgot to read all the clauses surrounding it in the BC, Ontario and Saskatchewan labour codes. He decided it was a good idea. The unfortunate part is that the minister has absolutely no collective bargaining experience and has no concept of what these clauses will do to the collective bargaining process under federal jurisdiction.
If these clauses pass into law, they will leave collective bargaining in a hobbled, crippled and deteriorated state. There is enough bad feeling in the federal jurisdiction that it is time for the government to improve industrial relations, not to take it upon itself to create a situation under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The chairman told us it would cost upward of $3 million to carry out a vote as determined in these clauses.
I would urge the government to reconsider my two motions and to support the amendments.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set Bill C-101 in context. It is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
On December 9, 1992 my colleague, the Minister of Labour, introduced Bill C-101 that we are debating right now. Most of the proposed amendments relate to part III of the labour code, that is standard hours, wages, vacations and holidays. To a lesser extent they relate to part I on industrial relations and to part II on occupational safety and health. Changes are also proposed to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The proposed amendments to part II would almost exclusively redress certain discrepancies between the French and the English text to ensure clarity and uniformity.
While part III of the code applies to approximately 700,000 employees in federally regulated enterprises, the PSSRA or the Public Service Staff Relations Act-and I will refer to it in the short form from now on-governs industrial relations for about 200,000 federal Public Service employees.
The federally regulated enterprises to which the code applies include privately and publicly owned industries
engaged in interprovincial or international railroad and pipeline transportation, shipping and related services, air transportation, interprovincial and international communications, broadcasting, banks and various Crown corporations. We can see the bill is far reaching and is going to affect hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens.
My colleague who spoke earlier referred to clause 2. Clause 2 as tabled in the House by the minister seeks to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code by adding a heading and proposed section 108.1 regarding a directed vote on the employer's last offer. Where notice to bargain collectively had been given and the Minister of Labour felt that the public interest would be served by such a vote, the Minister of Labour could order a vote among employees in the affected bargaining unit. Employees could vote to accept or reject the employer's last offer received by their bargaining agent on all matters remaining in the dispute.
Clause 2 meant that the minister could direct that such a vote be held as soon as possible. He could designate the Canada Labour Relations Board, the CLRB, or any other person or body to be in charge of conducting it.
The designated entity would determine any questions related to the vote, including questions related to its conduct or the determination of the result. My colleague who spoke earlier pointed out some of the pitfalls to having this kind of a vote administered.
Certainly the idea that bargaining unit employees may vote on the employer's last offer is not new in Canadian labour relations. Legislation exists in several jurisdictions on this issue.
In Alberta, at any time after bargaining proposals have been exchanged, either party may make one request during each dispute for the Labour Relations Board to conduct a vote on the most recent offer. If most of those voting accept the offer it is binding on the parties and must be included in their collective agreement.
The British Columbia Industrial Relations Act provides that before the commencement of a strike or lock-out, the employer may make one request only for a secret ballot vote on its last offer to be held among
June 1, 1993

bargaining unit employees. The commissioner of the Industrial Relations Council then orders such a vote.
The act further allows that during a strike or lock-out the commissioner may direct a secret ballot vote if he or she considers that it is in the public interest to do so.
Finally, British Columbia's Bill 84 includes a provision that would authorize the minister of labour to direct a vote on the employer's last offer.
I have a little difficulty with the words "in the public interest". When we were in committee we asked the minister if he could define this and the Minister of Labour did not give us a definition which was as all-encompassing as the House leader did. In the House leader's view the public interest would be virtually anything that the minister said was in the public interest, period, game over.
In Ontario after the commencement of a strike the minister of labour may direct a vote among the bargaining unit employees or on the employer's last offer if he or she feels that the vote will again be in the public interest. We need some kind of definition as to what this public interest is going to be. I want to give an example.
In 1991 a legal strike by Toronto Transit Commission employees ended when the Ontario minister of labour directed a vote among the striking employees. A majority of the voting employees agreed to accept the employer's last offer.
Further the Ontario Labour Relations Act allows that before or after the commencement of a strike or lockout the minister, in response to a request from the employer, will order a vote among the bargaining unit employees on the last offer.
It has been suggested that the amendments proposed in Bill C-101 would serve the public interest without providing, in addition to conciliation and other mechanisms available under the legislation, a means that could assist in the settlement of bargaining disputes.
Nevertheless in neither clause is it specified what person or what body other than the Canada Labour Relations Board or the Public Service Staff Relations Board, as the case may be, might be charged with conducting the last offer vote or for what reason or on
Government Orders
what basis, an entity other than the relevant board would be selected.
Clause 42 would similarly amend the PSSRA by adding a heading and a proposed section 90.1. It would provide that before or after the commencement of a legal strike, a minister designated by the Governor in Council other than a member of the Treasury Board if he or she felt that, again those words, the public interest would be thereby served, could order a vote similar to that which the Minister of Labour could order under the proposed section 108.1 of the CLC. The vote would be held forthwith and would be conducted by the Public Service Staff Relations Board or any other designated person or body.
Finally, when the employer's last offer was accepted by a majority of the voting employees, any legal strikes in progress would cease forthwith and unlike the proposal for part I of the code, the employees would be required to return to work as soon thereafter as the employer determined was practical. The parties would be bound by that offer and would include its terms in the collective agreement.
These amendments propose to increase fairness and equity for employees in a number of areas, reduce the employer's administrative burden, duplication and jurisdictional challenges and streamline government operations.
By adding the amendments proposed by members of the opposition parties, Bill C-101 would have a better chance to meet its objectives. The proposals, most of which were developed over a two-year period through consultation between employer and employee representatives, are broadly acceptable to all parties except where organized labour is concerned.
I believe their claims that there ought to have been consultation over the issue of the vote of an employer's last offer must receive our close scrutiny, as feelings of dissatisfaction could lead later on to an undermining of the negotiating process. We would then have every right to wonder if the past consultations with organized labour on the proposed changes are being received with disdain and some would even say with mockery.

June 1, 1993
Government Orders


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we will be debating extensively the amendments put forward by my colleague from Ottawa West, the member for Mission-Coquitlam and me.
One of the reasons we are putting these amendments forward is to suggest to the government that we have some concerns with this legislation. It is my hope in making some comments today in the 10 minutes I have that we will be able to convince the government that with the deletion of these particular portions of the bill there has been some fine work done.
I support the amendments to delete clauses 2 and 42 because as I said my colleague from Ottawa West and I submitted identical amendments to those tabled by the member for Mission-Coquitlam. Clause 2 will allow the government to direct a vote of a union membership on a company's last offer at any time after notice to bargain has been given.
Those of us who have some collective bargaining experience know full well that this section of the legislation is completely opposite and in the wrong direction to what we as governments, business and labour would like to see as it relates to co-operation. This clause suggests that unions are not democratic, that unions are not capable of looking after the interests of their own employees, their own members, they are not capable or interested in looking after the best interests of those they serve.
For those people listening to the debate this morning and who may not know much about the collective bargaining process in this country, a union must give notice to the employer that it is ready to proceed to the negotiating table to hammer out a new collective agreement.
The government claims to have been so impressed with the Toronto Transit Commission strike and how Bob Rae's government dealt with it that it chose to introduce a similar measure under the Canada Labour Code.
I say similar because the provisions of clause 2 are not the same as in the Ontario labour legislation. In Ontario the minister of labour can direct a vote on the last offer-and this is the thing to remember-only after strike action has begun and not before. Clause 2 of this bill completely undermines the consultative process
which Labour Canada embarked upon more than two years ago.
Provisions of Bill C-101 dealing with maternity reassignment and leave, parental leave, and work-related illness and injury are all excellent measures which will bring the Canada Labour Code up to modem day realities.
The point of this whole exercise, discussion and debate is that the government continues on the one hand to consult with interest groups that have a stake in a particular piece of legislation. It has put in good sections and improvements in the bill to help everyone involved. On the other hand however, through the back door it has put in a very Draconian piece of legislation because it has included specific clauses in the bill on which there was no consultation. In essence this will undermine all the good work that was done by government, business and labour.
The government continues to miss the boat when it comes to this issue. It cannot pretend to be consulting with Canadians and interest groups and then stick in clauses in its legislation on which there was no input from the players at the table nor from the individuals who are most concerned: those in the work force or in this House looking after their interests.
That is the reason I hope the members and the public who are listening today will understand why this government is so disliked and hated. It is not the first time the government has put legislation in the House with the suggestion that there was massive consultation, which there was in certain sections of it, and then include in the legislation parts on which there was no input from anyone.
All of these provisions except for the ones I mentioned were arrived at after two and a half years of consultation involving Labour Canada, unions and management. They are supported by all parties involved in that process.
When Bill C-101 was tabled imagine the surprise in finding provisions relating to a direct vote on a company's last offer included in the bill. These provisions were not raised during the consultation process. Imagine the surprise of those who spent two and a half years of their valuable time discussing these major changes in finding a section in the legislation they knew nothing about. If clause 2 is not deleted from the bill, and of course clause 42, the government will not have the support of one labour organization. They have all stated categorically
June 1, 1993

that they are opposed to the provision of a directed vote on the last offer.
During the legislative committee hearings we heard from the minister responsible for Canada Post that it was his idea to bring this provision forward. Can you imagine the minister for Canada Post bringing any particular provision into the Canada Labour Code with his limited experience in this field? We heard he consulted with management at Canada Post to seek out its views on the directed vote issue.
Did the minister consult with the unions at Canada Post? On asking the unions, the answer of course is that he did not. Some of my colleagues want to know why the minister responsible for Canada Post did not take the time to consult with the unions. This is something that should be done as a normal course of practice in carrying out his responsibilities as minister responsible for Canada Post.
The minister did not consult with the unions at Canada Post, nor did the Minister of Labour consult with other labour organizations. As I said before, this Tory government does not have any respect whatsoever for organized labour. In the past several years we have seen labour-management relations deteriorate almost to a point beyond repair. The government has had many opportunities to rectify its record in this area.
During the debate on the North American free trade agreement, I submitted an amendment. It would have given government the perfect opportunity to make amends by stating that it respects the rights of workers to organize, to bargain collectively and of course to strike. The government did not accept that amendment and of course it lost a very important opportunity to show workers that it is interested in what goes on with them in this country.
This government's ideology with respect to unions is somewhat behind the times. A group of American economists authored a book entitled Unions and Economic Competitiveness. The authors have found that effective economic restructuring cannot take place without strong unions.
One particular quote from Lawrence Mishel and Paula Voos, the book's editors, is worth citing: "The fundamen-
Govemment Orders
tal point is that high productivity, worker rights, flexibility, unionization and economic competitiveness are not incompatible. In actuality they may be highly compatible components of a high performance business system".
They go on to say: "We increasingly see evidence that a system based on collective bargaining and a strong independent voice for workers is not only important to our democratic institutions but also may have a positive contribution to our economic future". That in a nutshell says it all.
However the government is choosing to undermine organized labour in an attempt to destroy it. The deletion of clause 2 provides the government with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that it is not mired in the 1960s where labour relations are concerned and ensure that Canada continues to be one of the leading nations in a global economy.
I urge the government to seriously consider withdrawing clause 2 of this bill and of course clause 42 so that all parties can support the other excellent provisions amending the Canada Labour Code.
In the dying days of the government opposite, it would be to its benefit if it cannot see fit based on its ideology to withdraw these clauses, that it does at least something more important to all of us. That is to not ruin the potential of a working relationship with labour, business and government and to just withdraw the bill completely. Leave it for another time, for a government that has a little more understanding of the importance of the relationship of those three pillars in our society. We can then assure them that we will get this country back on track again.


Mrs. Catterall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not in the House when Motion No. 6 came up and therefore it was withdrawn. I am rising simply because I was in committee on a bill that I think is important to all of us to get through the House before it recesses, the amendments to the Shipping Act.
Therefore, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to allow Motion No. 6 to be moved.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the decision made earlier, Motion No. 6 which I will submit to the House will of course be part of the first group of motions.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately
after line 13 at page 4 the following:
"(b) to enhance the expression and communication of Canada's cultural identity."


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I will be veiy brief speaking on the motion before us.
For the record, I would like to compliment the member of our caucus from Mission-Coquitlam who has done an excellent job as our labour critic. As that definition implies, she has worked closely with all parties in the House, from time to time with the minister, with members of the trade union movement and with the government, particularly during disputes. The hon. member is a credit to this House for the work she has done helping the trade union movement and understanding what the duties and obligations of Parliament are as well. I think that is important to say at the start of my comments on Bill C-101, the act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
We have no dispute with some parts of the bill that the government is amending today. There have been consultations for some time now with the trade union movement and others in the public on changes to this legislation which we can support. However what has become an unfortunate trend with this government and maybe all governments is that often the good will is taken a good distance further than expected.
The particular amendment we have been discussing allows the minister when he or she deems it in the public interest to force a vote at anytime, perhaps during a dispute, on what has often been called the employer's last offer. This is an example of the government, having sought advice and having received some input, proposing some positive changes. Then it takes it a step further to
really lose a lot of the support and good will it might have had in trying to pass this legislation.
My concern focuses on a couple of points in this bill. I agree with one of the previous comments about how the public interest is defined, keeping in mind that often it is a very nebulous thing in the affairs of public life, the government, business and labour. It is often very difficult to pin down.
In this bill the government has virtually left that entirely at the discretion of the minister to determine what that public interest is. We could speculate on what a minister of the day might determine to be in the public interest in terms of imposing such a vote. I think it would be wise for this House to be able to consider a definition of the public interest so that we do have a sense of the framework for when the government might impose such a vote.
I am also thinking on this particular point that timeframes are very important in any management and labour dispute. Timeframes are important because often at the last minute a resolution can be reached and then some time may pass before resolution of a dispute is met.
It is without some indication from the minister and the government in the legislation as to just when a particular motion or effort by the minister can be used to impose a vote that needs to be clarified. It is not in this particular amendment which has been seen to be odious and that is a concern as well.
As a final point I have a concern about these final offers. We all know how many final offers there can be. There can be one in the morning, one in the afternoon and then maybe one late at night. Abetter clarification is needed in terms of what that final offer might be.
Assuming the government will be supporting this legislation and putting it through the House, I do not know necessarily how the government will determine when that final offer is. Must it be registered with the minister to determine officially whether that is the final offer? What about the timeframe I referred to earlier? The timeframe imposing the vote on a final offer may go stale by the time a particular vote is held on a contract proposal.
It is important to seek further clarification from the government. If it chooses not to and proceeds as is, that is unfortunate. As I mentioned earlier this government takes the good will too far and loses the opportunity to
June 1, 1993

gain the support it might have been able to get for this legislation.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for the consideration in allowing the motion to be introduced to amend the bill. Quite simply the intention of this motion is to recognize that the government is an employer unlike any other employer. Therefore the legislation cannot apply in the same way to government as employer as it does to the private sector.
Normally I would be arguing the opposite way. Normally I would be arguing that government should be taking unto itself the same responsibilities as it imposes on other employers. In this particular case however government is giving itself a power which other employers do not have.
Let me make it clear that the Liberal Party disagrees with the provision of the forced last offer vote. At least the Canada Labour Code provides for an impartial person, the Minister of Labour, to determine that it is appropriate to have such a vote. Because the government is the employer in the public sector it is entirely inappropriate for a minister of the Crown to have the authority to decide that there should be a last offer vote. It would be equivalent to giving the president of General Motors the power to stand up at the bargaining table, walk away and say: "Whatever the union says on behalf of its members, we are going to put this to a last offer vote".
This legislation allows a minister of the Crown to act exactly as I have just painted the president of General Motors operating and basically unilaterally determining what the process of bargaining is.
In decades of labour relations legislation and the development internationally of labour relations, the fundamental principle that has been recognized is that there have to be fair rules of the game if we want negotiated settlements instead of confrontation. There have to be fair rules of the game that treat these two partners, the employer and the workers, as having equal power. That balance is what creates the ability to negotiate. If one is able to force its will on the other we do not have a negotiated settlement.
There is an option in the public sector. We already have a body called the Public Service Staff Relations
Government Orders
Board. Its function in essence is to serve as mediator between the employer and the employee in a number of situations. It is the one body that stands apart, independent of either the government as employer or the unions as representatives of the employees and is capable of making an impartial decision whether this kind of process would assist in the achievement of a contract.
The motion therefore takes away from the minister the power to say it is in the public interest-remember the minister represents one side in the bargaining process-and instead allows the minister to ask the Public Service Staff Relations Board to make a determination whether a vote on the employer's last offer would assist in the achievement of the contract and would serve the public interest.
As I have said there are several things that are different between the public sector and the private sector, not the least of which is the employer's power in the public sector to determine that employees cannot strike, in other words, to exclude employees from the normal rights they would enjoy as employees represented by a union.
The government already has that power. It can protect the public interest by saying: "This job or group of jobs is so important to the public interest that it is excluded from the right to strike". That is one power it already has. The second power it already has is that at any time it may order its employees back to work. That is a power the president of General Motors does not have. The other side can argue, perhaps with some reason although I do not accept it, that sometimes the government might need to step in and direct that the employees be given an opportunity to vote on the employer's offer.
That need does not and never did exist in the public sector because of the extraordinary power of the government over its employees.
The third factor is that as the largest employer in Canada, the federal government has an extremely diverse work force. This means that when collective bargaining begins it begins with employees who do a whole range of duties from being out on the ocean rescuing ships to sitting in front of a computer all day. There may be, as we were told by the chair of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, 200 items in dispute at any one time. As they sit around the bargaining table there may be specific resolutions on some of those issues or an

Government Orders
employer's offer and the unions counter-offer on others, but very seldom will all of the 100 or 200 items actually be in a last offer.
Mr. Deans, chair of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, said to the legislative committee: "It seems to me to be beyond reason to think that if you had 190 items that had not had any response to them, and a dozen or so, 20 even, for which there had been a response, forming an offer to settle when that was presented to all those employees it would be overwhelmingly apparent to them that most of what they had put on the table had not yet been dealt with".
Mr. Deans also posed another problem: If the employees turn it down, what then? The government has already stood in this House and said: "This is our last offer and we want to put it to a vote of the employees", but the employees turn it down. Does the government then come back and say: "Well, that really was not our last offer; we have another last offer and we will go and have another vote", which could go on for months and months. You have to remember that we have people scattered all over this country working for the Government of Canada.
First, it is really not a desirable proposal. Second, it is not a workable proposal, as the government will soon find out if it ever attempts to use this measure. None the less, on the simple basis of principle, this motion seeks to try and make what we as Liberals consider an unworkable and undesirable situation a little bit better by at least not putting a minister of the Crown in conflict of interest in his role as minister and as the employer at the negotiating table.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to address the amendments to Bill C-101, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Today a number of motions were tabled concerning clauses 2 and 42. When, on May 5,1993, a vote was held in the legislative committee on this particular motion, I abstained. The amendment being proposed today is comparable to section 40 of the Ontario legislation on
labour relations, and British Columbia has a similar provision in its labour relations code, with Bill 84.
My decision to abstain, in the light of the testimony we heard before the legislative committee, was based on the provisions of clauses 2 and 42. According to a number of organizations, unions and individual witnesses, there was not much time to discuss this clause, which came in fairly late. In light of the concerns of the unions, especially when the Minister of Labour appeared before the Committee on March 23, 1993, I would like to quote what the minister said that day at page 1:26: "In some provinces, for the vote to take place, it must come at the request of someone. I could have done it, for instance, at the request of either party or at the request of an employer. We hear sometimes a vote on the employer's last offer at the request of the employer."
If the legislation goes through as is, it is at the discretion of the Minister of Labour, who in his or her mind would come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest to proceed before or after there is a work stoppage.
The Minister of Labour went on to say: "This is not the case. This is an additional tool that I would propose to give, if Parliament agrees, to the future labour minister to use in exceptional circumstances, very, very seldom."
At page 1:27, in answer to a question by the chairman: "The back-to-work legislation, Mr. Chairman, I had to bring to the House in the last two years, albeit reluctantly, was brought in because I felt it was in the public interest to do so. Even though I may not have had strong support from the Liberal Party and the NDP, I certainly believe the three times I brought that in both critics shared with me the same concern for the public interest in those disputes. So I hope in the future it would be the same thing."
We know that after an election there may be a new minister. In any case, the present minister, has done a good job. I abstained on this particular motion in committee because I had not discussed the matter to my satisfaction with the unions and management.
June 1, 1993


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today at report stage of Bill C-101. This bill as has been stated by previous speakers adds many positive aspects to the legislation. One of the more positive aspects is that there was a considerable degree of consultation, I understand about two years, prior to most of these amendments coming forward in the form of Bill C-101.
The provisions dealing with hours of work, substitution of holidays, maternity leave and reassignment can be applauded by most people in the labour movement and most employers in Canada. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with the bunch opposite, it can screw up the Lord's Prayer.
We have just gone through almost two years of consultation. The government has now brought in a bill to correct some flaws in current labour legislation both in the public sector and the private sector and it gets an unusual degree of unanimity about what the bill should be. In keeping with the way the bunch opposite does its work, it just cannot do anything right.
After all the consultations had taken place, after it had invited labour groups and all interested parties in during the consultative period, it threw a couple of new agenda items on the table which absolutely infuriated those people who were asked for input because these were agenda items which were not up when their consultation was sought.
Clearly this is something quite contrary to what most reasonable individuals would call adequate, up front and honest consultation. The Minister of Labour came in and indicated that he wanted to see some other changes. When the bill came forward there were a couple of amendments on which nobody had ever been consulted.
After coming forward and saying: "We know we are a government whose mandate will probably be remembered as one that did not consult enough before legislation came forward, that shotgunned legislation through the Parliament and Senate of Canada, that used closure more times than any other government in the history of the country; that shut down parliamentary committees", unheard of before the Tories got back in on their second mandate. The government used the tyranny of the majority rather than say: "Look, we have finally learned
Government Orders
that consultation and consensus building is the way to make better legislation in this country".
It just could not help itself on this bill. It could not just bring in the bill which we could have passed here quickly in a day and had shorter hearings. It had to come in with a couple of amendments on which nobody had been consulted and tack them on. It does this all the time. The ones I want to talk about are the amendments to clause 2 and clause 42 dealing with directed votes.
Think about it. After going through the consultative period, getting all kinds of input and getting people to once again have faith that the Tories can at least do something right when it comes to legislation, particularly dealing with labour laws and standards n Canada, it snookered everybody by coming in with a bill that has two clauses which quite clearly are offensive to most people. These are not acceptable to anybody who has been in the consultative process or in the opposition, both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.
What it basically has done is this. In the case of employees in the public sector and some in Crown corporations who come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code, it has given the Minister of Labour the authority to direct a vote on the last offer by an employee without any consultation with the employee group or the representative group that has gone into collective bargaining.
Just think about it. The government says it believes that the integrity of the collective bargaining process must be maintained. It believes that government has a responsibility through legislation to ensure the give and take of collective bargaining is entrenched in our legislation and that there are certain rules by which the game is played so that we can have a successful conclusion to what otherwise many times are chaotic negotiations.
Sometimes it means that the bargaining unit or team for the group of employees says: "No, the last offer put on the table simply was not good enough". It is part of the process. It is part of the bargaining. It is part of the give and take and it is the right of the agents for the bargaining unit to make that decision.
The government, in clauses 2 and 42, said that it would change the rules of the game. When it deals with the

Government Orders
employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act it is going to allow any minister of the Crown outside those who sit on Treasury Board to come in and order a directed vote.
In short, in the view of all the labour groups represented and in view of the legislation, it is subverting the collective bargaining process. The Tories came in with all of these good things in this legislation but just could not help themselves. I guess the devil made them do it again. They could not help themselves. They had to throw in a couple of amendments which just reeked of the Tory way of governing. There was no consultation. There was a blunt instrument. It was buried in with a couple of good things and in the name of goodness if we want the good things we have to take the bad things such as the salad and the unpalatable ones as well.
My colleague is telling me that when the Minister of Labour came to the committee and was asked why he came forward at the last moment after the consultations and threw these two clauses in, he scratched his head and said: "The NDP government in Ontario did it so I thought it was a good thing to do".
Can you imagine? This bunch is discredited enough. It is taking direction from the most discredited government in Canada, which is even more discredited than the federal Tory party. Maybe not. Maybe I exaggerate. It may be the second most discredited government in Canada. It is absolute lunacy. The Minister of Labour said: "They did it in Ontario. The Ontario NDP minister of labour did it in the Toronto transit strike, therefore we felt it was a good thing to do".
My goodness, no wonder the country is in trouble if the Ontario NDP government and the federal Tory government are taking tips from each other. It is little wonder that we are almost bankrupt. It is little wonder that both governments are so low in popular support in the institutions they sit in and so highly despised by Canadians. If it was not so offensive to blind people, I would say that it was like the blind leading the blind.
It is unbelievable that the minister did not even realize that in the case of the Toronto transit situation there was already a strike under way. It was not the same.
Look at these two clauses that the government has come in with. It is basically saying: "We have taken a good bill with an unusual degree of consensus and we have changed a lot of things that had to be changed".
When one is swallowing the good stuff there are going to be a couple of barbs in it that are going to stick around the oesophagus. They are going to make one choke a bit because it is going to give the Minister of Labour in the case of employees covered under the Canada Labour Code, or any minister other than a Treasury Board minister, the right to direct a vote without any strike.
It does not mention a strike situation. It talks about going back to work. The minister can say: "Okay, that is it. We want to undermine the activities of the bargaining agents or the people who are bargaining on behalf of a group of employees by directing a vote. At any given time we will just snap to that".
We will find that these two clauses will be some of the most regressive clauses in any labour legislation that we have seen in 20 years, other than the back to work legislation which these guys do all the time. That is what one is going to find out here.
The other thing that is very odd when looking at these cases is that the government was told in committee that this was unacceptable. Labour groups said it was unacceptable. The Public Service Staff Relations Board-the very board that would have to carry out the directed vote when one deals with negotiations for public employees- said that it was completely opposed to these two clauses because it believes that the clauses have subverted the collective bargaining process.
I hope the government will see fit to strip these two amendments out. It does not need them. There is no need to poison good legislation. If it strips them out and agrees to drop them then we will find an unusual degree of consensus on the rest of this bill. We will find for once in the dying days of this Parliament that collectively we can pass better labour legislation in this country.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.
June 1, 1993


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motion No. 4. We now proceed to Motion No. 6.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 6 negatived.

Motion No. 3
That Bill C-101 be amended in Clause 26 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 16 the following:
"205.3 The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the government of any province where a compensation plan respecting the modification of job functions, or reassignment, of employees who are pregnant or nursing is in force, to make such employees eligible to the benefits provided for by the compensation plan established under the laws of the province."
Government Orders
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-101 makes positive changes, especially for injured worker as provisions made on their behalf are improved. From now on those who are not covered by a provincial law on this subject will have their income maintained at a level equal to the benefits provided by the provincial plans, their rights and benefits maintained during their disability and a guarantee that they can return to their job when they have recovered.
Although this bill substantially improves parental rights, pregnant and nursing women workers in Quebec who are covered by the Canada Labour Code will have fewer rights, partly because the minister chose to include them in part III of the law under labour standards rather than in part II dealing with occupational health and safety. This puts emphasis on someone's condition instead of on dangerous working conditions.
This bill gives employers much more latitude than they have under Quebec legislation. In particular, it affects reassignment to another position and changes to tasks and economic conditions for pregnant or nursing women who opt for precautionary cessation of work. These would have the effect of penalizing pregnant or nursing working women in Quebec.
General rights of injured workers are adjusted to coincide with provincial legislation, but for pregnant women this adjustment only goes half-way.
Workers whose health is endangered or jeopardized by their working conditions have the right to refuse dangerous work without penalty. Women who have the same problem due to a pregnancy threatened by dangerous working conditions do not have the same right.
Implicitly, pregnancy is considered a private and not a social matter; thus pregnancy is not considered a natural human function for all women. The refusal to integrate women's specific nature in the work place lies at the root of the systemic discrimination experienced by women.
Working women in Quebec are entitled to be reassigned or to opt for precautionary cessation of work with an income equivalent to 90 per cent of their net salary if the job is dangerous for them or for the unborn child.
Now that we are amending the Canada Labour Code it is a good time to recognize the same rights and protection for all working women in Quebec, whatever jurisdiction they come under. A proper program of

Government Orders
precautionary cessation of employment is a way to improve public health.
In Quebec the rate of perinatal mortality is one of the lowest in the world. Only Japan, Sweden and Finland have lower rates. This situation is largely due to the quality of Quebec's health care system. I believe that the protection given to pregnant working women is a significant factor for several reasons.
In Quebec one out of three pregnant women takes advantage of a precautionary cessation of employment. Furthermore, very many women of child bearing age work and many more married mothers with children under age two work than before this legislation was passed.
Nevertheless, the number of children bom with congenital abnormalities is still a major problem. One of the causes for this phenomenon is environmental. We have not yet explored and understood the impact of environmental conditions-far from it. These are especially important for pregnant women working in dangerous conditions, since we know that the presence of certain substances affects foetal development at a very early stage.
Finally, giving employees a new right without providing penalties for non-complying employers is meaningless.
These new provisions would put the burden of making a choice on women when often they do not really have a choice. As we know, those who quit get only 57 per cent of their pay. For many, quitting can jeopardize their future right to maternity leave. In some cases, they might use up all the weeks of benefits to which they are entitled even before they take maternity leave. Others who use all 15 weeks of sickness benefits under the unemployment insurance plan while they are pregnant and not working lose the right to parental leave benefits. No one can take more than 30 weeks of special leave in one year. Benefits for sick, maternity and parental leave total 40 weeks.
Therefore the alternative facing working women is to take a considerable loss of income and become poorer or stay at work to protect their income and carry a pregnancy to term under dangerous conditions.
That is why I proposed this amendment which is feasible even in the federal context. Under this amendment the minister can, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the government of a province having such a compensation system for reassigning pregnant or nursing employees or changing their tasks so that these employees can enjoy the benefits of the compensation plan established by provincial legislation.
Under this motion, all working women in Quebec, whether they come under the Quebec or federal Labour Code, would have the same benefits and the same conditions when they are pregnant.
This would eliminate the double standard in Quebec where 75 per cent of the women workers come under the Quebec Labour Code and the other 25 per cent under the federal Labour Code. The working, living and maternity conditions for these women are inferior to those for women covered by Quebec's legislation.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, further to Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, when I look at this proposal I think there are a few things we should query. In 1989 Ms. Joanne Moisan, one of my constituents, came to my Val-d'Or office. She had been turned down by the Commission de la sante et de la securite du travail du Quebec because she worked for Voyageur Bus Lines, a federally chartered company.
She came to my office to tell me she had been treated unfairly. We immediately started looking for ways to deal with the problem. I tabled a petition and on May 17, 1990, I presented Motion M-655. The motion was debated when we came back the following year.
For a number of weeks the Minister of Labour has been working very hard with federal employees and the unions to come up with a solution. The provisions on maternity related reassignment cover all pregnancy related health problems as well as working conditions that may be harmful for the employee, the foetus or the nursing infant. It is a fact that part II of the Labour Code is most often invoked in the case of pregnancy related health problems. However, it must be demonstrably clear that a specific health problem or risk to the health
June 1, 1993

of the employee during pregnancy or nursing is caused by the job environment.
That is why we went to Part III. Women will have potentially better protection by having maternity related reassignment considered under labour standards instead of under occupational health and safety.
How do these provisions compare with provincial legislation? At the present time Quebec is the only jurisdiction in the process of legislating a specific provision to protect pregnant employees in the work place. I agree with the hon. member that Quebec has an excellent program. Some collective agreements also contain similar provisions.
How does this proposal compare with Quebec's program? Our proposal is based on the strong points of that program. The program proposed by the federal Conservative government provides protection in the case of a health problem strictly related to pregnancy, such as nausea. The Quebec program does not make this provision. In Quebec, a pregnant or nursing employee must provide a medical certificate stating that her job duties pose a physical threat to herself, the foetus or the nursing infant. There are several levels of appeal. In Quebec it takes two medical certificates, while at the federal level only one is necessary.
The proposed federal program will make it possible for the pregnant or nursing employee to be reassigned to another job if her physician believes there is a potential risk to her health, that of the foetus or that of the nursing infant.
Under the Quebec program, the employee must be able to perform a certain number of tasks to be eligible. Under the federal program the pregnant or nursing employee who is unable to perform any of her duties for reasons related to her pregnancy or to the fact that she is nursing is entitled to leave. [DOT]
The Quebec program provides for replacement income, while the federal program provides for a leave entitlement for the duration of the risk. This provision is compatible with entitlement to other types of leave provided under the Canada Labour Code. As in the case of other types of leave, the employee will be able to draw on unemployment insurance and the supplementary
Government Orders
benefit programs for which she is eligible. The Quebec program provides 90 per cent of net earnings. The income replacement program included in the federal government's proposal will provide between 57 and 95 per cent of insurable earnings, depending on the system of benefits.
The motion presented in the House by the hon. member for Laurier-Saint-Marie says: "The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the government of any province where a compensation plan respecting the modification of job functions, or reassignment, of employees who are pregnant or nursing is in force, to make such employees eligible to the benefits provided for by the compensation plan established under the laws of the province."
For several months the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative Party have been working very hard to try and find ways to deal with this problem. Quebec leads the country with one of the best programs for safety related withdrawal of pregnant employees. There have been cases of unfair treatment by federally chartered businesses of women working in banks, television, radio and transportation. Today's proposals are a first step. I agree, it is just a start. It is a first for the Canada Labour Code. Federal public servants are very pleased. It is a first step but we will have to improve on it.
I agree this motion has merits, but I think we will have to look at what the provinces are doing. If we give 57 per cent and one province gives 90 or 95 per cent, we will have to agree on a common standard in Canada to avoid creating two classes of citizens: women who are rich and women who are not. I think we must find a way. We will improve on this legislation although it may take one or two years. Meanwhile I support this motion.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. The reason I support it is that I think it is important for us to note and for the government to consider that historically the Canada Labour Code led all of the provinces in terms of the progressive kind of protection that it gives to workers.

Government Orders
However, in the last number of years we have seen the Canada Labour Code fall further and further behind the protection provided to workers by provincial labour codes.
Therefore, when we look at the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie we think about the fact that in the province of Quebec and in other provinces there are other jurisdictions that have improved protection, but in this particular instance it is the most notable protection in the province of Quebec. It is important that the minister consider incorporating into the Canada Labour Code a provision that will ensure that workers under federal jurisdiction do not in fact find themselves with less protection than if they worked in provincial jurisdiction in the company next door.
It is important for us to acknowledge that provinces in many instances do have much enhanced legislation and that workers should not find themselves being covered by the lowest common denominator but in fact covered by the highest common denominator. In the case of Quebec this would mean that workers would be protected and covered by the provisions in the Quebec Labour Code that provides for a compensation plan respecting the modification of job functions or reassignment of employees who are pregnant or nursing, for example, to make such employees eligible for benefits provided for by the compensation plan established under the laws, in this case of Quebec but certainly in other provinces as well.
One of the arguments against this motion has been that the costs are too high. I would suggest that the employers and the employees in Quebec are paying the cost for this protection and it is wrong for us to suggest that the cost is too high for federal workers but not too high for provincial workers.
I would ask that the cabinet consider this amendment. Surely the government would find it very difficult to suggest that federal jurisdiction workers should be protected or compensated to a lesser degree than workers in the provinces.
The federal government used to provide the highest minimum wage standards in the country. Those standards have fallen to virtually the lowest. The machinery
of the federal government has ground slowly and there is a lack of interest in how Canadians are suffering under a government which says it is going to address and eradicate poverty by the year 2000, but has not increased the minimum wage for years. It is a bit of a hypocrisy.
I support very strongly and my caucus supports the amendment of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. We hope the government will consider this as a positive amendment.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague from Quebec.
The amendment certainly would add to the bill provisions dealing with pregnant women and women on maternity leave. Indeed I think this has probably come forward as a result of legislation in the province of Quebec which is model legislation in Canada. It provides a level of compensation that is not afforded in any other jurisdiction in the country.
The amendment would ensure that in the case of Quebec or any other jurisdiction where there was a better compensation plan under provincial labour law that the Governor in Council, which means the cabinet, would be authorized to enter into negotiations to cover those individuals residing in that province who would come under the Canada Labour Code or the Public Service Staff Relations Act with the same level of coverage in the province as people covered by the provincial labour code.
Clearly this is the type of amendment where the government can lead. It can lead by ensuring that employees who fall under federal jurisdiction get the same level of compensation as people who live in the same province that come under the provincial labour code.
It would lead for two reasons. First, it would make sure that all pregnant women and women on maternity leave in that particular province are treated the same way in the province in which they live with the best compensation package available. Second, by having some public servants, for example those living in the province of Quebec, being afforded a much higher level of compensation during this particular period, it would probably put some pressure on other governments in other jurisdictions to provide a similar level of compensation and that would be a very positive thing.
June 1, 1993

The Liberal Party supports the amendment. We think it is one of these rare occurrences where the government can lead. We can lever other governments, which is normally a hard thing to do, to look toward provinces like the province of Quebec which have taken the lead in this type of compensation package and maybe force some of the other provinces to bring in similar legislation. The Liberal Party would support the initiative of the hon. member from Quebec.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a very brief intervention on this amendment and say that we will be supporting the hon. members the amendment.
In reference to some of the comments I made earlier at the start of the debate, my colleague from Mission- Coquitlam has a private member's bill that would do just what this amendment is proposing.
It is an indication by the member from Quebec and also the member from our caucus of the general support there is in this area. I think it opens up some interesting opportunities for the federal government to lead in this area. We want to ensure and put on the record those comments so that hopefully the government will consider supporting this very important amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House. Does the parliamentary secretary have a point of order?


Mr. Shields:: It was on debate, but it is too late.


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


Mr. R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to request, on behalf of my colleagues, that the division that would otherwise be taken a few minutes from now be deferred until tomorrow evening at 10 p.m., when the other divisions are scheduled.


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

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow night at 10 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-62, an Act respecting telecommunications, as reported with amendments by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are 50 notices of motions on the Notice Paper for consideration at the report stage of Bill C-62, an Act respecting telecommunications.

Government Orders
So far the Chair has yet to complete its study of each motion which should not take long. However, in the interests of expediency, the Chair has no objection to immediately calling Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) moved:: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-62 be amended by adding immediately after line 36 at page 3 the following new Clause:
"Review of an Operation of Act
4. Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every five year period thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act including the effect of those provisions shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose."
Deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Kristiansen, seconded by Mr. Nystrom,-That motion numbered 2 be amended by striking out the word "five" and substituting the following therefor:
"two".
She said: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much. I was awaiting the decision from the Chair as to what were the accepted amendments and what were not. Furthermore I thought the House was set for a vote. I also thought there was to be third reading of Bill C-101. I am just lucky that I was awaiting the move to examine a very important bill.
The amendment which I have presented in Motion No. 2 is a review of an operations act. Essentially this bill is an extraordinary move to finally update and bring us into the 20th century. It does not go to the 21st century as it is not far-sighted enough in that regard. The bill really moves us out of the horse and buggy stage of 1908, the old communications act, transportation act or telecommunications act, whatever you wish to call it, and updates that act, notwithstanding the fact we have had a number of attempts over the past years to do so. In 1977 or 1978 there were moves with other bills to effect changes to this very important sector of society.
As you know, telecommunications has been rapidly-evolving and changing over the last two decades. Matters that we would never have considered before are now
before us and actually have overtaken us. So many issues that needed to be addressed could not be addressed because this bill had not been brought up to date.
We have undertaken a large number of changes of great significance. We will not be in a position to really estimate the impact of these changes. Were they all in the best interests of the industry today? Were they effective in looking at telecommunications in particular as well as the entire field of telephony? I think one is well aware of the fact that telecommunications is more than just the local telephone and more than just the long distance telephone. It includes faxes, computers and all the new data and information technology that is the basis of the new economy around the world. Canada has been a leader in the field of telecommunications for many years. By the very nature of our geography we have become outstanding world leaders in this regard.
In the last 10 years the government has recognized the shortcomings of the old bill and has moved in a very constructive way in many instances in many fields. The bill holds changes in forbearance and exemptions. It changes the licensing procedure and looks at Canadian ownership, which is a policy the government brought in as a memorandum of understanding on July 17, 1987, just prior to the free trade agreement.
It sets up two types of carriers in Canada, type 1 and type 2: those that are land based and have facilities and those that are resellers in a sense. We looked at how to avoid the resellers being entrapped in the regulatory mechanism. We looked at how we could open this whole issue of transparency with the varied review ability of the Governor in Council.
The Governor in Council gave itself not only the power to direct but also at the other end the power to vary and rescind. We have amended that so there is a three-way power in the Governor in Council which allows for greater transparency and greater fairness with respect to this bill.
The whole Canadian ownership policy has been looked at. The minister has taken that and defined it as 80 per cent ownership for land based carriers or facility based carriers. He intends through regulations to look at other mechanisms to fund Canadian ownership.
June 1, 1993

As well, the question of privacy has been put in although it is not able in the fullest sense to respond to the needs of the Privacy Act. I think the new technologies are looked at and some help is being given to enable the CRTC to look at the various areas of invasion of personal privacy within our homes through unwanted faxes and telephone calls.
In a sense, we have moved from the horse and buggy era into an era of regulatory framework. It can be constructive and effective and I hope in the interests of the major industries that are involved, in the interests of the resellers that are there and even in the interests of the hybrids, such as Fonorola and Call-Net.
We have looked at what is the potential of satellites for the delivery of service, what the impact is on the fact that borders are essentially disappearing in this new era, that we would be able to control our Canadian destiny in this field. We would be able to control the Canadian wish to direct and develop its own life based on the growth of this industry, the job potential in this industry and the fact that we can put so much value added into our industrial sector through technology.
Because there are so many new facets to this bill and because it is being updated for the first time since 1908, it would be in the best interests of this House to enable a review five years down the road. We could then see whether this was the most effective way to proceed.
We could also look at other matters arising because of changing technologies and changes that are being effected almost daily in this field. It could be the ABM banking machines, or data, or what appears in a stationary way on our television sets which become in a sense the central focus in our homes, how the telephone companies will have access to the broadcasting infrastructure, how that infrastructure will be affected by cable. There is the whole question of convergence. These issues have not been fully addressed. The debate has not been fully undertaken, notwithstanding the fact that a 200-page report was submitted to the government.
Because of all these matters, because of concerns which were expressed by the cultural communities as to whether or not they were protected sufficiently, both in this bill and through the application of this bill from the
Government Orders
free trade agreement, there are many issues that would have to be revisited.
I want to see this modem regulatory framework be effective. Because we have moved so rapidly in just a few steps from 1987 until now, I would appreciate it if the government would consider adding a clause that will bring us back to a review of this bill.
We have to realize that the committee had about two weeks of hearings that started on April 20 with interested parties. We actually started our clause by clause study on May 11 with a few sessions. The House was closed for the week of May 17. Our hearings resumed on May 25. We reported back to the House on May 28.
The clerks were in a very tight position to make the changes. We know that sometimes there are problems with the language. There are sometimes other unforeseen issues. We do not want to have this initiative, which is so important to all sectors of our economy, stopped because we may have made an error in judgment, either in the way this bill was drafted or as a result of changing technology. The Senate pre-study was extremely helpful because it gave us the ability to make the changes that were brought forward in this House. It is of interest to note that, with the 138 clauses, the government brought forward about 150 amendments to this bill in committee along with a little help from the opposition parties.
I think this alone indicates the need for change. The minister saw the need for about 10 to 12 amendments when he appeared before us in committee and then upon reflection found another close to 140 amendments. There were amendments upon amendments.
In order to make sure that this is working well, that the industry is not being imposed upon negatively, that the CRTC as the regulator is able to do its job effectively and that the Governor in Council has the kind of regulatory framework in place through regulations, I would submit that it would be very important for someone-


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


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make my closing remarks.

June 1, 1993
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Sheila Finestone: I ask the government to consider this amendment in a positive way and to undertake to have this review put into place every five years.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and initiate the discussion of the various amendments that have been made to Bill C-62.1 understand at this point, although I arrived a little bit late, that we are discussing the motion entrenching the review of the act and to have a complete and impartial review every five years. I have no difficulty with that. We will be supporting this motion.
The fact is that we have embarked on a process of upgrading legislation that has been in need of a thorough overhaul and review for a good many years. I want to say that the time is overdue to ensure that our telecommunications policy and legislation is brought up to date to address the concerns of what is really a field of industry that is very rapidly evolving and changing. Some of the technology we are faced with today was not even conceived of as little as 10 years ago.
There is no question in my mind and certainly in the minds of my colleagues that there is a very critical need to bring our legislative framework into the 21st century.
The fact that it is a critically important policy document and legislation leaves me somewhat surprised with how this government has approached the whole issue of the debate and certainly of introducing amendments to what is a very complex technical document.
I must say I was shocked at how almost in an ad hoc manner during the committee reading at report stage and looking at clause by clause analysis, the ministry was bringing in amendments upon amendments upon amendments. With a bill of some 130 clauses I think over all that we had more than a couple of hundred amendments. It made the process an absolute sham.
I would like to say to the minister that it does not make for good, solid legislation when we get these last minute
changes by the ministry as well as legitimate changes by members of the opposition who would like to see certain aspects of the bill strengthened.
It was an absolute shambles at times in committee trying to make heads or tails out of the direction the government was wanting to take with its changes as well as the changes that we wanted to make.
It is not a good way to bring forward legislation. It does not make for rational discussion. It does not make for reasonable decision making. I can only hope that at the end of this process we have a piece of legislation that at least addresses some of the outstanding concerns of the industry.
I am fearful that the time pressures that we were put under in this House and in the legislative committee to look at what was a very complex bill were simply unrealistic. One cannot make the kinds of reasoned and rational arguments that one is expected to make with the overwhelming amount of amendments that were brought in by the government.
Then it brought in amendments upon those amendments. That does not make for good policy making or good decision making. I think the minister should recognize that although this bill has been in the works for some years now, the process that his senior administrators used and that we were forced into in terms of this government's time mandate was an absolute sham.
Having said that, I want to say that the amendments that have been brought forward, both during the legislative committee hearings and at report stage here in the House, would go a long way toward strengthening certain sections of this piece of legislation.
The fact that my Liberal colleague from the Montreal area has proposed the amendment to review this act eveiy five years is quite appropriate. I will go back to my original argument. This field being technological in nature is rapidly evolving. It is changing at a pace where at times, at least in terms of computer usage and enhanced services, almost before new procedures and new technologies are brought into the marketplace they are outmoded. This shows us just how quickly the pace of change has accelerated.
June 1, 1993

In light of this and the problem by the convergence of technologies in the communications medium and broadcast medium-they now have the technological capability with a single fibre optic cable to carry not only video but audio transmissions and digital signals-this makes for a situation where this bill may be superseded by technological advancement within months if not years.
There is no question in my mind that putting a thorough review of the act every five years into the legislation itself is quite an appropriate amendment. I would be quite willing to support that amendment.
The need for review is even more enhanced by the fact of how we have had to proceed with the legislative process as I was reflecting on it earlier. Certainly the timeframe that we have had as a House to debate the bill to this point and to discuss the amendments in committee leaves a grave sense of justice undone in terms of some of the changes that could have been introduced and some of the procedures of strengthening the legislation that we could have involved ourselves in if more time had been given during that legislative committee.
I am afraid that there are probably a lot of loose ends here that we have not tied up yet. We did the best we could.
I know that my office was working virtually until the last minute trying to get amendments made to legislation. Because of the number of amendments made during the committee stage we still did not have a final copy of the bill until a few scant hours before the deadline for the submission of amendments at report stage in the House.
Therefore one can see that there is a lot of room for error. I only hope that in a bill which is as technologically complex as this one at least we have been able to address some of these errors.
In light of the fact that we perceive there are still weaknesses in the bill that have not been addressed, it makes good sense to entrench in the legislation a review of this legislation every five years.
That is all I will say on this particular amendment at this point.
Government Orders


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a couple of minutes of the House's time to explain why it is not possible for the government to support this particular amendment, although I have the greatest sympathy for the goal that the hon. member is trying to achieve.
Hon. members opposite have talked about the importance of reviewing legislation that has been put on the statute books by the government. Of that there is no debate. Those of us on this side of the House agree particularly with a piece of legislation as important as this that it is important to review the work of Parliament from time to time. We must ensure that the intention that Parliament had at the time it passed the legislation is being reflected when the bill actually becomes law.
I do want to pick up on a couple of points that have been made by my friends on the other side. Then I will come back to the question as to the best way to proceed.
My colleague who just spoke, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, indicated that he saw it as a flaw and that I as minister or that the government had entertained a significant number of amendments to the bill at committee. He tended to condemn proposals that were made by the government for amendments, but said that amendments that were made by the opposition were constructive and useful.
He can correct me if I am wrong but the hon. member used the figure of more than 200 amendments being proposed. In fact we are looking at more than 50 amendments that were dealt with so the figure of 200 is something of an exaggeration.
At the time this bill was first being considered at pre-study before the Senate committee, as well on the floor of the House of Commons and also in committee, I indicated an openness on my part and on the part of the government to listen and to make improvements where genuine suggestions were made for improvement.
That inevitably leaves one open to this criticism. It would have been easy for the government to simply say: "We will accept no amendments at all. What has been written in here is cast in stone and the government will simply strike down any amendment that is proposed of any sort or not even consider proposing any amendment itself notwithstanding the fact that people may have suggestions to make the bill better". We did not choose to take that route. Instead we said that in any instance

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
where people had suggestions which could improve the bill that we were certainly open to doing that.
Indeed, we dealt with our colleagues on the opposition side in a spirit of openness. Certainly when I went before the committee with my opening testimony, I invited them and members on our side to suggest improvements to the legislation. I gave the undertaking we would respond in a way that was constructive and positive. That indeed we have done.
This is why, when my hon. friend from Okanagan- Shuswap criticizes us for having made significant amendments to the bill, I think really he cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask that the government be open and amenable to suggestions that are made for change and then be critical and say that this proves the bill is badly flawed or that there are all sorts of loose ends because the government responded to improvements that were suggested either by members of the opposition, by members of the government or by members of the public.
Frankly I am veiy proud of the process that was followed because I believe it demonstrates a willingness on our part to be responsive when constructive suggestions are made.
The proposal made by my colleague from Mount Royal is that every five years a parliamentary committee should be mandated to review the bill to determine whether or not it is achieving the purpose for which it was designed and whether or not improvements can be made and whether it should report back to the House with regard to that.
Again, no one quarrels with the suggestion that there should be a review from time to time of government legislation. That is not at issue here. Legislation as complex and broad ranging as this should be under regular review by government and Parliament. If improvements can be made we should do so whenever it is appropriate.
In view of the fact that the House and the House's committees are masters of their own proceedings, they have the ability to conduct reviews at any time into any matter that is of concern to them. Why should we be
writing into the statute that the review must take place at the end of five years? If the bill has as many loose ends as my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap suggests, it raises the question as to why we would wait five years.
If it is proven to the government of the day that there is a deficiency in the bill, why would we not make an amendment before that? If members of the opposition feel that a review is more appropriate before that time because the bill has been found in some way in their judgment to be flawed, why would they not propose that a committee conduct a review prior to that time? Nothing prevents the committee from doing that. It can do it at any time. Committees are masters of their own procedures. Instead we have an amendment that would lock us into a five-year schedule. Five years from now there would be a review, five years after that another review and so on.
It is appropriate that the bill continue to be examined by government and Parliament to determine whether or not it is serving the purposes for which it was designed. We do not want to have the situation again that we are in today where we are regulating our premier high-tech industry under the Railway Act of 1908.
We want to ensure that the legislation which deals with telecommunications is modem, efficient, effective and up to date. If there is a need for change it is not necessary to wait five years. If it turns out the bill is doing well and is serving the purpose for which it was designed, why should we lock ourselves into a review at the end of five years if the members of Parliament and particularly members of the parliamentary committee are satisfied that such a review is not necessary at that time?
Let us not bind the hands of the parliamentary committee and Parliament. Let us ensure that judgment is taken on a case by case basis by members of Parliament of the day as to whether or not such a review is appropriate.
The disagreement is not about the intention but about whether the amendment proposed by my hon. friend is the best way to proceed. In my opinion a review should be conducted if and whenever it seems appropriate. We should not lock ourselves into a rigid timetable.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
June 1, 1993

What we are doing is highly extraordinary. Normally we would have an idea that the legislation was going to be proceeded with. We would have an idea of how the groupings would occur in terms of the motions. I think this has caught us all by surprise. We have people who want to debate this particular motion. They were not aware it was going to be up at this point.
There appears to be some difference in approach. We want to carry on a very learned debate, in particular with those who played a role in the committee and have an interest in how we participate. Would people consider calling it one o'clock so we can pick up the debate at three o'clock in a more meaningful way? It will also allow the Chair to make the deliberations in terms of how the motions ought to be grouped.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to discuss with my hon. friend how we should organize debate on this. It was my understanding that we would be proceeding with this piece of legislation as soon as the other piece of legislation that preceded it was dealt with.
I am sure that was the understanding on both sides of the House.
There is a motion to amend the bill before the House which was moved by my friend from Mount Royal. Two members on the Liberal side were seeking the Chair's attention at the time I rose. I do not see the difficulty in continuing.
If there is a disposition on the part of my colleagues opposite to have the debate completed during a reasonable period of time I am certainly agreeable to rising now if they would like to do so. If there is not such an agreement then I believe we should continue to debate it now and not simply give up House time that could otherwise be used profitably.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend the minister is correct up to a point. We were going to complete the work on Bill C-101, amendments to the labour code, but of course we have not done that. Some rather extraordinary interplay within the House has not been concluded so consequently the understanding we had did not transpire. [DOT]
I want to say to my friend, the minister, that we have asked for a more reasoned approach to debating this
Government Orders
legislation which I think is very appropriate. It is important legislation and there is a considerable interest in it in the country. If the minister is not prepared to proceed in a more orderly fashion to permit people to participate, we have no intention of entering into any agreement to wrap this up quickly. We have a lot of people who want to debate it and the less positive reaction from the minister will guarantee there will be more people wanting to debate this as the week continues.
I am asking for some serious effort here in terms of being able to proceed in a business-like, orderly way, as opposed to having to deal with legislation by surprise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I do not see the
point in continuing this debate. I understand the surprise of the hon. member for Kamloops and thank him and the Minister of Communications for expressing their points of view.
I simply want to remind the House that the Chair's decision has been made and that we are simply consulting now. It is customary in Parliament for the Speaker to consult before rendering his full decision. These consultations have taken place on almost all the proposed amendments, I would say.
There is no problem if the Chair proposes at least the motions that were selected. We know that it is up to the Chair to consider each motion carefully to see whether it is in order, to group together the motions on the same subject and to reject those that are out of order.
The Chair immediately selected Motion No. 2, as well as Motion No. 1, which we can perhaps debate before lunch if time permits. So there is no major inconvenience with beginning and even completing consideration of Motion No. 2 2 hon. members so desire, even though the Chair has not rendered its decision in full.
So I respectfully submit that we should continue the debate on Motion No. 2 which will deprive no one of his or her legitimate right to speak.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I listened very carefully to the Chair's explanation and I agree that the Chair has had the opportunity to peruse the motions and ascertain which motions are not redundant and therefore debatable.

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
There is one point I might mention for the Chair's consideration, given the time constraints and the mix-up on the previous vote that was deferred. As opposition critic I have placed some 34 amendments before the Chair for consideration. At this point I do not know what the groupings of those amendments are so I am completely at a loss to determine which motions within the next few moments I may very well be asked to speak on. When this debate was going on, right up to the time when I had to rise in response to my colleague from the Montreal area on her motion, I was debating with the Clerk as to how the motions should be grouped and giving any arguments or explanations for why a grouping would not work.
Because the earlier vote was deferred and we were brought into this very quickly I do not have a clear picture as to what we will be debating in the very near future. It is causing a great deal of difficulty in terms of speakers who do wish to speak on particular aspects.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Okanagan-Shu-swap said and in that context, perhaps I could suggest that the House confine itself to consideration of Motion No. 2. If the House disposes of this motion before lunch time, perhaps we could then suspend the debate and return to consideration of Bill C-62 after Question Period, if the government so desires.
I therefore believe that it would not be inappropriate to continue consideration of the motion which is now before the House. I give the floor to the hon. member for London East.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I too am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this House with respect to Bill C-62 and specifically about Motion No. 2, the five year review of the act.
I would like to make an opening comment and I think the minister alluded to it as well as my colleague from Mount Royal and my NDP colleague from BC I believe at committee there was a great deal of openness and I want to applaud the chair and all the members who
worked long and hard on this particular bill. I must say that I was there on a number of occasions and there was a great deal of co-operation among the members. In the true spirit of parliamentary reform that is what we like to see.
The government put forward something like 100 or 150 amendments. That indicates a spirit of co-operation and trying to improve a bill. Even the government recognized there were some deficiencies in the bill and it was prepared to move on them. I do not think that is a sign of weakness on the part of the government. It is a sign that the government needed to make those changes. In fact a lot of those changes to the bill were initiated by the government as well as the Liberals and the NDP. I think the end product is something of which we can all be proud.
I also want to take this opportunity to commend the committee because what it did was unique. Around the table dealing with the amendments were representatives from industry and the CRTC as well as interest groups such as cultural groups, ACTRA and others who had vested interests in this bill. I think that was a very positive move on the part of the committee and as a result we have a much better bill.
The amendments and motions that will be put forward in the next day or two will deal with further improvements to the bill that we think are absolutely necessary. As the minister pointed out, telecommunications in this country is one of the largest industries. Domestically and internationally it is apparent and abundantly important that this country be at the forefront of telecommunications. It is our strength and it is an opportunity to be able to move in a globally competitive way to market our skills and technology. We must take what we have already built and give the industry that is formulated in this country the opportunity to develop those markets world-wide. I think that is why it is very important.
Domestically I think it is important for us because telecommunications binds a country. Other things bind a country such as politics, culture and a number of other things but telecommunications is the way we are able to communicate with one another and understand one another a lot better from every region from sea to sea to sea. I think that is very important. This industry is absolutely essential to the future of this country. After

nine years of delay by this government, Bill C-62 is finally before this House and we can move forward.
With respect to Motion No. 2, a five-year review of the act, call it what you will but sunset provisions or reviews of legislation are not new to this House or this government. In fact other legislatures are doing exactly the same thing. Why do we not make a commitment as this motion proposes, to review this act again in five years to make sure it is doing what it is supposed to do and that its objectives have been achieved or are on the way to being achieved?
Since 1908 the Railway Act has governed telecommunications in this country. It has taken something like 85 years to get to the point of having a new modem telecommunications bill.
There has been a nine-year delay in getting it here by a government that was committed to bringing this forward. What is so wrong with reviewing it five years after the proclamation of this act? It is a commitment to the industry, to people, and to Parliament that we intend to do a full review in five years.
The telecommunications industry is changing very quickly. What is state of the art today may very well not be four or five years from now. What is wrong with Parliament or this government undertaking to the people, the industry and everybody involved in telecommunications that in five years we will do a total review?
The minister is right. We can review a piece of legislation at any time. Committees can do it. People can introduce amendments. However that is a haphazard way of doing it. It may or may not happen. Looking forward in a very positive way the minister should undertake, and there is nothing to be afraid of, that five years from now the government has to review a piece of legislation, especially one as important as this one is.
This government has done it in other pieces of legislation. Other governments have done sunset reviews. That is a great way of governing because it is a commitment to planning, to be organized and to be forward thinking. It is absolutely important that in such a vital area as telecommunications, an area which is very important to this country, its economic prosperity and its global competitiveness, after five years we have the opportunity to be able to improve it and do a full review
Government Orders
to make sure that the objectives of the bill as stated in section 7 are being adhered to.
There are certain technical amendments that always have to be made to a bill, be it in the French version, the English version or the translation. It is important to note that even though this bill has been nine years in coming when it finally came to this House, which was sometime in April and May is just over, we have moved fairly quickly even though the minister said he would put it for pre-study. That was a great move on his part. I am not afraid to say that the government does some things right and we appreciate that.
It has moved fairly quickly through the House and through the committee stages because there was a great attempt, understanding that there were certain guidelines and that we are not going to be here much longer. The government obviously wants to get on with electing a new leader and hopefully on to a new election so that people can then deal with all of this government's policies as opposed to just this one bill.
It is important for us to note that Motion No. 2 speaks to a new way of governing. That is to have the process open and say that five years after proclamation the Parliament of Canada will review a very important piece of legislation. It is very important to our prosperity and very important to industry. We must make sure that we are always at the forefront of telecommunications development because it is an industry that is changing overnight.
Things change as we speak. What was good five years ago or even two years ago may not be any good two or three years from now. Therefore a five-year sunset provision is a commitment on the part of the government that Parliament must undertake a full review to make sure that the objectives of the bill are being achieved for the good of the country.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour to participate in this debate and in particular to speak on some of the amendments proposed by my colleague from the Montreal West-mount riding.
I would like to start with the positive aspects of this bill. One would have to say that it does address to a large extent many of the concerns that the industry has. It does to a large extent respond to the aspirations of the industry and to the hopes of the industry.

Government Orders
It also provides them with the tools to not only help the industry move forward at the local level but to launch into new markets in areas outside of this country.
My colleague has indicated that the telecommunications industry is one of the most important industries in Canada. I would like to amend that by saying that it is the most important industry in Canada. Everything we do or see today when it comes to the high technology area has, in one way or another, one component that relates to telecommunications.
It is an industry unlike any other type of industry. It is moving at an incredible rate. A few years back we would never have thought that we could turn on a machine and suddenly a typewritten message would be written before us. We would never have thought that we would see the day when we would receive a letter from someone over the telephone wires that comes out at our desk. That is what we call the fax machine.
We would probably never have thought we would come to a point where people at different ends of the planet would be able to speak and at the same time see each other's picture. We would never have thought that a person would get to another planet millions and millions of kilometres away and still be able to communicate with the Earth and the people here could see that person speaking to them.
We have to thank the telecommunications industry for providing us with these opportunities and these chances. This would not happen if the industry did not have the will or the incentive to create these inventions.
The role of a government is to facilitate and to introduce legislation when there is a need for legislation. In terms of facilitation, even though the government waited quite some time before it introduced this legislation it has facilitated the introduction of the bill and has come forward with the legislation which industry and consumer and special interest groups have been calling for a long period of time.
Having said that, nothing is perfect. The government has admitted that when this legislation was introduced it required about 51 amendments and in excess of 150 changes while the bill was before the committee. Many of those amendments were accepted by all the parties concerned. They were supported by the industiy and by
the consumer groups that appeared before the committee.
We have a reasonably good piece of legislation before the House of Commons. Hopefully it will go through in time for Senate approval. My colleague, the spokesperson for the Liberal Party, has made an amendment that would allow the government and this House, if there is a need for changes to be introduced between now and the next five years, to act upon those proposed changes.
In the event that there are no proposed changes coming from the industry, the community as a whole or different levels of government and so on, at the end of the five-year period a committee would automatically receive a copy of the legislation. It would look at it and if there was no need for any changes then it would let it be. There would be no changes.
I can guarantee with the tremendous increase and changes in technology and the industry, that the government, probably within the next six months, will realize very quickly that there is a need for amendments to be introduced and a need for change.
As the minister has properly indicated we do not need a resolution by this House in order to revisit a piece of legislation. The intent of this motion is not to stop a change from occurring between now and five years from now. The intent of this motion is to say that at the end of the five-year period, notwithstanding that there could be many proposals for changes, it must look at the act in a way whereby the government can address the concerns that exist. If there are no concerns and there is no need for change then let it be. We do not have to make any changes.
I wonder whether the minister would have been happy if part of the proposal had said that no later than five years after the coming into effect of this act the House would have to revisit the act.
He already indicated in his comments that a committee can do that anyway. That is why the motion says that the House will conduct an automatic review of the legislation five years after introducing it. It is the intent of the motion to provide us with a safeguard so that in the event that the industry or the Canadian public see fit to review the act they would at least know that there will be an automatic review.
June 1, 1993

As somebody who finished school in telecommunications I am extremely excited and encouraged that after waiting for over nine years this legislation has finally come before the House. It is my hope that the government in its discussions with the opposition parties and with our spokesperson, my colleague from Westmount, between now and three o'clock might want to look at all of these positive amendments and see if it would not be able to accommodate them. The intention of those amendments is not to delay the bill or detract from the main intention of the bill but to improve the legislation and ensure that we have legislation that will go a long way toward helping the high-tech industry in Canada.
I call on the government to look at the proposed amendments and see what can be done. Hopefully we can adopt them unanimously.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of interesting contributions to the discussion on the second part of the bill that is before us at report stage, Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.
The process that has been followed has been one of the most botched up and confusing scenarios that I have witnessed in my 10 years in this place and in my involvement in committees. I do not know if it is a French bouillabaisse, a Hungarian goulash, or an Irish stew but if we are cooking any of those dishes and have a multitude of cooks coming and going, none knowing what the other had put in or when they had added to the recipe, it is very difficult to know at any given point in time during the preparation of that stew, bouillabaisse, or whatever, just what is in front of us and whether it will be palatable.
That seems to be much the situation that we have with regard to this bill.
A bill such as this deals with an industry that is so absolutely vital to the present and future Canada. It concerns communications and telecommunications with all the various ramifications and the rapidly changing technology. It is one of the most important domestic service industries. It has also been for some years one of our major export industries in terms of the hard goods, the software and the technology that we have exported that have put Canada on the map in many parts of the world. It is difficult to overestimate the importance that this industry and this bill has or will have in the next few
Government Orders
years particularly, as I said, with all the rapid changes that have been taking place.
I gather that the minister himself a few moments ago said that if we were going to have a review every five years then why not have one every two years. I am not sure that that is not perhaps a good idea at least for the first time around. Look at the process that has been followed where the government introduced at least 75 amendments and it has been suggested that there were maybe as many as 150 changes-


Henry Perrin Beatty: It was 51 amendments.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It was 51 amendments. It introduced 51 amendments during the committee's clause by clause consideration. That left many members of that committee on both sides wondering just where they were attempting to make sense out of this vital legislation.
That caused an inevitable mix-up in committee. We hope we have something good because there is a lot of good in it. It is something that has been long awaited and is very necessary. We would certainly like to see the appropriate legislation move ahead, but we may end up in a very short period of time, particularly because of the rapidly changing technology, with a bill that is unsuitable just one or two years down the road.
The importance this has to Canada is hard, as I said earlier, to overestimate. This industry has the capacity to change the demographics of the country. Something that was not possible many years ago and in fact many months ago was for people by the thousands to choose where they will live in this country. They may want to live in a rural setting in small towns in the interior of British Columbia or in the middle of the prairies or in the centre of a major metropolitan area and still be gainfully employed in a major industry. It is not just the communications industry but many other service industries across Canada.
One of the problems that we have had just in the past few years is that the mind-set of some industries still has not caught up with what technology has made available. Rather than using the opportunity of the revolution in communications to allow their work forces to decentralize and live where they wish and have a more socially productive lifestyle both for themselves and for the community at large, they have used the technology and the investment in the technology to centralize people and to discharge employees whether they were in Nelson, in Kelowna, in Cranbrook or in hundreds of other communities across the country.


An hon. member:: Job displacement.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: If it was necessary to do that for any hard, economic reason or for technological reasons then we could understand it. Etowever, it has been the height of irresponsibility at a time when we could have used this technology to increase the freedom of our people and to further centralize operations and centralize control over people. It concerns not only their work lives but their family lives and their community lives as well with a great deal of disruption, both social and economic, to the fabric of many of our communities and many thousands of families.
I see that it is one o'clock and perhaps we should recess for lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to table the report entitled "Access Today 1993-Review of the Initiatives Taken by the House of Commons to Serve Canadians with Disabilities".


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, in the hardest penalty ever handed down in Canada on an
environmental case, Mr. Justice Paul A. Belanger of the Quebec court in Sorel yesterday sentenced the Tioxide Company of Tracy to pay $4 million for dumping heavy metals and sulfuric acid in the St. Lawrence River. Three million dollars of this will be used for fish habitat restoration projects and the other million dollars is a fine.
Mr. Justice Paul A. Belanger's decision follows the guilty plea made by Tioxide and five of its directors named in a complaint filed in October 1992 by Environment Canada. The message for corporate directors is very clear: The only way to protect yourself from such situations is prevention.
On behalf of Canadians, I wish to thank Mr. Justice Paul A. Belanger and to say how much I respect him for his ruling.


CAPE BRETON OILERS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, the Cape Breton Oilers are the Calder Cup champions. The Oilers' success can be attributed to a strong team effort, superlative individual performances and superior coaching.
The final addition to the successful mix was the loyalty, dedication and fervour of the Cape Breton fans. The knowledgeable fans of Cape Breton Island have overwhelmingly supported the Oilers since 1988, their first year of operation in the American Hockey League.
Cape Breton has always been a hotbed of hockey activity and has contributed many fine players to the premier leagues of the nation and the world. The capture of the Calder Cup is a source of immense pride and encouragement to Cape Bretoners.
June 1, 1993

We are hoping that it is a forerunner of future success. I know that all members of the House will join with me in congratulating the Cape Breton Oilers and their fans.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, on one of my many visits to the riding of Quebec-Est, I had the privilege to see a major initiative that has so far required some 500 hours of work. To make their environment healthy and peaceful, a group of retired residents have undertaken a project to landscape their housing complex.
The Floralie Project initiated by Guy Michaud, a resident of Duberger, will encourage people to be active and help provide a better quality of life. The residents had the get-up-and-go and resourcefulness to collect the funds required to carry out the project. I commend them for undertaking this mission to improve their environment.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, this past weekend at the very gates of Parliament Hill we saw hate and intolerance rear its ugly head once again in Canada.
A white supremacist Toronto group called the Heritage Front travelled to Ottawa to recruit new members. While claiming it opposes violence its members marched arrogantly in the streets espousing hatred and shouting "seig heir and "white power", which itself provoked violence. Innocent bystanders and people opposed to their presence were deliberately attacked.
Alan Rose of the Canadian Jewish Congress said that the appearance of this Nazi group on Parliament Hill should "shake up the politicians". It has already shaken up citizens in our communities and today it should trouble us all.
Government must act and act now if we are to have the cultural mosaic that is our true reality. We need stiffer penalties for inciting hatred, broader definitions of hate crimes, a special RCMP anti-racist unit, an anti-racist education campaign and stronger gun laws.
We should never, never again hear "seig heil" or "white power" in this country.


SERVICE DE CONSERVATION DU NORD-OUEST
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today out of solidarity with my constituents in Rouyn-Noranda and McWatters. Today a general strike was called in Rouyn-Noranda for a few hours as a public protest against a decision by the Quebec government to move the headquarters of the Service de conservation du Nord-Ouest.
The Premier of Quebec must listen to the voice of the people. They say this decision is wrong and a waste of money. I want to ask the Quebec Premier to meet a regional delegation for a frank discussion of this matter and then make the right decision, which is to keep the Service de conservation du Nord-Ouest in McWatters.


OZONE DEPLETION
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, three years ago this month a unanimous call to action was sent by the environment committee to this government. Members from all parties reached one overpowering conclusion: Ozone depletion is a threat to the continuation of life on Earth.
Rising rates of skin cancer now show that the future health threat of ozone depletion is potentially devastating. Yet this government has not even taken simple steps such as exempting sunscreens and protective sunglasses from taxation and introducing mandatory standards for them both.

June 1, 1993
As for preventing further ozone depletion, even industry has urged the government to bring in stiff regulations against ozone depleting chemicals.
Research into the impacts and adaptation to UV radiation must be a priority considering that dangerous levels will damage everything from fish in the sea to crops in the field.
I call on this government to accept that action on its part is a necessity. Time is running out.


SENIOR CITIZENS MONTH
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and enthusiasm that I join the Minister of State for Seniors in reminding Canadians that June is Senior Citizens Month. Senior citizens built this country. Their experience and values are a legacy we cherish as a nation. Our view of society is one where the young and not so young share a common experience and where senior citizens have an important role to play in the future of this country.
Every year the provinces and territories organize activities from the end of May to the end of June in recognition of our senior citizens. For instance, during the last week of May, Quebec organized a number of activities to honour seniors in our province. The federal government will inaugurate Senior Citizens Month with an exhibition to be held in Ottawa on June 1 and 2 at the Citadel Hotel.
I ask all members of this House and all Canadians to join their communities in celebrating Senior Citizens Month.


NORTH WEST RIVER
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, in 1743 a Quebec merchant named Louis Fornel sailed into Hamilton Inlet, Labrador and established the first trading post at North West River. This year North West River celebrates its 250th birthday.
North West River has been the home of many important historical figures. Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona, the man who drove the last spike in the CPR, was a Hudson Bay factor there from 1848 to 1868.
I think also of Dr. Tony Paddon, a long-time Grenfell doctor in Labrador. He became the first Labradorian to become Lieutenant Governor of the province.
There are many other graduates of North West River's Yale school, of which I was principal at one time. They are people who have made valuable contributions to their communities.
In our 250th anniversary year I know that all members will want to join with me in wishing former residents and present residents of North West River a happy anniversary. I look forward to celebrating this occasion with them this summer.


SUBSIDIES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, the member for Beauce is gratified to see that the federal government has, as of April 1 this year, changed its procedure for helping industry and creating jobs. From now on subsidies over $100,000 will be refundable. I have constantly asked the Minister of Finance to change our procedure. Although this particular approach has been used from time to time, I have often suggested it should be incorporated in legislation. This change in procedure will certainly be well received by the business community and all Canadians.
Once again the riding of Beauce and its member of Parliament have helped initiate a financially responsible decision. From now on subsidies will be refundable. It goes to show that perseverance pays.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Government of Ontario tabled an environmental bill of rights that met with the approval of business and environmental groups alike.
June 1, 1993

For the first time for Ontarians a healthy environment is considered a right in law. No longer will Ontarians be stopped at the court-house doors when we tiy to halt the slow destruction of the water we drink, the air we breathe or the land that sustains us.
The Ontario New Democrats have opened the doors of government. Now we have a say in the decisions that shape the world we pass on to our children. Thanks to the environmental bill of rights Ontario employees will have the right to blow the whistle on employers who abuse the world we live in. While the federal Tories dither with a green plan that is more PR than plan, the Ontario government is empowering the people.
All Canadians want the same sort of environmental rights their cousins in Ontario are going to have. How long are they going to have to wait?


PATRONAGE
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, as this tired, old government drones on toward an overdue election the list of promoted hacks and bagmen grows ever longer, and so does the odour of nepotism, patronage and pay-offs.
In recent days we have witnessed an orgy of Tory patronage that defies imagination. Just this morning the defence minister's Toronto fund raiser got appointed to the board of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for three years. The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of the Environment like to say they do not know about this kind of Tory patronage, but both of them were there at the cabinet table agreeing to this and other such appointments, like those for the Prime Minister's barber, the barber's wife and the baby-sitter.
In 1984 the Prime Minister liked to say that leaders have an option on patronage but that was before the election. The people of Canada have an option too and on election day they will exercise this option by giving the chop to the hon. members opposite and their colleagues.


S. O. 31 LOBBYISTS
Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, I was honoured to present to this House a report, A Blueprint for Transparency, earlier today. Simply put, this committee report, if accepted, would bring professional lobbying activity from the grey and dark areas into the daylight.
For any new Prime Minister and future government not to accept these recommendations is to suggest that the status quo is satisfactory. Most Canadians want more integrity from their elected officials and much more openness about who and how policy and procurement have been influenced.
I urge the minister to support the recommendations of this committee which all Canadians now demand.


THE SENATE
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the recent patronage Senate appointments. The Prime Minister has chosen to help his friends into the trough while the getting is good.
The decision to appoint yet another group of senators, with several more appointments to come, for nothing more than reasons of patronage is an obscene affront to the Canadian people and to democracy. It just goes to show the extent to which the Tories are really concerned about parliamentary reform and the so-called politics of inclusion. What a lot of bunk.
Even more alarming, however, is the blatant hypocrisy shown by the members to my right, the Liberals. They somehow managed to criticize the Prime Minister while at the same time accepting his offer of Senate appointments. Do they think the Canadian people are stupid? It would appear so. This Prime Minister, when he is done, will have appointed more than half of the entire Senate. Canadians, especially those in Beaver River, continue to report to this Parliament: Triple-E or bust.

June 1, 1993
Oral Questions CANADA PENSION PLAN


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, an important initiative is under way in Toronto by way of petitions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to improve the Canada Pension Plan.
At present people are not eligible to receive Canada Pension Plan disability when there are major interruptions to CPP contributions. When people are on workers' compensation they cannot make contributions to their CPP and therefore this period should not be considered a contributory period by the Canada Pension Plan. Having been on workers' compensation should not disqualify a person from Canada Pension Plan disability if another tragedy strikes such as cancer or a heart attack.
The Canada Pension Plan should therefore be amended so that a period of non-contribution be considered a neutral period that would not affect the qualifying requirements for a disability pension. We commend the petitioners and bring it to the attention of the minister for prompt action.


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Madam Speaker, I am sure all of us continue to be concerned about the ethnic conflict and the violence in the former Yugoslavia.
Today I call particular attention to the plight of ethnic Hungarians in the former Yugoslavia. Like many members who may also have been in receipt of a letter from the Hungarian Human Rights Council, it seems that this is one group whose interests and concerns have been forgotten in the general debate about what is going on in former Yugoslavia.
I call on the government, in its deliberations with respect to the conflict in that former country, to pay attention to the needs of ethnic Hungarians in the difficult situation they find themselves in.


VIOLENCE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Madam Speaker, after the XS magazine of Florida and its racist attacks
against Quebecers and dinosaur Don Cherry's attitudes, today we have a new comic book called Justice League Task Force from the United States which makes vicious attacks against Quebecers:
- took nearly a month to track them to Montreal, French
separatists, radicals, who want Quebec to secede from Canada.
Murdering these people is "politically correct murder".
I cannot believe our children will read this junk on violence. There is no murder that is politically correct and every Canadian should know that.
I hope the Minister of Communications or others will order that this magazine be banned immediately from Canada, removed from all stores and kept away from our children.

Furthermore I think it is particularly unfortunate that this comic book delivered in a box, was printed in Canada, because it says: Imprimerie Quebecor, Montreal, Ronalds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would have liked to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance, but I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
As everyone knows I have been travelling by bus across Canada meeting Canadians to find out their real problems and to discuss their concerns. One thing that is clear in the minds of Canadians is that the government has absolutely the wrong priorities.
A report in the paper this morning says that the government is spending a lot of money to convert a National Defence airbus into a flying Taj Mahal for the Prime Minister, complete with an executive board-room, a master bedroom, a luxurious bathroom and shower.
I would like to know from the Acting Prime Minister which minister signed the request to Treasury Board for such stupid expenditures and why Treasury Board accepted the request.
June 1, 1993


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as everybody in the House knows, the ancient fleet of 707s was replaced by the purchase of five A-310 airbuses. The 707s could no longer legally fly in many of the world's airports because of noise and environmental considerations. Indeed some of the press wondered about their safety although they were safe.
The A-310s were purchased. They need to be modified to meet Canadian National Defence standards. The modifications are to provide for cargo and passengers. One particular aircraft is being outfitted with a VIP section to transport the Queen, the Governor General and the Prime Minister. Ninety per cent of the time the aircraft will be used for-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Apparently hon. members are not interested in the answer; they keep heckling from the other side. Ninety per cent of the time the aircraft will be used for transporting cargo and DND personnel. Ten per cent of the time it will be used for special occasions for the Prime Minister, the Governor General and Her Majesty. It is not an Air Force One or a Taj Mahal at question here.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the explanation of the minister is absolutely unbelievable. We all know the President of the United States has Air Force One. Now the government is buying a plane that will be called air farce one to satisfy the ego of the Prime Minister.
If this aeroplane is to be used for that, why not cancel it right away when there are people in Canada who are starving? There is no need for such a plane. These planes were bought to transport troops, not to have the Prime Minister flying at 35,000 feet, soaking himself in a bath. It is the taxpayer who has been soaked.
Will the government come to its senses and cancel this stupid extravagant expenditure?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was making wild, ridiculous charges. In particular he said this was because of the ego of the Prime Minister. I might remind him
Oral Questions
that the Prime Minister will be stepping down in about three or four weeks and the plane will not be finished for a few months. To suggest this is being called for by the Prime Minister to satisfy his desire is ludicrous. To suggest this is an Air Force One is ludicrous.
Let me repeat part of my first answer. His colleagues were heckling and perhaps he did not hear it. Ninety per cent of the time this plane will be used for transporting DND personnel and/or cargo. It has an executive component.
I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition recalls the executive layout in the 707s. This is an update from that, no question, but it is the same kind of thing.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The
minister who says it is not for the present Prime Minister but for the next Prime Minister may be sure it must have been ordered by the Minister of National Defence, who hopes to be that next Prime Minister.
I went around the east end of Montreal on Saturday and saw all the poverty in that area. I think it is high time this government set an example and cancelled this frivolous project.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that we have a set of social net programs second to none. Yes, there is poverty. The growth in the economy that has just been announced and the kind of increases we are to see in the country will give us a chance to address those poverty questions.
To make some relationship between that and the fact that DND has five aircraft for transporting military personnel around the country, for transporting its cargo and so on, and that one of them has a small portion of the plane outfitted for the comfort of the Queen or the Governor General is somehow hurting the poor in Montreal, is beneath the dignity of a so-called responsible leader.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, the minister still has not given a satisfactory explanation of why the Conservative government has such a twisted sense of priorities.

Oral Questions
It apparently has millions of dollars for this luxury plane to be used for, it hopes, ferrying around the Minister of National Defence and other Conservative bigwigs, but it has nothing for the unemployed, nothing for the poor, nothing for social housing, in other words nothing for the 1.5 million Canadians who have been suffering because of this Conservative government's policies.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, is the position of Liberals that the Department of National Defence should not have a fleet of aircraft to transport personnel and equipment when needed, when they need to go to peacekeeping missions and so on? If that is the position let them honestly take it.
If it is the position that DND should have them, I am sure the member would recognize that it is important they be, outfitted to carry cargo and passengers. He talks about millions of dollars. Perhaps he would be interested to know that in fact to outfit the planes for passengers costs $2 million and the one with the executive suite, $2.5 million. Hardly the extravagant, multimillion dollar expenditure he is talking about.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the minister has not given an explanation that will be accepted by any reasonable Canadian as to why he and the Minister of National Defence and this government authorized the expenditure, he admits, of $2.5 million for a luxury plane, permanently outfitted with an executive board-room and a deluxe bathroom and shower.
The only people who will take a bath with this plane are Canadian taxpayers, and they have already suffered enough under the Conservative government.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, none of my notes or any explanation has suggested there is this luxury bathtub he is talking about. There will be a toilet. There is one on most planes. As a matter of fact there is apparently a small shower as well.
Let me repeat again. Perhaps he did not hear me. To outfit the planes, to put in the modifications to carry cargo, is about $14 million per plane. To outfit them for
passengers is $2 million per plane. This one is $2.5 million. Yes, it costs $500,000 more to have one plane that is capable of taking the Governor General and Her Majesty the Queen.
In other words it could have been paid for if the hon. member when he was minister had taken the Challenger about 20 fewer times than he actually took it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would appreciate hearing what the next member has to say.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns yesterday's steel ruling by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
The government signed a free trade agreement and the Canadian steel industry lost. That was not a surprise. We proposed a bilateral steel agreement. The Americans rejected it. That was a loss for Canadian steel. We were not surprised. The American Trade Commission ruled against the Canadian steel industry last month, imposed duties of 60 per cent, and we lost. That was no surprise.
However when our own Canadian International Trade Tribunal rules that six countries are dumping steel in Canada but not injuring our steel industry we lose again. We are surprised and we are shocked.
Is the minister prepared to implement changes in Canadian trade law that will offer Canadian steel producers support rather than abandonment?


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, at least my hon. friend from the NDP is asking a substantive question about something that affects Canadians. Unfortunately he is really stretching when he tries to tag this one to the free trade agreement.
The reality of the situation is that the trade tribunal is an independent body at arm's length from the government. Perhaps it is the suggestion of my hon. friend and his party that this government should interfere with the objective findings of independent bodies. Maybe he would like us to interfere with the courts as well. However that is not the process.
June 1, 1993

If any of the steel manufacturers negatively impacted by this decision wish to do so, thanks to the free trade agreement they may file for a panel under chapter 19 of the FTA.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I agree the question was one of substance. Unfortunately the answer was not.
I want to cite some statistics that illustrate just how out of whack our system of trade appears to be. Revenue Canada made a preliminary ruling in April that six countries were dumping steel sheet and plate into Canada and duties were levied up to 130 per cent. The CllT came along yesterday and said no injury was occurring.
I want to ask the minister or the parliamentary secretary a question. If there is dumping with margins up to 130 per cent how there can be no injury to Canadian steel? How does he reconcile these figures?


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I suggest that my hon. friend wait until the tribunal issues the reasons for its finding, which it will do over the course of the next couple of days.
I would ask him, though, to tell me if it is the policy of his party that the Government of Canada should interfere with the decisions of independent arm's length adjudicative bodies.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I am asking for a change in the legislation to give Canadian steel producers a break.
To further illustrate the imbalances in the Canada-U.S.A. system the Cll l conducted hearings on this ruling for 11 days. It ruled against us. In the U.S.A. we were given 15 minutes to defend a multimillion dollar case at the trade commission. It is a kangaroo court. It is free trade for Americans and no trade for Canada.
Canadian steel producers are only too aware of this government's failures. What is the parliamentary secretary's next step?


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I guess my next step is to say that is absolute bunk and nonsense. The member just said there were 11 days of hearing during which this independent tribunal heard
Oral Questions
the evidence presented as a result of the complaint filed with Revenue Canada.
I again say to him that we cannot have a system of independent adjudication of disputes on the one hand and then say on the other that we want the government to change the law or interfere any time we lose.
As for FTA panels I would remind my hon. friend that Canada has won over two-thirds of those. The system has served us well.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, we understand that Ami Thorsteinson is to resign today from the board of the Bank of Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works. Why was this man appointed in the first place, 16 days after it became public knowledge that his company's financial problems could cost the taxpayers up to $6 million?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, it is common knowledge that various market conditions in different parts of Canada have caused a lot of people to have difficulties.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Thorsteinson's organization has indeed been having some difficulties. I understand if Mr. Thorsteinson has not tendered his resignation, he is about to do so. It is important, as the House knows, without casting aspersions on anyone, to make sure that the probity at the Bank of Canada is maintained.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, what is clear is that Mr. Thorsteinson's Tory credentials outweighed his financial credentials. Last week my colleague from	Glengarry-Prescott-Russell	was
excoriated for even daring to bring up these credentials.
I want to know how could this appointment have been approved by the Prime Minister, by the cabinet and by the minister himself given this man's unfortunate financial history?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, the member opposite is exaggerating. I certainly did not excoriate the member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. I think it is rather mean spirited and unfair to attribute any motives to this process. After all, the opposition quite properly pointed out some difficul-

June 1, 1993
Oral Questions
ties. Upon consideration of them, it does appear that it is not appropriate for Mr. Thorsteinson to continue with this appointment.
I think the process has been duly served.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I have in hand another statement of claim, I might add, filed in the Federal Court of Canada against Public Works. It concerns the lease of the Martel building in Ottawa which was terminated against the recommendation of Public Works staff in favour of another company represented by a prominent Conservative leasing agent.
I want to ask the government why did this lease change thereby favouring a leasing agent who was the chairman of the Prime Minister's dinner and who is also the Ottawa fund raiser for the leadership campaign of the Minister of the Environment?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that contrary to the premise of his question he is off on the wrong track on this one.
Public Works was asked to secure premises for the Atomic Energy Control Board. Expressions of interest, as I recall, were received from four or five interested parties. Subsequently a tender was called. The lowest tender was from Standard Life I believe. I will have to search my memory on this. However, I can assure the member of one thing. The leasing agent that he refers to had no part to play in the process whatsoever. It was done by Public Works in an open and transparent way. I would be pleased to give him all the background information.
As far as any statement of claim is concerned, my colleague is well aware that statements of claim and legal actions are very common on behalf of dissatisfied people who have not quite measured up to some of the tendering process. I would not put too much significance on that if I were he.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I guess this is the least that could be done for a Tory fund raiser.

According to the documents submitted, the transaction would cost Canadian taxpayers $5 million more, and the name of this person is on both the letterhead of the Conservative Party's Canada Fund and on the Public Works Canada tender documents. These are not false allegations. This is the truth.
My question to the minister is this: How can he justify such action today when suppliers brought similar transactions to the government's attention three times in the past three or four weeks?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I repeat for my friend opposite that to the best of my knowledge the lowest tender was accepted. As a matter of fact I believe if he checks, the deal that was received from Standard Life was substantially less per square metre than the amount paid in the Martel building but I will have to check these facts.
I repeat that the leasing agent to whom the hon. member refers had nothing whatsoever to do with the process. As far as I know this transaction is entirely legitimate, entirely transparent. As the hon. member knows, I will be completely forthcoming in giving him whatever background information he requires.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, British Columbia Telephone has just announced the lay-off of 820 employees over the next four months. This is a direct result of the CRTC decision that allows competition in Canada's long-distance market.
BC Tel's plans to upgrade service to outlying areas apparently have also been moth-balled. Service levels particularly to rural areas in British Columbia are going to suffer.
Does the minister recognize that this government's allegiance to deregulation is in fact already costing Canadian jobs? Does he recognize that it is also jeopardizing the traditional quality of telecommunications service in Canada?
June 1, 1993


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, far from it. What we are finding as a result of competition in the telecommunications industry is that Canada, which has long had the best telecommunications industry anywhere in the world, continues to make great strides.
If the hon. member wanted he could go to his House leader's constituency and say that he is opposed to the proposals to create new jobs in that constituency as a result of deregulation. If he would like to do that I would certainly invite him to do so.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that for Canadians it is either job losses or increased consumer cost.
The incident of which he talks concerns United Telecommunications which I might add is 20 per cent owned by the American giant AT&T. It is easy money for United Telecom because it comes in and creams off the long-distance profits from this lucrative market.
Does the minister not recognize that our world-class telecommunications because of deregulation is beginning to unravel at the seams? Does he not see that this policy through deregulation has in fact exposed the jugular of the Canadian telecommunications industry to the American corporate knife?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, what I certainly am aware of is that the position of the NDP is to oppose competition. It opposes anything that will bring down rates, opposes anything that will encourage new technologies, opposes anything that will ensure that new services are provided for Canadians.
Evidently the NDP opposes the hundreds of new jobs which we created in the constituency of its House leader. We will make sure that those people are aware of that position.


POVERTY
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions
Today a two-year old girl named Jennifer in Winnipeg looks up, grabs her mother's arm and asks: "Milk, please". The mother has none in the fridge, only water and watery orange-flavoured Tang. She cannot afford to buy a single two-litre carton of milk. Jennifer is only one of 72,000 struggling poor children in Manitoba.
Now that the United Nations has condemned Canada for its lack of action on poverty, what plan does this government have to give these children a future and hope?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, all of us on this side of the House are very aware of the situation right across Canada and the number of people who perhaps are having difficult times and living in poverty.
It is quite interesting with regard to the UN report put out a couple of days ago. What has not been realized is that about three or four years ago this government realized that until we started targeting the resources that we had for those really in need, we were not going to resolve this.
What we did was we took the child benefit package of $2.1 billion, we took Brighter Futures which the minister of health introduced which specifically allocates $500 million to those children who are really in need. Indeed the Minister of Employment and Immigration has done two pilot projects to get those people, specifically single women back to work.
We recognize the problem and we are working toward solving it.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, a supplementary to the same parliamentary secretary.
In the Edmonton area, and I am sure in Calgary the figures are similar, there are currently about 42,000 children living in poverty, area food banks served 9,164 people in February alone and about 44,000 residents are officially unemployed.
Will the parliamentary secretary tell us if she supports spending half a million scarce taxpayer dollars to outfit a DND aircraft to Tory luxury tastes?

Oral Questions


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I think the major question here has to do with the number of people who are in poverty across this country and we recognize that.
I did mention two or three programs with regard to consolidating the funds under these very difficult fiscal times to direct what funds are available at those particular people who need them most: the seniors, the single parents, the unemployed, and indeed the children.
With regard to the UN report, we have not cut funding of social services at all. Our transfer payments under the Canada Assistance Plan have gone up over 5 per cent every year since 1985. We have put more money into social services than any other program and we will continue to target those most in need.


PENSIONS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Many seniors in Canada are worried about the future of their pensions. Seniors have been paying taxes all their lives and deserve decent incomes. Why are the members of the government attacking the universality of Canada's old age pensions?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, we are not attacking what he called the pensions of senior citizens.
Dealing specifically with the old age assistance program certainly there is an area at $50,000 to $52,000 where a portion is taxed back. That is only using common sense when dealing with fiscal constraints. Those people most in need are receiving the funding.
Now if the hon. member is reviewing the area of the Canada Pension Plan, under law that is totally self-sufficient. We are not cutting back at all. In the legislation that co-ordinates the provinces and the federal government, we are not cutting back. We are making sure it is solvent.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same parliamentary secretary.
Seniors have come to learn that promises from this government are wasted ink. Tory leadership candidates are questioning medicare and old age pensions and they have not consulted the people who will be most affected.
Why is the government unilaterally attempting to destroy Canada's pension system?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I think I referred to that in my answer to the first question. We are not targeting universality, nor are we targeting seniors' pensions, not at all.
With regard to the OAS funding, it is there and those people most in need receive it. The Canada Pension Plan is self-sufficient.
If the hon. member wants to discuss the leadership convention he will notice very carefully that all the leadership contestants said that maybe all social policies should be reviewed and that all the people across the country would participate along with the three levels of government.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As he no doubt knows the group headed by Sister Mary Jo Leddy at a press conference yesterday in Toronto has thanked the Prime Minister for his encouraging responses, through June Callwood, concerning 23 rejected refugee claimants now facing deportation. The group has sent the Prime Minister evidence that these are real refugees in danger of persecution in their homeland.
Will the minister assure this House that he will conduct a special review of these cases before July 1, 1993, examining new evidence on those cases and evidence of inadequate or insensitive processing of those cases?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, officials of the depart-
June 1, 1993

ment have already met with Sister Mary Jo Leddy and have made a commitment to accept any new information until June 25. A final decision on these cases has been promised by the end of July.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the commitment to accept the new information, however, there is more that is required.
Will the minister also assure this House that the system of post-claim refugee determination will be changed to include non-governmental organizations so that there can be accountability to the refugees and to the public?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member stands in this House to talk about that group, this is a group promising civil disobedience against a refugee determination system which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee Representative in Canada, who was here two weeks ago, lauds as the best refugee determination system in the world.
This is the fairest and most impartial system in the world and that group is promising civil disobedience against such a system.
The short answer to the hon. member is no. We have a good refugee determination system and we will keep it the way it is. If we can improve upon it we are open to suggestions but the suggestion of getting NGO groups to be part of the decision is not one that I am ready to undertake.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization and has to do with the Small Businesses Loans Act which we passed in this House a few short months ago.
What impact have these changes had on small businesses accessing capital? Have the banks responded positively to these changes that we have introduced in the House?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, the small business
Oral Questions
community is foremost in our minds. When we brought in the Small Businesses Loans Act and broadened it to facilitate a number of businesses and help with the private sector lending, we felt assured that there would be improvement for small businesses.
I am pleased to report that small business registration for loans is up 67 per cent. In fact two banks have special programs now for small businesses.
My colleague the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism will be meeting with the Canadian Bankers' Association within the next week to ensure that the promotion is continued for the availability of these small business loans. It is something that all members in this House have been encouraging.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
For over three years visitors to Halifax International Airport have been visually accosted by the sight of a half finished five storey hotel on Department of Transport property that no less a source than the Auditor General says should never have been started in the first place.
After three years I once again ask the minister if he will stop dithering and tell us whether this project will ever be completed or will it stand as a permanent reminder of this government's failed pathetic attempts at economic development in the province of Nova Scotia?


An hon. member:: They love the helicopters down there.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Madam Speaker, this hotel project was started by a prominent businessman in the maritimes and had every indication that it could contribute to the economic development of the region. This is why we entered into that contract.
It has gone sour. It is a very intricate legal situation that we are trying to determine and see our way out of. As soon as this legal situation is cleared then we will be able to dispose of the problem.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, that is the same response the minister gave to a question on this matter one and a half years ago.

June 1, 1993
Oral Questions
In the last 10 months the company that initially started this hotel has fallen 10 months in arrears on its rent on the lease from Transport Canada, yet the department just recently rejected an offer from another private sector consortium to finish the building.
I ask the minister: Is it now the intention of the government to finish the hotel itself or is it going to allow the private sector consortium to step in and do it? Is it simply going to come in and tear down this monstrosity that is attached to the international airport at Halifax?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I presume the member will know that nobody, despite any contract, can just say overnight that this is our property, we are taking it back and we will do something about it.
As I mentioned before it is a very intricate legal situation. We have to be declared owner of the property before we can do anything about it. This is what we have been trying to do for some time. It is not the first occasion that a case has been drawn out in court for more than a year and a half.


ROYAL TRIJSTCO GROUP
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for financial institutions and it concerns the collapse of the Royal Trustco Group.
Shareholders have lost thousands of dollars. There are serious allegations of questionable debt payments of tens of millions of dollars. There are allegations that preferred shares of almost $200 million were redeemed three days before the sale to the Royal Bank of Canada.
In light of this public information, what concrete and specific action has the minister taken?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the hon. member fully knows that we are responsible for ensuring that the depositors are protected in Royal Trust. That is the primary concern of our department.
As the hon. member knows, there are various steps that have to be gone through in the agreement that is being reached between Royal Trustco, as opposed to
Royal Trust, and the Royal Bank of Canada. They are currently in negotiations on a sale. Those negotiations are in process but no proposal has been presented either to myself or my department. Until that time I really have no further comment on the proceedings.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, my supplemental is to the same minister.
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions has stonewalled the efforts of the subcommittee of finance to get to the bottom of trust company failures. The confidence and security of our financial institutions are at stake.
Will the minister cause an independent inquiry to be made of the Royal Trust matter?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member has been following these matters, when trust companies do get into problems and solutions are found-either private sector solutions or the government has to liquidate-he will have found that the finance committee has done a follow-up investigation.
I would absolutely object to the terminology that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has stonewalled the committee. He has appeared before that committee many times over the past year. He will continue to appear before it in the future, but there is no deal that has been finished or completed yet so there is no sense investigating one until the deal is completed.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to whomever is answering on behalf of the minister of health.
Three years ago this month the environment committee in a unanimous call to action urged the government to act on ozone. I quote from our report:"Ozone depletion is a threat to the continuation of life on earth".
It is clear that the government does not share the urgency felt by the environment committee members. Last year in a question I had posed to the minister of health, he answered that he was considering legislation on sun screens and sun-glasses.
June 1, 1993

Where, in the dying days of this Parliament, is that legislation?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, with regard to the thinning of the ozone layer and the ultraviolet rays, it is indeed a concern for all of us.
I know the Minister of the Environment has spoken on this often. He has also assisted in implementing guidelines and indeed public information and education with regard to how dangerous ultraviolet rays can be, particularly for young people, old people and those of us with fair skin.
We certainly will make sure that this public awareness continues and further education is done.


Lynn Hunter: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. I know that the Minister of the Environment has not spoken on the environment over the last couple of months so he obviously does not share the urgency that our committee members felt.
I want to go back. This government has a responsibility to the Canadian public to regulate the sale of sun screens and sun-glasses in the interests of reducing skin cancer and cataracts.
When is this government going to act? When is it going to legislate to protect the Canadian public?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, indeed sun screens and sun-glasses are extremely important for all of us when we are exposed to ultraviolet rays.
There is a great deal being done with regard to public information and education on this. If one looks back very carefully it will be noted that the Minister of the Environment has been very vocal on this issue on how all Canadians have to take responsibility to protect themselves.


VIOLENCE
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
Oral Questions
In the June 1993 issue of Justice League, the superhero starts his series of adventures in Quebec, more specifically in a toy warehouse in Montreal, and it is all very violent. A Quebec printing firm is responsible for printing and distributing the comic book in Quebec and Canada.
My question is this: Considering the comments by my colleague, the hon. member for Laval-Est, about this publication which is sold in Canada and printed in Quebec does the Minister of Communications, who is in favour of getting rid of violence on television, think we should let this kind of magazine be distributed in Canada and be available to our children? What steps does he intend to take to ban this comic book immediately?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, if I may I would like to reply on behalf of the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice has in fact asked his officials to review the comic book in question. However, I would point out to my hon. friend that it would appear to us at first glance that if any Criminal Code infraction has occurred it would be a prosecution carried by the Attorney General of Quebec.


AIR INDIA
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General who is aware that eight years ago this month Air India flight 182 crashed, killing over 300 Canadians. Since that time the RCMP has been conducting the most costly investigation there has ever been in the history of Canada.
After eight years is it not now time that we either laid charges or instituted a judicial inquiry?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, with reference to my hon. friend's question I make no apologies whatsoever for spending whatever money is necessary to try and bring the people who perpetrated this heinous offence to justice.
If it is a question of money, that issue has never been brought up. We have never in any way suggested that the RCMP impede its investigation on account of cost. In fact, very costly investigations have been undertaken by the RCMP and it is reporting to me periodically. I would

June 1, 1993
Tributes
expect that if it wants any further action taken by the government that I will be apprised of it shortly.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
In today's annual report of Canada Post operations for 1992-93 there is no mention of certain extraordinary expense items such as rental and operation of a Sky-Dome box, promotion and expense of functions such as auto racing, air shows, sporting activities, bursary expenses for theatre and dance.
Will the minister confirm that indeed Canada Post continues to squander resources on these non-postal activities?
Will the minister immediately demand disclosure of such extraordinary expenses from Canada Post officials?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I gather that the hon. member's position and perhaps that of his party is that Canadian Post should not be engaged in the sponsoring of dancers and theatre in this country. It is not a position that we associate with.
The hon. member may be aware, and I am not sure that he is, that approximately 45 per cent to 50 per cent of Canada Post's business is fully competitive. In the competitive marketplace, one advertises if one wants to remain competitive and seek the business.
Canada Post engages in advertising along with a lot of other companies. The hon. member wants us to go back to the bad old days where the taxpayers subsidized the post office. It was not competitive. I am sorry, I do not think that we will take his advice in that regard.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the
Russian Parliamentary Committee on Rural and Social Development, Agriculture and Food, led by Mr. Aleksey Andreevich Chernyshev.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, during early questions in respect of the aircraft being outfitted, I may have misinformed the House unintentionally.
The cost of the VIP unit is $2.5 million not $500,000 as I saw the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest referring to. I also neglected to inform the House that the new fleet saves about $6.5 million a year in operating costs. So in about four months, the cost of this unit would be repaid by savings in operating costs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is an agreement in the House for a tribute to a former colleague.


THE LATE GORDON &quot;CHUB&quot; BARRETT
Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, in the last two days Mr. Gordon "Chub" Barrett, the former member of Parliament for Lincoln in southern Ontario, passed away.
Chub was a member of this House from 1968 to 1972. He served with great distinction as a member of Parliament. When he left Parliament he took a position with the St. Lawrence Seaway which cuts right through the heart of the Niagara Peninsula and as such he continued to distinguish himself as a person who was very much involved in the seaway and also the surrounding communities that touch on the seaway.
It should be noted that Mr. Barrett was bom in Thorold which at that time was part of the Lincoln riding that he represented and is now part of my riding of Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold. Mr. Barrett served as a soldier from 1942 to 1945 and saw action overseas.

June 1, 1993

Politically he was involved as a warden of the city of Welland. Besides that he was a member of Thorold council from 1946 to 1959.
Perhaps the people of Thorold will best remember Chub, as he was called affectionately, for his involvement in the athletic part of the community. He was an athlete. He coached different teams in baseball and hockey. I understand that he was also quite a football player in his time.
We here in this House have a chance to pay tribute to a man who made a great contribution to our country. He will be sorely missed by his family and by his friends in Thorold and indeed in Lincoln country.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to join my colleague from across the floor to pay tribute to Gordon "Chub" Barrett who was the member of Parliament for Lincoln, as was stated, from 1968 to 1972. The boundaries were slightly different at that time from what they are today, but it was still the riding of Lincoln that he served.
Mr. Barrett made a great contribution to Canadians not only in his public life where he served as reeve and warden and then came to Parliament to serve his people of Lincoln here in Ottawa, but he also served the needs of people in his private life.
When he worked at the Thorold Paper Company it was as a safety inspector looking after the safety of his employees. He looked after the safety of Canadians when he served overseas with the infantiy. When he left he still kept a very active role in safety areas within the community.
When he left this House he continued to serve his country and his area on the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority from 1973 to 1980. This was at the time of its heyday in the volume of traffic through the seaway and certainly through the Welland canal at which time the tunnel was built under a road by the canal where Mr. Barrett lived.
He represented the needs of the Welland canal and the Niagara area in the St. Lawrence seaway as a whole and continued to serve his country.
Just as an aside, he also left a mark in Ottawa when he left the seaway. In talking to his secretary, Velma
Government Orders
Durant, who served with him at the seaway, she told me he left 12 ties behind when he left his office. They are still in the seaway office in Ottawa.
Mr. Barrett will be remembered by those at the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and those people he represented as well.
We offer our condolences to his family who I know will miss him sadly.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, just a few words about the sad passing yesterday of Mr. Barrett, the former member for Lincoln. He was one of the class of '68. When I was first elected in 1968 there were 96 of us and Mr. Barrett was a member of Parliament at that time. He served one term, from 1968 to 1972.
I remember him as a member of the House who was well liked. He was a very congenial person who had friends in all three national political parties. He was very active in the committees of the House, very concerned about his constituents and concerned about his country.
On behalf of our party I want to extend to his family our very sincere condolences.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-62, an Act respecting telecommunications, as reported with amendments by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: Following intense deliberations and consultations, the Chair is now ready to render its ruling on all the amendment motions proposed at report stage of Bill C-62, an Act respecting telecommunications. I wish to thank all members of this House for the patience they have shown in this matter.
There are 50 amendment motions on the Order Paper for report stage of this bill.

Government Orders

Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal is now before the House for debate and will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 3, 9 and 15, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, and Motion No. 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal were considered in committee. Therefore they will not be selected.
After consultation, Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, and Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for London East, will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23 standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap and Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
a)	A vote on Motion No. 12 will apply to Motion No. 14;
b)	Motions Nos. 13, 16 and 17 will be voted on separately;
c)	A vote on Motion No. 18 will apply to Motion No.
20;
d)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 22;
e)	A negative vote on Motion No. 21 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 22; and
f)	Motion No. 23 will be voted on separately. [Translation]
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap,
will be grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 24 will apply to Motions Nos. 25 to 30.
Motion No. 31, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 32 and 34 standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
After consultation, Motion No. 33 standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap will not be selected.

Motion No. 35, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, will be debated and voted on separately.
The purpose of Motion No. 36, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, is the same as the purpose of Motion No. 35; therefore it will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, will be grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 37 will apply to Motions Nos. 38 to 41.

Motion No. 42 standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 43 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50, standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, and Motion No. 49, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal, will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	The vote on Motion No. 44 will apply to Motions Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50;
(b)	If Motion No. 44 carries, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 49;
(c)	If Motion No. 44 is negatived, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 49.
June 1, 1993



We will now resume debate on Motion No. 2.


MEASURE TO ENACT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for East Kootenay-Revelstoke has seven minutes remaining in his debate.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, that is Kootenay West-Revelstoke, but we forgive you again.
I had been engaging in a few remarks on Motion No. 2 before us which is:
That Bill C-62 be amended by adding immediately after line 36 at
page 3 the following new Clause:
"Review of an Operation of Act
4. Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every five year period thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act including the effect of those provisions shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose".
I had been commenting just before the luncheon recess on a number of the problems surrounding the earlier consideration of this bill and the various amendments before us on which the Speaker has just ruled.
The problem we had in committee and the problem we see now is that the government introduced 51 amendments during clause-by-clause consideration in committee. It placed all committee members in a state of some confusion in trying to sort out just where they were in the process and what they were dealing with.
Normally members operating on a committee during the period of clause-by-clause study have some idea of what they are dealing with. But in this case the government used a very odd procedure, particularly on a bill that is so complex.
The bill deals with an industry wherein the volume of the rapidly changing technology affects it greatly. It makes the whole matter so complex that we really wonder where we will be a couple of years down the road in terms of whether or not this legislation as envisaged and put together will do the job expected of it.
This industry not only is one of the largest domestic service industries, it is also one which is so absolutely
Government Orders
crucial to our international trade, both in terms of the hardware and the export of technology and expertise we have been engaged in. I am sure in the future it will consume even more attention of those in industry and government.
The motion before us asks for a review after five years. We feel that in the special circumstances which have developed during consideration of this bill that is perhaps too long a period, especially initially, to determine whether what we have done in this place and in committee will stand the test of even that relatively short period of time.
In order to give ourselves, the government and the industry and all interested parties in the country an opportunity, I would like to move a subamendment to Motion No. 2. I move:
That Motion No. 2 be amended by replacing the word "five" with
the word "two".


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, this particular amendment and now the subamendment that I am technically addressing are of interest. Really it is part of the mismanagement the government has engaged in, in respect of this bill that has caused these amendments to be brought before the House.
After nine long Tory years this bill has been introduced by a government that said it was going to try deregulating things. This was one of its big promises in 1984 and again in 1988. It was going to take the monkey of regulation off the back of business. It seems the only regulations it wants to forgo for business are those respecting the award of tenders for contracts for the friends of the government.
This is a case where the government might reasonably have lifted some regulation and moved on it rather quickly after the election in 1984 but it delayed this whole thing for nine years. Now in the dying days of this government's mandate we are confronted with a bill that was introduced in this House in a very flawed form.
The bill originally had 138 clauses and my understanding, although I was not on the committee that considered this, is that over 50 amendments were made at the committee stage to this bill. In other words the members of the committee, which included opposition members as

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
well as some government members turned out changes to this bill that indicated it was very seriously flawed.
We in the opposition have sought to bring forward amendments to improve the bill and make it more realistic and sensible. My very distinguished and capable colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, has proposed this amendment that would have Parliament review this bill after a five-year period. I cannot understand why the minister would not stand up at once and agree to such a sensible amendment to this bill.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is what happens when the hon. member is not in the House to listen to my speech.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He says it is because I was not here to hear his speech, but he should agree to this at once and the reason is patently obvious. We have had reviews of government legislation in this House before. I can recall three or four specifically that came up at House leaders' meetings. Committees were established to review government legislation that had been passed by this Parliament and it was then gone over with some care by a special committee.
The minister knows as well as I do that if a committee is not established to do that no committee is going to sit down as he tried to suggest and spend its time whiling through this bill just for the fun of it. Parliamentarians have lots of things to do and without a specific reference, the job simply will not get done in a reasonable period of time.
Five years is a reasonable time frame and the amendment is being moved by the NDP members to show they are active and not for any particular purpose. Having gone through the act in such detail at this stage it hardly seems appropriate that we go through it in two years. I think five is an adequate time and I am sure the minister would agree that five is an adequate time.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: He suggested two.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: If he suggests two why does he not move an amendment to make it two? If the minister is going to support the subamendment, great, but let us get on with it and get the bill improved. The fact is that unless we have a specific reference to a committee we are not going to review this bill. The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap knows that and that is why he is supporting this amendment.
I urge the minister to have another look at this. If the bill was so flawed when it was brought in and so many amendments were agreed to in a committee, surely an amendment as reasonable as the one moved by the hon. member for Mount Royal could be considered by the minister.
The minister has been the minister in his department now for two years and it has taken a long time to get this bill forward. I have no doubt it would have taken a lot longer if this minister had not been the minister. I know he is diligent and has not had to go off gallivanting around the country on a leadership campaign which no doubt has slowed down progress in several other government departments.
We are sorry in a way that the minister is not in the leadership campaign but from the point of view of getting legislation passed in this House we are delighted that he is able to be here because that is very helpful for the conduct of the legislative agenda.
I urge the minister to meet with his officials who I know are waiting with bated breath for him in the lobby to hear his views on this. Tell them he thinks the five-year review is a very sensible thing and that he and the government members should support this very sensible amendment and urge his officials to check the drafting, make sure it is all right and if it is satisfactory pass the amendment.
If there are technical changes in the wording of the amendment that would improve it, make it clearer or bring it into conformity with other similar clauses in other bills I am sure the hon. member for Mount Royal would be pleased to assist the minister and agree to anything that is necessary to make this change work.
The opposition is keen to have this work. We expect to be the government the next time. We are quite prepared to have a parliamentary review of this legislation and I suggest the minister put it into the bill so it is guaranteed at a certain time.
I hope the minister will consult. If he has to go back to his cabinet colleagues to get agreement for such an amendment I urge him to do so. I know he may have trouble getting hold of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Defence. Who knows where they are today. Surely they come to Ottawa once in a while, at least to cabinet meetings where patronage is being discussed so they can get their friends appointed to all the right posts as we saw earlier today. If they can
June 1, 1993

do it for the patronage surely they can come to discuss the minister's bill and changes to the bill. I hope he will urge them to come to Ottawa and discuss these changes with him so when the voting comes on this amendment the minister and his colleagues will support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, the subamendment moved by Mr. Kristiansen and seconded by Mr. Nystrom is in order.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: The subamendment to the amendment posed by my colleague the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke is simply a recognition of the fact that the process of bringing this legislation through the House has been nothing more than a sham.
This government has had nine years to bring forward a major piece of legislation on telecommunications policy. This particular bill, as I understand it, was initiated by the previous Minister of Communications and has been in the mill for some time. The government has had more than adequate opportunity to flesh out the rough edges and fine tune the bill. The process that was involved over the past few days under great duress with all participating members of the legislative committee was simply an absolute and unmitigated disaster.
As I understand it the government brought in about 75 amendments. The minister corrects me and says there were 51 but I do believe further amendments were also made above those 51 amendments by the minister's representatives.
We had a situation where the opposition in all good faith was attempting to amend the bill that was being changed before its very eyes. It was amending a bill that was no longer there because the minister had come in with no fewer than 51 initial changes-and correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Minister, because everybody lost track of just what was being introduced-and even more changes afterward. During the process when we were discussing amendments other changes were being suggested and brought in.
Government Orders
The process was extremely frustrating and extremely difficult to follow. Because of this I fear there are a lot of weaknesses in the bill that simply have not been caught because it was humanly impossible to do so.
This government has had nine years to bring forward this legislation and only sees fit to ram it through in the dying hours of this dying session of this tired and listless old government. It is trying to get this telecommunications bill through because it has received marching orders from the corporate community to do so.
I have a problem with it because there are so many loose ends that remain untied in terms of many issues that remain unaddressed in this legislation. There is the mere fact that the legislation does not address the whole issue of technological convergence.
The government seems to have missed the complexity of the fact that our technology has moved ahead of our legislative ability to deal with it. New technologies have been developed such as fibre optics cable. Traditional lines of communication such as broadcasting as opposed to telecommunications and telephony are coming together through the use of fibre optics cable. Thousands of signals, audio digital and video can come together and be mixed and then separated through the magic of high technology.
This bill has simply neglected that whole area to great detriment in terms of the immediate future policy making initiatives of this government and the ability of both the government and the regulator to have some authority in terms of this new technological jurisdiction. This is why my Liberal counterpart, the hon. member for Mount Royal, has brought in the recommended change that the legislation would be subject to a review every five years.
I was sitting here in full support of the member's suggestion and thinking it was something we did not discuss in the legislative committee. It is an idea that has to be supported in light of the many loose ends we have here.

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
The minister himself suggested if we were going to recommend a five-year review why not make it two or three years. Why not have the review even more frequently? I had to agree with him. I thought for once the minister was making some sense.
This subamendment to the amendment has come through because of the minister's suggestion although it may have been said in jest. I think he was perhaps inadvertently on the right track. The idea of having a review every two years is quite appropriate.
This legislation takes us from the horse and buggy days of the Railway Act which was 100 years old, to the 21st century. It moves us in one quantum leap legislatively speaking from almost a century ago into this technological revolution we are undergoing today. It is a quantum leap in terms of the legislative initiative that this bill tries to accommodate. There are some good things in this bill that we in opposition have no difficulty whatsoever supporting.
There are other very worrisome concerns such as the whole idea of deregulating the market. As you know Canada's telecommunications market has been under regulatory authority since the telephone was brought into this country and the first lines were run along sections of the eastern seaboard and central Canada. This government in one quantum leap is moving us away from that regulated market structure and opening up the process of the competitive marketplace in the field of telecommunications.
In many ways this legislation dovetails into the provisions of the North American trading agreement. We can see we are getting into a situation where a century of regulated market structure is now being unravelled. In some cases it has led to some innovative changes in the industry. Nobody will deny that. In other areas it has led to job losses. In British Columbia we lost 820 workers in BC Tel as a result of the recent CRTC decisions to allow competition in the long distance marketplace.
In summary there are things happening today and things allowed for in this bill that we do not have a full grip on. I think we should have a provision for a review every two years to make sure the legislative recommendations in this bill can be fine tuned as the realities of our technological evolution continue to unfold.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has simply demonstrated how frivolous the motion of the NDP is.
The hon. member conceded the NDP missed its opportunity in committee to propose that a review provision be put into the bill requiring it to be brought before the parliamentary committee on a regular basis.
Having discovered when the bill came into the House of Commons that the Liberal members were proposing a review clause, the NDP members decided they would try to outbid them and instead of five years they would propose two years. That would mean that every two years, by law, a parliamentary committee would have to review all the procedures of this bill.
That is simply frivolous and an abuse of the time of this House. I do not think Canadians will take that seriously. We are dealing with the replacement of a bill here that dates back to 1908, the Railway Act, which is regulating Canada's premier high-tech industry. Instead of a serious attempt by the NDP to suggest constructive improvements or to be helpful in terms of bringing us into a more modem age, we see simply blind opposition.
I listened with great interest to my friend from Kingston and the Islands with his generous comments about the possibility of my running for the leadership of my party. I am awaiting his cheque and I will be glad to reconsider my position when it arrives. It may have gone astray in the mail but I am prepared to receive it at any time.
It was fascinating for me to listen to my hon. friend when he said he fully expects that the Liberal Party will form the next Government of Canada. However, he says that the parliamentary committees, which would have a majority of Liberals on them and which would have Liberal-appointed chairmen, would not work. They would not sit down to review this bill unless there was a provision in the law that instructed them that they had to do so. This is notwithstanding the fact that the rules of the House and the rules of the committees provide that any committee at any time can study any relevant subject matter that it wishes to. For my friend for Kingston and the Islands, the only way that one could persuade a Liberal-dominated committee to do its job was if it was
June 1, 1993

written into the law and mandated by law that it had to be done.
I do not think that is good enough either. I think that Canadians have a right to expect that when we pass legislation in Parliament, parliamentary committees will do their jobs. If a member of Parliament honestly believes that a piece of legislation is deficient in some way, then he or she should be taking an initiative to sit down and start a review.
Certainly from the point of the government I can commit the government to constantly be reviewing legislation as passed by government to ensure that that legislation still serves the purpose for which it was intended. When the member for Kingston and the Islands says that the only way a Liberal committee would do its job is if it was mandated by law to do so and it was compulsory to do so, then I believe that is simply an abdication of responsibility on the part of that party.
This motion is frivolous. It deserves to be rejected. I think that the industry, consumers across Canada and people working in the industry all have a right to expect that this Parliament will move ahead and pass this legislation without more frivolous delay.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and say a few brief words on Bill C-62 which is a major piece of communications legislation that has been brought before Parliament today. I would just like to say something with the greatest of respect to the minister from the government who introduced I do not know how many amendments to this legislation in committee. I was not in the committee. For the minister to suggest today that the amendments being brought forward by members of the opposition are frivolous really I think is begging a point.
I think that this minister is not one to normally take that approach in debate. I hope he will give serious consideration to our subamendment and if not the subamendment from my colleague in the New Democratic Party then certainly from the Official Opposition. I think it is important to give the discipline to any government-it does not matter what party-to ensure that the regular kind of review for legislation is guaran-
Govemment Orders
teed as important as that which is governing the telecommunications industry.
It is perhaps a cliche to talk about how the regulatory process has been slow to catch up to the changes in the telecommunications industry, but I think that is a point we all know. That industry has to be regulated. It is very difficult for any legislation to try to keep up to the changes.
I suggest that the amendment and the subamendment go some distance in applying discipline on the government or any government to ensure that those changes are made. When the minister suggests that his government is prepared to review legislation at any time, one just has to look at the promises made by the Minister of Finance about getting this government's books in order and the deficit under control. I might suggest that there is a reason to have an amendment to this legislation for some kind of review. It gives all Canadians, consumers and the industry that the minister talks about the time frame for knowing when formal legislative and regulatory changes will have to take place. This is opposed to sitting and waiting for Parliament just before an election when obviously the government wants to get some of its legislation passed.
I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to the subamendment and the amendment. They are both reasonable and something the government should consider supporting.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.

Government Orders


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 7 to 9
at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) the capture, storage, organization, modification, retrieval, or other processing of intelligence or".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment refers to the general interpretation section of Bill C-62. Under clause 2 we find a definition for exempt transmission apparatus:
"exempt transmission apparatus" means any apparatus whose
functions are limited to one or more of the following:
(a)	the switching of telecommunications,
(b)	the input, capture, storage, organization, modification, retrieval, output or other processing of intelligence, or
(c)	control of the speed, code, protocol, content, format, routing or similar aspects of the transmission of intelligence;
It goes on with a number of other definitions.
Subclause 2(b) of that definition I found to be quite problematical. I guess it would be up to legal interpretation. The reason for suggesting this amendment is to get away from what I consider a problematic definition taken in light of what we can call the provision of basic services in the industry.
Take the words input and output. An input device or mechanism or an output mechanism for that matter may or could be interpreted as being the transmission facility or the line carrying that message.
There has been some concern in the industry regarding the whole problem of the provision of services from the telephone company into the private residence such as the line services coming basically from the telephone pole into the commercial or private residence.
My concern is if input and output could be looked at as being the provision of that line facility then by defining input or output as being an exempt transmission apparatus it may alter the obligations of the telephone companies such as BC Tel or Bell Canada to provide, as they
historically have done, these kinds of services to the residential or commercial consumer.
This could well be a topic for debate, but I think that by deleting references to input and output we would still provide the authority to the CRTC to regulate the installation and maintenance of inside wiring and wiring located on the premises of the user in terms of the current provision of basic services.
When a person is constructing a home, for example, the telephone company will come in and provide that wiring. It is part of the service package when the consumer hooks up to the private line or party line whatever the case may be.
What worries me is the telephone companies may say that because this is an exempt apparatus or an exempt facility under the new legislation they no longer have to provide it. Therefore if we want telephone service in our homes we are going to have to pay the cost of the line installation. That cost can range from a couple of hundred dollars for a complex installation to substantially more for a commercial installation. By deleting these references the CRTC would still be provided with the authority to regulate installation and maintenance of apparatus located inside the premises of users.
It is my understanding the CRTC currently has before it an application from BC Tel on this very matter. Telephone companies are trying to cut costs. I do not blame them. They face a difficult situation. I talked earlier about where BC Tel has had to lay off some 820 employees because of the new competitive environment in the long distance market. Granted they were temporary employees, but many of them had been there for a considerable amount of time.
The fact is we now have Unitel coming in and creaming off the profits in the long distance market, forcing BC Tel and other telecoms to lower their long distance rates and therefore lower their profits on long distance rates which have traditionally gone into the provision of local telephone service. The profits from long distance have cross-subsidized for example the cost of providing inside wiring for residential consumers.
It is understandable that businesses like BC Tel or Bell Canada would come before the CRTC and say: "We do not want to have to provide this any longer. We just want to be able to provide the service to the telephone pole closest to the property line". If we in fact encourage that through this exemption clause in the current bill by saying input and output, granted it may be a debatable
June 1, 1993

matter, but my concern is that the legal interpretation of it may be that inside wiring could be looked at as an exempt transmission facility and therefore BC Tel would be quite within its rights to say it is no longer responsible for providing it.
What would that do? To make the matter simple, it would substantially increase costs for the residential consumer. That is not in the spirit of where I want to see the legislation go. We have to protect local services and the provision of those local services, particularly so in our rural and more isolated northern communities.
That is why I have made the suggestion that the words input and output in terms of exempt transmission apparatus be struck from the current clause. Without those definitions it makes the case a little more difficult for the telecoms to say under the new legislation that they are no longer restricted to providing basic service into the residence itself.
I hope the government and our friends in the other opposition party would see fit to endorse this proposal. I simply think it protects the interests of consumers.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap. He referred to the potential for escaping the cost of installing services within apartment buildings or installations that normally were covered by Bell Canada or BC Tel. I presumed there were normal costs of doing business that are chargeable to the customer and there were those that were not through precedent, through CRTC decisions or through a variety of ways since the founding of the CRTC some 20 years to 25 years ago.
If his observations on the potential meaning of the words input and output in that sense are accurate, I have no difficulty supporting him. They presuppose that there will be a saving to the consumer of the service. One of the goals under clause 7 or one of the objectives of this bill is to ensure that notwithstanding the market force the consumer shall be protected along the way.
I must say I had an entirely different understanding of the meaning of the clause on exempt transmission
Government Orders
apparatus. It related to the fact that the Government of Canada through the minister made a decision with respect to making absolutely sure the resellers would not be entrapped by the bill. The goal of the bill was not to cover resellers, that is those who were renting facilities and did not have facility bases. They would not fall under the mandate of the CRTC in any way, shape or form.
In the prior bill there was nothing clearly defining the fact the resellers were exempt. The CRTC and the resellers were of the view that we could go the exemption route for the resellers by having this responsibility under the powers of exemption and forbearance of the CRTC. We could have left the definition section alone. Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong. Only time will tell.
The department and the minister undertook to include five new definitions, enlarging definitions or motions. They included the definition of an exempt transmission apparatus within which they used the term intelligence that does not have any meaning in law. Therefore they had to define intelligence. Then they enlarged the definition of telecommunications to include the word intelligence to be found in any wire, cable, optical or other electromagnetic system. Further they enlarged the definition of transmission facility so there was no question wired cable and optical was there for the transmission of intelligence between network termination points.
That was key to deciding whether or not one was going to be a reseller or would end up falling under the same regulatory network as Bell Canada. There had to be network termination points, et cetera, to be exempt. They then went on to define network termination points.
Within the broad scope of the amendment my colleague submitted, perhaps there is a variety of interpretations to explain why we felt it was important some time in the foreseeable future. We picked the date of five years. The minister seemed to feel a shorter time or even a longer time might be indicated and did not give us a precise time.
There is much that is new in the bill. Just today, not 10 minutes ago, I listened to my colleague raise the matter of input and output. That indicated to me there was something unclear in the bill and perhaps it is a good idea to tighten it up. I thought it had to do with a

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
computer and the way it is typed in and printed out. Maybe it has to do with the way the wire is put through.


An hon. member:: No.


Sheila Finestone: The minister says no, but-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Your legal interpretation is correct.


Sheila Finestone: Sometimes I am right, but it took a lot of learning.
I will rest my case in that way. We have undertaken a variety of amendments and a variety of clarifications for resellers to ensure they will be exempted from the law. Instead of taking an easy route with clarity we have taken a sort of convoluted route.
Maybe my colleague in the NDP who brought in this motion is right. I do not know. Maybe five years down the road we will want to revisit the whole measure. I would certainly support the motion in light of the big question mark that is out there.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to formally designate Wednesday, June 2, as the ninth and last allotted day for this supply period.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, as reported, with amendments, from a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture; and Motion No. 1.
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Spieaker, there is absolutely no question that Bill C-62 is very complicated in my reading of it. The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, our critic on communications, has
been extremely helpful in my gaining a better understanding of the legislation. The amendment the member for Okanagan-Shuswap just introduced in the House raises a concern I have that it changes the whole concept people have of their relationship with Bell Canada and other telecommunication companies in the field.
It is my understanding the bill indicates a consumer or a customer of a telecommunications company would rent equipment from that company's telephone pole in the middle of the street, that is the wire that goes from the pole to the house. Once that wire goes into the house, however, it becomes the consumer's responsibility to maintain the wiring within the house, apartment building, hotel or wherever it happens to be.
That is quite different from how customer relationships have been established over the years with telecommunications companies. If this legislation goes through without that amendment being included in the act, an awful lot of people over the next 10 years or so will have a rude shock whenever they have a problem with the wiring within their places of accommodation and suddenly get a bill from Bell Canada or some other telecommunications company for repairs.
Generally speaking Bill C-62 proposes sweeping changes to the framework surrounding the telecommunications industry. They reflect the present government's philosophy on deregulation and privatization of everything that moves, walks or sleeps.
The complexity of the bill is clearly understood when we consider the number of amendments the government has brought forward to the bill introduced for the first time on February 27,1992. It is my understanding the bill requires such clarification that it has been changed something like 74 times from the time it received second reading to report stage. That is an awful lot of amendments, especially by a government that drafted the bill. Before it introduced it in the House I would have assumed it would have been satisfied the bill met what it intended it to do. That clearly is not the case. Considering the number of amendments that are being moved by members from both sides of the House it clearly is not a very satisfactory bill.
June 1, 1993

I would certainly make an argument that the amendment that was placed before the House 10 or 15 minutes ago deserves full consideration by members on all sides of the House, whether on the government side or not, because it does not seem to me that it offers consumers the protection from those telecommunications companies that they have enjoyed for many years.
If this bill passes without that amendment I will be receiving letters from people in my constituency over the next number of years complaining quite bitterly about how Bell Canada is now charging them for maintenance and repair costs that they never had to pay in the past. I do not think that would do the consumers of Canada any good at all.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Motion No. 1. It reads:
That Bill C-62 be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 7 to 9
at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) the capture, storage, organization, modification, retrieval, or
other processing of intelligence or"
It was submitted by my colleague the member for Okanagan-Shuswap. It is an amendment to the interpretation section of the bill. It broadly defines exempt transmission apparatus, which is what we are dealing with in the bill before us and in this amendment. This is one of those sections that was amended in committee by government proposal at that time and introduced in the middle of the whole hodgepodge of other amendments and suggestions the government was making after the long gestation period it took to put this bill together. That has caused some difficulty.
In the current bill before us exempt transmission apparatus is defined as:
any apparatus whose functions are limited to one or more of the
following:
(a)	the switching of telecommunications,
(b)	the input, capture, storage, organization, modification,
retrieval, output or other processing of intelligence -
-and that is the section we are currently trying to amend. The definition continues:
(c)	control of the speed, code, protocol, content, format, routing or
similar aspects of the transmission of intelligence;
Intelligence is defined as:
signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature.
Government Orders
In dealing with the amendment of my colleague, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, by deleting the references to input and output the CRTC is still provided the authority to regulate the installation and maintenance of inside wiring and wiring located on the premises of a user.
Currently the CRTC, as was mentioned by my colleague, has before it a BC Telephone Company application on exactly the matter that we are dealing with. This amendment would, in our view at least, allow the CRTC to decide whether it wants to continue to regulate inside wiring.
My colleague went on at some length to explain in more detail than I care to do some of the broader implications of what is before us and our own suggestion on it. I would just like to point out to the House and to the minister, who took umbrage a few moments ago in stating that after all the consideration that has gone into this surely it is too late to start considering other amendments at this point, that for a government that brought in so many amendments and so many changes during the time the committee was trying to come to grips with this in clause by clause study is a bit like someone in a glass house throwing stones.
The committee had a difficult time trying to come to grips with exactly what it was dealing with when the ground rules were changing every day.
In this section particularly it was attempting to introduce amendments at the very time that the government was introducing changes on the spur of the moment to what we were trying to amend. It was a very difficult process.
I hope it can be sorted out in votes to come by the adoption or acceptance of some of the review proposals submitted by the Official Opposition or the New Democratic Party, so that we will at least in a reasonably short time down the road have an opportunity to take a second look at what is obviously very important and necessary legislation, at least in the broad context, to the future of one of our most important domestic and export industries.
It may seem like a minor change. However we think it is important in order to provide the necessary flexibility so that in the future the consumers of our communications system will be able to rely on an industry that is

Government Orders
fully conversant with our needs and adapts quickly to all the changes that are taking place.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say with respect to the amendment put forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap that we also agree and support the motion because it tries to accomplish technically speaking what I think the government is trying to accomplish by inserting these two words, input and output, in the bill. That then requires a great deal of complication in the definition section.
Let us face it. The bottom line is that we would prefer to do what the government is attempting to do with respect to the resellers in terms of exemption and through a different way rather than having the government essentially try to do it through the definition stage.
It would have been a lot more open and transparent. We could have accomplished the same thing with respect to the resellers through the exemption stage as opposed to doing it through the definition stage and then requiring all kinds of different definitions such as intelligence, exempt transmission apparatus, transmission facility, and network termination point.
The amendment put forward by the member from the NDP is logical and should be supported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member, it is Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I know it is getting to the end of the Parliament and I know you are from Edmonton. Are you giving me the chance to just firm that riding up? Port Moody-Coquitlam.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know it is Port Moody-Coquitlam. I was just so surprised to see the hon. member. I regret that I did not recognize the hon. member because the riding is very familiar to me.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I should have learned my lesson. They told me in the old football world: Never tangle with Steve Paproski, the member from Edmonton, because you cannot get the ball past him.
This is an interesting amendment because it concerns inside and outside wiring. I want to put it in a bigger context and speak very briefly.
I used to be the communications critic for the NDP and now the job is being ably done by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap. In his amendment he touches upon the issue of inside and outside wiring.
I believe there is going to be a decision by the CRTC tomorrow. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is the regulator of broadcasting, some cable fees but not all cable fees, and telephone rates, which are so very important for ordinary Canadians because that money comes right out of their pockets.
There is going to be a big struggle in the future, probably beginning with tomorrow's decision. The struggle is going to be basically over who gets access to these new forms of communication. The new communications technology will be either having the satellite, they call it the death star satellite, or a box on the television with which we will have interactive television. We will be able to begin a new level of television. We will be able to buy groceries, order a pizza or whatever through our television sets.
Polls show that Canadians will pay more money for home entertainment. Goodness knows, they are paying.
Therefore I want to draw to the attention of the House that who should control the wiring is a very important issue. Should it be the present cable companies, led by the great friend of the present government, Mr. Rogers, and Unitel or should it be the phone companies which are probably the only other organizations that could compete because they have phone lines that go into houses? There are cable lines and there are phone lines. One big question will be whether there should be one line rather than two lines.
We are a country that so far has had one of the most advanced telecommunications systems in the world. We were, and I hope still are in many ways, the world leader in communications. We have to keep that. We especially have to keep all our people plugged into and connected to this technology.
June 1, 1993

I have said in the House before one of the things that scares me is when we rely exclusively on competition in the marketplace what might happen is that just those people in the larger markets, in the big cities, will get hooked up to the new technology. The people in rural areas, even in the Okanagan and areas like that, such as the Kootenays which is my friend's riding, will not be plugged in.
Right now we are very lucky in Canada. We have almost everybody plugged into cable. We have a tremendous system. We do not really need Parliament in the same form any more. If we get interactive television we can have people vote through their television sets. On the next vote rather than us standing up voting, we could just ring it up and have 15 million people vote if we wanted to. There are many things we could do. This is a crucial battle.
That is why this bill is very important. Who controls the inside wiring? Is it to be the phone companies led by a group called Stentor, which is BC Tel and Bell Telephone, or is it to be the cable companies through a group called Unitel, led by a whole bunch of other people but basically by the largest one, which is Rogers? These are the big struggles that are going on.
I want to make this point and it will come out tomorrow at the CRTC hearings. If the CRTC says that it is going to require the cable companies to put $200 million into Canadian communications, Canadian TV shows and so on, then who pays that? The people who pay are the ordinary consumers, the ordinary men and women in our ridings. They are the ones who are going to pay, not the cable companies or the phone companies. It all comes from the pockets of ordinary Canadians.
I ask the House to consider the longer term question of how many wires should go into a house. Should it be just the cable companies and the phone companies or should there be one wire? Should it be regulated or should it be nationalized? I think it should be regulated, completely regulated. Now the cable companies get off the hook. They only have part of their charges regulated while the phone companies have all their rates regulated.
In my riding and in your riding, Mr. Speaker, a few months ago they increased cable rates. One brochure that went to the people said rates increased by 43 cents because the CRTC told them to do it and another said
Government Orders
they changed channels a bit so they were charging 52 cents. I am just picking these general figures.
The third one was $3 because they put in a few more channels. They did not tell the people it was not regulated by the CRTC and that they could have said no. As Nancy Reagan said: "Just say no". The people could have said they did not want to pay an extra $3 and they did not want those extra channels, but they were not told that. It is called negative option marketing.
I made a submission to the CRTC a couple of months ago and I hope in its decision tomorrow it is going to outlaw negative option marketing as was dones in the United States.
In summation on this amendment it is very important with regard to the wire inside the house. It is the future technology. It is going to be linked up by the new ways of marketing and buying and it is a big struggle between the giant telephone companies and the giant cable companies.
In the end it is just the little people like you and me who have to pay. Our constituents are paying for this whole show so we should have a say in how it works.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before resuming debate with the hon. member for Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley, 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 New Westminster-Burnaby-Violence against women; the hon. member for Hillsborough-Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Housing; the hon. member for Davenport-Environment; and the hon. member for Ottawa West-National Defence.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on some of the work my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap has done on Bill C-62. It is very significant legislation to amend legislation regarding the telecommunications industry in Canada and in particular the amendment he is proposing regarding the input and output of provisions given to the CRTC. I think this is very important. It may not seem so terribly significant here but the implications for some of these regulatory changes are very dramatic in the way

Government Orders
they affect the household and in particular the question about inside and outside wiring.
I think the amendment proposed by my colleague is entirely reasonable. It is not suggesting the CRTC must act one way or the other. The government would have the option at the very least to continue to give the CRTC the authority to decide whether or not it wants to be able to continue to regulate this. I think it is an entirely reasonable amendment from my colleague and one I hope the government will consider.
One of the implications of a decision like this was mentioned earlier by another speaker and that is the announcement by the telephone company in British Columbia of a number of lay-offs. We may debate some of the politics surrounding deregulation in the CRTC's ruling not to give a rate increase and Unitel's movement and others into the long distance field. That is the reality of deregulation and that is the direction we are seeing with this kind of legislation.
We just have to look to the United States to see what we will end up with. There was a shake down and now the large telephone networks may be firming up their roles in the field in the U.S. Costs have gone up and there is confusion in the marketplace. There are additional costs to the consumers from companies to pay for their advertising.
We think sometimes the beacon of deregulation is going to free up that marketplace for the consumer but where that has been done and we have seen the results of it over the course of time they have been failures.
I guess the best and current example we have in Canada is the deregulation in the airline industry where we were supposed to have a host of airlines. We are now down to two at best and who knows how long they will continue to exist.
I think it is an example of pointing out some of the concerns we have about the moves by the government in this legislation. I think it is a reasonable amendment. I hope the government will consider it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments made by my colleagues on the other side with regard to this motion.
I suppose my legal opinion is worth as much as those of my colleagues opposite and my friend from Mount Royal, but I do have the privilege of having access to legal officers who can give me advice with regard to the consequence of an amendment like this.
I can say to the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap that the motion he is proposing is not necessary. The intention is not to exempt lines from having to be covered under this amendment. As was indicated by my friend from Mount Royal, the goal is to ensure that in cases dealing with resellers or with other people who are legitimately exempted from the provisions of this bill, they would be.
I am told the definition of exempt transmission apparatus is only used to eliminate those companies that should not be regulated and that is precisely what the goal was. My friend from Mount Royal indicated that earlier and I think she was quite right. Once captured as a Canadian carrier, all aspects including the provision of local service are subject to CRTC oversight. The CRTC would decide not to insist that the telephone companies provide inside wiring only if it was in the public interest to do so and only if in the judgment of the CRTC, which is charged with the responsibility of serving as the regulator of our telecommunications system, it was desirable not to require that the companies provide that inside wiring. For my friends opposite to raise that spectre is to create unnecessary fear.
The CRTC is there to regulate industries that are legitimately captured under the bill and it is there to ensure that the public interest is properly reflected at all times and it will do precisely that. This particular bill was intended to deal with industries that were not intended to be captured here and that is what that particular clause does.
My friend's amendment would essentially drop off input and output devices such as keyboards and printers. This would mean they would not be exempt on the
June 1, 1993

strength of having such equipment attached to the line. When we refer to input and output devices, that is what is being referred to here. That is the assurance I have had from law officers of the Crown.
I appreciate the concerns that are raised by my friends opposite and obviously this matter is of concern to them. I am glad to be able to give them that reassurance. I also accept the point that was made by my friends that this is an important bill and deserves serious consideration. That is why pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill
C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.
I believe that motion is non-debatable, Mr. Speaker.
And more than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to again express the concerns that have been expressed by the previous speakers on this legislation.
I note that the minister took the time to rise briefly to comment on the amendment proposed by my colleague. That amendment basically sees measures coming forward again to transfer the cost of the basic telephone system from the telephone company to the owner.
The minister rose in the House to try to assure everyone that things are just fine and none of these matters that concern us will come to pass. In reality I think the concerns we have are certainly valid. Other attempts by the government to assure the opposition and the people of Canada that they have nothing to worry about and that this government has their best interests in mind have certainly proven false. It has inflicted great harm in some quarters.
This amendment would allow the suppliers of services to avoid the cost of providing the inside servicing to purchasers of the telephone services. I see this as contrary to what the minister is saying. It is the natural consequence of what this government has done. I think
Government Orders
this government has made sure that Canadian companies will no longer be major players in this as time goes by.
It reminds me a great deal of the Canadian airlines arrangement where this government seems interested in permitting an American carrier to take over control of a Canadian carrier. Within a decade down the road we will be looking at American domination of an air transportation system. Those are the fears of my constituents. That is what my constituents are telling me.
We have watched this government open up the telephone service in Canada to Unitel. Now we have two competing agencies supplying telephone service, a basic public utility. As soon as Unitel obtained that right it sold a major portion of its action to AT&T in the United States, which is probably the largest dominator of telecommunications in North America. I am given to understand it has an enormous surplus of capacity and we will be running that capacity through the United States.
That is bound to create enormous cost problems for Canadian companies providing Canadian telecommunications services. Our telecommunications companies in Canada will attempt to rationalize costs by laying off Canadians and trying to bring their costs down. They will try to stop providing services to Canadians as this motion points out by eliminating responsibilities that those companies previously undertook.
In this motion before us the opposition is challenging the government on its national telecommunications policy. It would stop offences like the bill before us. It would stop the kind of activity where we see Unitel being given access to the Canadian telecommunications system and the AT&T through Unitel being given access to it.
It is a very clear indication that in the telecommunications field this Conservative government is looking at creating a common market in North America that as time goes by will grow and allow the Americans to dominate it. It will turn Canada into another Puerto Rico. We can see the end result of this in the telecommunications system laying off hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of telecommunications workers in Canada and driving up the cost of basic telephone service to consumers.
We have seen this in the transportation system. We have seen this in the North American free trade agreement. This government is selling Canada down the river

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
to the United States. If this government lasts much longer in office we are going to look like Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico may even look better.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, you can see how it could become extremely cumbersome when new definitions are introduced to deal with what is going to be exempt and what is not going to be exempt. I would suggest that if we were to follow what the CRTC is recommending on this particular issue, we would not be in the situation that we are in right now.
To that extent I would agree with my colleague and with the explanation put before the House by the minister and say that maybe the best solution for us is to continue with what we have before us.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion defeated on division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 13 at page 4 the following:
"(b) to enhance the expression and communication of Canada's cultural identity."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 27 to 30 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to do so primarily in the public interest and secondarily in the interest of competitors providing telecommunications services and in a manner consistent with the objective set out in paragraph (&);".
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 27 to 30 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(f) to encourage regular consultation between provincial and federal governments to promote regional industrial development that will build on the strengths and potential of each province in the field of telecommunications".
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 39 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"privacy of individuals; and
(j) to encourage innovation in the provision of telecommunications services, including the provision of telecommunications services such as video, multi-media and interactive television."
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 4 the following:
"(2) The objectives set out in paragraphs (1) (a), (c), (d), (e), (J), (g) and (h) may not be implemented in a manner inconsistent with or that derogates from the objectives set out in paragraph (l)(fc)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, these motions have been grouped together because they deal with clause 7, a very substantive clause in this entire bill. The objectives of the Canadian telecommunications policy are basically set out within the framework of clause 7. A number of motions come under the provisions of clause 7 which is understandably why they have been grouped accordingly.
It was this clause that seemed to hang up the legislative committee for some time. There was a great deal of discussion, argument and debate as to the philosophical direction or thrust the government wished to take in this particular piece of legislation, to which I took objection. I believe my colleague from Mount Royal also objected in great measure to the particular focus or thrust of the government's proposals in many areas.
June 1, 1993

It was in this particular clause that the government brought in its commitment to not only safeguard and develop our telecommunications system, but also its commitment to this nation's cultural integrity. This was one of the areas that caused a great deal of confusion and a great deal of debate. Later we found that the government's amendment in fact reversed its initial decision. It no longer wanted culture on the table as part of the telecommunications policy.
There was a great deal of intervention at this point. A lot of arts and culture groups throughout Canada took real issue with the government's reversal of its initial position to include culture as part of the over-all objective or thrust of our telecommunications policy. As a matter of fact, the government's decision to reverse itself on this was unfortunate because it overlooked the very nature of the convergence of this industry and the fact that if we go way back to the comments made by Marshall McLuhan, the medium is in fact the message.
The government has erred in deciding to withdraw the provision for culture from this particular section. It has erred as well in terms of some of the priorities it has established with respect to the initial objectives.
My Motion No. 6 would insert in clause 7 at line 13 on page 4 of the bill a commitment "to enhance the expression and communication of Canada's cultural identity". This is a variation of the theme which the government chose to delete from the bill.
The Alliance of Canadian Cinema made objections to deleting the phrase with respect to Canadian culture. I just want to read part of its submission to the committee. It said: "Accepting the recommendation to delete references to sovereignty, politics and culture would ignore the long-term implications of technological convergence. It would be bowing to a deregulation fever which may be premature.
Many issues relating to the transport of information through telecommunications pipelines vis-a-vis fibre optic tape cable, coaxial cable, et cetera, remain unanswered, such as access by programming services and compensation for rights contained in material distributed.
Government Orders
Moreover, we submit that those advocating the deletion of social and cultural clauses in this bill have a narrow view of the potential volume of information and business opportunities available. In short they are not looking past their bottom line at the expense of the greater public interest".
Although there were many arguments proposed as to why the government has decided to delete culture, really it comes down to the bottom line that the Quebec caucus within this government has decided it wishes to remove that phrase. That is because as we well know, Quebec has long sought to have complete sovereignty over its cultural initiatives. It would not like to see the issue of culture as part of the national framework of our telecommunications policy. That is a mistake.
Speaking on behalf of western Canadians, we feel that culture is very much part and parcel and in fact the very fabric of the make-up of our telecommunications structure. Therefore, it should be part of this legislation.
Motion No. 8 also deals with clause 7. This amendment would include a specific provision for consultation between federal and provincial governments. This would ensure that the national telecommunications policy we are trying to outline in this legislation would in fact promote regional industrial development in the telecommunications industry.
Without this particular amendment, there is simply no explicit provision in the objectives to ensure consultation between the federal and provincial governments. There is no framework for a formal procedure to ensure that a process of consultation takes place.
As a matter of fact the Government of New Brunswick in its submissions suggested that clause 7 be amended to include consultations between the federal and provincial governments. This was in order to guarantee the national telecommunications policy promotes industrial development that will build on the strengths and potentials of each province. Also, it suggested the requirements that the regulator be accessible and responsive to users and providers of telecommunications services in the provinces.
This amendment attempts at least to formulate some degree of structure in terms of a consultation process.

Government Orders
Motion No. 10 would provide for ensuring that innovative technologies are actively pursued.
In the over-all objectives of any large piece of legislation such as the telecommunications act there should be a commitment to ensuring, as the government has taken great pains to ensure, that greater levels of competition and efficiency are structured within the industry.
The government has failed to ensure that we make every provision possible to develop the kinds of innovative technologies not just in certain pockets of Canada but to attempt to regionalize our technological development and our research and development capabilities throughout Canada.
We had quite a debate during the discussions as to whether or not the commitment should be in Canada, or expressed as being throughout Canada. My argument was that we have seen the centralization of industry in research and development take place in this country. Central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, certainly gets the lion's share in terms of industrial development and research and development.
In an industry as large and ubiquitous as the telecommunications industry in Canada, we should be taking specific measures to ensure a more equitable development of the industry. This is in terms of the innovative and high technology sectors of the industry that are coming into play now in the midst of our technological revolution. We should see that these are developed not in Canada, but throughout Canada, to ensure that it can be utilized as a kind of regional industrial development tool.
I was rather surprised in discussing this section that the government wanted to take such pains to ensure the increased reliance on market forces and the increased competitive nature of the industry and not wanting at the same time to ensure the protection of Canadian jobs in the industry. There was no commitment on the government's part to ensure that we use our telecommunications policy as a kind of social policy initiative with respect to the development of Canadian jobs.
One of the problems we are running into can be seen with the decision we discussed today of BC Tel laying off some 820 workers. Those workers are being displaced because of competition in the industry from a company whose market share is 20 per cent American owned. We
can see the slow invasion of the Canadian industry by American market forces.
It is unfortunate that the government did not see fit to expressly include a commitment to protect Canadian jobs in this particular section of our telecommunications policy.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap again raises the point he raised during Question Period earlier. He talks about the lay-offs which took place at BC Tel. He makes mention of the fact that there is competition to BC Tbl. He sees this as resulting in the Americanization of Canada's telephone system.
All of us regret any instance where a Canadian corporation lays off any of its employees, but it is strange the credulity of people who are listening to the hon. gentleman today for him to suggest that the fact there is competition from Unitel against BC Tel is somehow proof of the Americanization of Canada's system when as he well knows Unitel has a percentage of Canadian ownership which is considerably higher than that of BC Tel.
How does allowing competition to BC Tel from Unitel in British Columbia result in the Americanization of Canada's telephone system? Just the opposite. In the case of BC Tel we are dealing with a company whose ownership is grandfathered at the present time and needs to be grandfathered because of the fact that it has a high percentage of American ownership. I wanted first of all just to set the record straight on that particular point.
The second point the hon. member makes is indeed an important one. That is the government decided during the debate in committee to amend the legislation to remove reference to culture. Why was that done? That is the first question that anybody in this House has a right to ask. Second, what is the effect of doing so? Does this decision by the government to move such an amendment result in some way in a diminution of the government's ability to support Canadian culture? Does it mean that somehow our inability to refer to the objective section of the bill as referring to culture means that the government cannot act to protect Canadian culture?
June 1, 1993

Nothing could be more untrue than to suggest anything of the sort. The Senate committee recommended removing these references largely on the basis of two concerns that were raised by witnesses that there were in their view-


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Quebec.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member says Quebec. He feels it is illegitimate because people in Quebec should raise this concern. I disagree. I think we have an obligation in this House to listen to people in all parts of Canada and to give them equal respect no matter which part of Canada they come from.
These witnesses expressed the concern that these provisions were in their view inconsistent with the over-all intent of the bill to regulate the carriage rather than the content of telecommunications and that some provinces may have viewed the reference to culture as potentially eroding their responsibilities.
The government has no intention of using its authority to regulate telecommunications carriers to erode the provincial role in culture. It is absurd to suggest anything of the sort.
Whatever the merits of the concerns raised about these references, in this regard the government has serious doubts about both concerns. We have agreed to remove them because they are not essential to the bill whatsoever.
The specific reference to culture is not essential because the bill clearly recognizes in other ways the increasingly important role of telecommunications as a carrier of cultural products and services. The policy objectives state that telecommunications "perform an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty" and that the telecommunications system should serve to "enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada".
Surely our culture is fundamental to our identity and just as surely cultural products and services are an important part of the social and economic fabric of Canada. Telecommunications serve to link this country together through a whole range of activities from personal conversations to data and information transfers, to business transactions and increasingly to the enjoyment
Government Orders
of cultural products and services. On this the policy statement is quite clear.
In addition some have expressed concern that there may be a legislative gap between Bill C-62 which governs telecommunications and the 1991 Broadcasting Act which governs broadcasting. The concerns are simply ill-informed.
The two pieces of legislation were largely developed in tandem. It is clear from the legal definitions in them that broadcasting is an integral part of telecommunications which has been removed from the scope of Bill C-62 because it is the subject of separate legislation. Moreover recognizing the trend for convergence in broadcasting telecommunications technologies and services, both pieces of legislation were designed to be technologically neutral, precisely to avoid any concern about a legislative gap. It simply does not exist.
Under the twin umbrella of these two pieces of legislation the CRTC is given broad authority within the limits imposed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to regulate telecommunications and broadcasting in the public interest, and the flexibility and scope required to take into account the increasingly interrelated nature of these activities and indeed of content and carriage in an era of convergence. It is clear that such a concern as has been expressed by my hon. friend simply is not legitimate. There was no intention to undermine the ability of the federal government to legislate in the field of culture or to operate in any way in the field of culture. Indeed none of the evidence that was introduced before the committee, none of it, indicated in any way that such an amendment would impede the ability of the federal government to do its job or would transfer to the provinces powers which they do not have today. Far from it.
What it does do though is ensure that members of Parliament are sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed in various regions of Canada. It ensures most of all that nobody can raise a bogus point that somehow the telecommunications system and telecommunications legislation is being used to take away from the provinces areas which legitimately belong to them. It is not simply something which is legitimate.
Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) I move:

June 1, 1993
Government Orders
That the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill
C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. minister. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: According to the provisions of Standing Order 26(2) if 15 members rise in their places to object, the motion is defeated. Shall the motion carry?
And more than 15 members have risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since more than 15 members have risen, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I attended today was to listen to the Minister of Communications speak in the House. I find it stimulating and invigorating.
I am really amazed by his ability to illustrate oxymorons, probably the best examples of contradictions in terms that have been heard anywhere. One of them, of course, is Progressive Conservative and the other is Conservative credulity. Maybe we will have something more entertaining from him later on in the day as he rises again in this fruitless endeavour.
The Minister of Communications on these amendments simply fails to recognize the efforts of my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap in trying to protect Canadian employment. The motions before us are concerns yet the minister instantly dismisses them as fortunes of war. BC Telephone company laid off 820 employees because of the policies of the Conservative government. This is irrelevant to the Minister of Communications and I am sure to the entire Conservative government.
The issues in the amendments of my colleague have been put forward again and dismissed out of hand. I love the minister's presentation to this House. He says not to worry about building these kinds of protections into the legislation through these amendments. "Trust me. Your cheque is in the mail. We will take care of you."
We have been taken care of by this particular government for the last nine years. If there is anything left of Canada when it is finished at the end of this term there will be a lot of very surprised Canadians.
The amendments before us today put forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap are designed to protect Canadian employment in this legislation and in this industry. He also points out that there is a very real opportunity to protect and enhance Canadian culture, something the Conservative government has simply sold down the river with everything else in this country.
The issue before us today has been very interestingly described by the Minister of Communications as not being Americanization of yet another Canadian industry, driving in an enormous wedge. We know we have been condemned by the degree of foreign ownership. Previous Liberal governments allowed it to expand to enormous proportions.
Most British Columbians regret that GT&E controls the BC Telephone Corporation.
When the NDP government was there from 1972-75 it tried to deal with that anomaly to enhance and improve the positions of Canadians and British Columbians with BC Tel. Unfortunately the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau completely thwarted that effort but in the thwarting of it he did not sell it down the river the way the Conservatives have done.
We are faced with a foreign-owned corporation in British Columbia whose American ownership levels are really offensive to British Columbians. We would like to see that changed.
The previous Liberal government under Pierre Elliott Trudeau blocked the NDP government in BC from strengthening the Canadian position in that company. Now we find the Minister of Communications says this is a fait accompli anyway so let in Unitel and allow it to sell 25 per cent of its action to AT&T.
We have a situation now where the Conservatives say that we have the Americans in here, the whole thing is lost, let us get a war going between the giants of the United States-GT&E and American Telephone and Telegraph. Let them fight for jurisdiction and control of

Canada and then we Canadians will benefit from some kind of fall down there.
That is absolutely nonsense. If these people were Canadians and they had one iota of concern for Canada they would begin to turn this thing around and stop the cancerous growth of foreign ownership in this country.
I find the minister's presentation to this House absolutely offensive that we could afford even further sellouts to the Americans. It is absolutely wrong and they are going to get crucified on this issue.
I congratulate my colleague for the amendments he has put forward and the critical issues he has addressed in these amendments. One is the protection of Canadian employment, which the minister and the Conservative government just dismiss as an irrelevant issue, turn over as a casualty to market forces, privatization, deregulation and the trade agreements. "Oh well, we can have jobless recovery because we will have a recovery. We can get rid of Canadian jobs." He said that in the House. It is absolutely disgusting.
The unfortunate thing is that we are looking at a situation where this attitude of the Conservative government is to sell this country to the United States through the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement, the whole strategy behind privatization and deregulation is simply to create an environment where there can be an economic union with the United States, where Canada becomes a Puerto Rico, where American companies are the dominant forces in transportation, communication, manufacturing and delivery of services.
It is unfortunate that we do not have a clear statement from the other opposition party in this House that it would reverse it and not follow the trends of the previous Liberal government of continuing the expansion of foreign control of Canada, but that it would get rid of those trade agreements, not implement them in spite of what has happened in this House with the Conservative government, that it would reverse the role
Government Orders
of privatization and deregulation which has seriously harmed Canada.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting section and probably the key to where the telecommunications architecture will take us in the years to come.	,
This section is called: "The Canadian Telecommunications Policy: The Objective Section". It is of interest to note they affirm: "That telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty. The Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a telecommunication system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions".
What is interesting about this, along with the other nine aspects of this particular bill, (a) to (i), is it sends the message for this whole structure.
The minister and the Crown forgot to address the whole question of convergence on technology and the whole question of telephony in its broadest aspects. The minister made it very clear when he stood up in this House a moment ago, even though in committee on many occasions he felt that there was a phoney issue being floated and he said so in committee.
Anyone who wants to know about it can read the proceedings and find out about the whole question of encroachment on any one of our provincial jurisdictions. The minister explained that he believes culture is subsumed by sovereignty and identity and therefore keeping culture in the bill is redundant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I enjoy listening to the hon. member and she will have seven minutes left in the debate when it comes back into the Chamber.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Lynn Hunter: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that ship and freighter anchorages within the Gulf Islands, or within three miles of environmentally sensitive coastal sites, be required to undergo environmental impact assessments and to seek approval of affected neighbours and communities prior to receiving permission.
She said: Mr. Speaker, there are three themes I would like to address in speaking in support of my motion. I would like to go through them one at a time.
The need for community consultation and the responsible management of local environments is the primary focus of my comments today. The second theme, which I will return to later, is the environmental assessment process. My final theme concerns the ship and freighter anchorages within the Gulf Islands.
TVw>
years ago I proposed that the Gulf Islands be considered as a designate for biosphere reserve status. While not well understood this UN program offers the planning and co-operative management approach which will involve public and private interests in determining working solutions to the problems before us.
Throughout my term as the member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands I have been seeking solutions to environment and development concerns in the Gulf Islands. This motion is yet another manifestation of my concern for these beautiful islands.
A bit of history might be helpful. Under the previous New Democratic provincial government led by my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca the Islands Trust was established. This creation came out of the recognition by that provincial government of the unique qualities of the Gulf Islands, these magnificent jewels that lie between the metropolis of Vancouver and the fast-growing, larger island of Vancouver Island.
The mandate of the Islands Thist is to preserve and protect those islands. Twenty years after the creation of the Islands Trust the pressure on the islands has increased a hundredfold. However it is not just the islands, lands, that are under pressure but the water thoroughfares which surround them.
The first focus of my attention is the need for community consultation. I want to give a few examples of how this can go awry. I heard from a constituent just today that a situation that has been developing on North Pender Island for over a month has now come to a rather unhappy conclusion.
I see the Minister of Communications. He should pay attention to this particular point. This is a situation in which Cantel went over the heads of the local authority, of the Islands Trust, and obtained a building permit to build a communications tower on North Pender Island.
The capital regional district gave that building permit in error. It admits it was in error. There was an outcry from the residents of North Pender Island. There was no environmental assessment and no consultation with the Islands Trust. It completely overrode the Islands Trust on this issue.
I have heard from one of my constituents that a licence has been granted to Rogers Cantel to make that tower operational. This is an outrage and it completely goes against our belief and faith in the system. The mandate of Islands Trust is to preserve and protect. The capital regional district issued the building permit in error. It admitted to that.
Despite protestations from many island residents and my intervention, the Minister of Communications has granted a temporary licence. This is a very David and Goliath kind of story. Sadly in this instance Goliath is going to win.
We know how well connected Rogers Cantel is. The people on North Pender Island do not have those kinds of connections. The tower is created on a hill and is part of a watershed. Water is a very scarce and valuable resource on the islands. The road up to the tower was built without due consideration of the environmental impact. There was no environmental assessment of this project.

It is this lack of consultation that I am concerned about. The structures are not there. The Islands Trust does not have the resources to be able to withstand this kind of pressure. I know today that we are talking about the anchorages surrounding the Gulf Islands but this example shows the kind of vulnerability that exists on the Gulf Islands.
The growth and the pressure on these islands have increased a hundredfold since the Islands Trust was first created by the former New Democratic government led by the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. We cannot allow this kind of violation of those structures to continue if people are going to have faith in the system.
I have spoken a number of times in this House about the kind of public cynicism people have about their political systems. It is this type of activity that feeds that cynicism. If we are going to try to represent our constituents we have to be able to demonstrate to them that the system works. In this instance it is not working. Those residents are feeling a very real and justified sense of violation.
Let me turn to the environmental assessment process itself. This process has been thoroughly examined in this Parliament. We have examined Bill C-13. It is supposed to give the government the tools with which to assess any project that falls within federal jurisdiction or has a federal component to it like the tower on North Pender Island or considerations with regard to fisheries and oceans of any tanker or freighter anchorage within those Gulf Islands.
However Bill C-13 has yet to be proclaimed. We are all a little puzzled as to why that is when it was received with such heated debate when it was originally passed. What is the government waiting for? We have asked the Minister of the Environment on a number of occasions why he has not yet proclaimed Bill C-13, the environmental assessment act.
We are now in a no man's land, a grey area in which we have to fall back on the old guidelines of the environmental assessment review process. Those guidelines have been examined by many who care about the Gulf Islands and they are adequate for protecting them. They
Private Members' Business
do not necessarily trigger as quickly as Bill C-13 but they are adequate to protect the islands.
We have to strengthen and reinforce the environmental assessment review process. Right now it is under a cloud because it does not seem that the Minister of the Environment is supportive of it.
We have seen many examples of such lack of support for that process. We have seen it in the very sad state of affairs with regard to the fixed link in Prince Edward Island. We have seen it with regard to the Rafferty-Ala-meda Dam. In a number of instances it has been given very short shrift by the authorities. The environmental assessment process must be strengthened.
I would like to turn to the focus of the motion, and that is the anchorages of ships within the Gulf Islands waters. For those not fortunate enough ever to have been to the Gulf Islands let me just describe them. They are a string of islands lying between the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver Island. They are things of beauty. The people on these islands have very strong community feelings. They are also working communities where people make their living in a sustainable way. When people live on an island they have a very clear knowledge of the finite nature of resources.
For instance, there is water. On the main island a few years ago a well could reach water at 60 or 70 feet but they are now drilling as far down as 300 feet. That is a lesson in the finite nature of the water resource. Islanders have a very emotional attachment to the communities in which they live and they know the kind of fragility that their communities suffer from.
It is not a bad thing. People have to become environmentally aware if they are going to live on an island. The world is the island. We are all on an island. I have seen a T-shirt that says: "If you throw it out, it stays here", with regard to garbage. Islanders know that. They do not have landfill sites so they have to recycle, reuse, and reduce which we in bigger cities do not necessarily attend to quite so well.
The ship and freighter anchorages within the Gulf Islands region are a cause for increasing concern among island residents and I think among all of us. Bill C-121 is now before the legislative committee. I know my colleague from Victoria will be addressing some aspects of this motion as it relates to Bill C-121, which is an

June 1, 1993
Private Members' Business
amendment to the Canada Shipping Act and in particular with regard to tanker traffic. People who live on the islands and on the coast know how quickly an oil spill can spread, what degree of devastation it can cause and what impact it has on marine and land life on and around those islands.
I talked to the Vancouver port authorities today and there has been an increasing number of ship arrivals over the years. Vancouver and Victoria are growing. The government members want to remind us that we are a trading nation. One just has to live in a port to know how true that is.
In the last year there were over 3,000 ship arrivals in the port of Vancouver. As the islands lie between Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland those ships must go through those Gulf Islands. There is often a back-up in the port of Vancouver. Obviously all those boats cannot tie up at the same time. They have to wait for their place of moorage in the port of Vancouver.
Oftentimes what happens is that those ships have to lie at anchor either in English Bay just off Vancouver or in the protected bays throughout the Gulf Islands. Many times I have seen the row boats come off the freighters and go into the communities to buy their groceries and go to the pubs on the Gulf Islands. They are welcome visitors by many island businesses but there has to be an environmental assessment of the impact of them.
We have seen in our coastal communities the horrors that flow from the bilges of some of these tankers. Under cover of darkness they open the bilges and what we have is another spill. It may not all be oil but there are certainly oily components to it.
This comes back to consultation with the communities. We have to know that the responsible management of our environment is in good hands. That is only done when the community involved is consulted and respected in its decision. The chamber of commerce from Ganges, the chamber of commerce from Mayne Island or the Pender Island folks talk about the benefits to their communities of having those freighters moored off their islands. We also have to talk about the fragility of those waters.
Jacques Cousteau remarked over 20 years ago on the very special qualities of the Gulf Islands. In fact he was one of the first to suggest that a marine park should be
established within those waters. They are internationally acclaimed as special waters. We cannot just allow ships from all over the world to drop anchor with no environmental assessment. This is where the federal government has a responsibility. If we do not do it as a federal authority who is to do it?
We have the Islands Trust that is overburdened already with the difficulties I described earlier in my remarks. It is like putting out fires. It is oppressed by the work load and by the difficulties of the growth pressures that confront it. We at the federal level, the most senior government, have the responsibility to give it the resources and to give the Canadian Coast Guard the resources to monitor.
It is all very well to have legislation in place, but unless we have the resources to back up the legislation enforcement is a farce. We must give the communities some reason to have faith in the system.
On Pender Island, the Rogers Cantel tower has certainly bruised confidence in the system. A David and Goliath scenario is being played out. I hope my cynicism that Goliath will win is wrong. I hope David will succeed, the residents of Pender Island being David in this instance.
Ship and freighter anchorages in the Gulf Islands are something we have to take responsibility for. I hope other speakers will recognize the fragility of the Gulf Islands and our desire to preserve them for future generations.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this issue in such a responsible manner. She made some veiy good points and expressed the concerns of many constituents on the west coast. It was somewhat fortuitous that the hon. member was able to join us this morning in the discussion on the bill she mentioned in her address, Bill C-121, which is an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. There are a number of clauses in that bill we will be reviewing tomorrow in committee that will assist in the very points she raises today.
I was appreciative of her comments with regard to our Coast Guard in Canada. From a personal point of view perhaps in this case a little cynicism is a good thing if it keeps people on their toes. I think she will agree with me
June 1, 1993

the Coast Guard is doing a great job out there and deserves our support.
This morning specifically at the legislative review committee of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, we did discuss-and it just happened to come up as a matter of discussion-some of the current legislation that is in place. In fact the Canada Shipping Act controls the entrance of ships into our waters.
We do not allow just any leaky tub from around the world to come sailing into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There are designated reportings of this. The Coast Guard is advised 24 hours in advance of ships coming into our harbours. We have a very good idea of what vessels are entering Canadian waters. In fact many of them are not allowed to enter Canadian waters unless they are fit.
I want to speak at this point about anchorage itself, because it was the main thrust of the hon. member's motion today, and to give a little background on the act of anchoring and what it means. I also want to examine the reasons for anchoring a ship and the purpose for designating an anchorage that may have escaped some of those watching or listening today.
We cannot escape the fact that anchoring is an everyday activity. It is an integral part of navigation. In simple terms, navigation can be explained as the practice or the art of moving from one place to another safely. In a nautical or marine sense this is the familiar practice of taking out one's sailboat for a day's sail in a local harbour and safely returning at the end of the day. An example that is more germane to the motion before the House is that it is also the practice of sailing a 200-metre ship loaded with perhaps 30,000 tonnes of goods halfway round the world in a safe and efficient manner.
As I just said anchoring is a part of navigation. Anchoring has a role in the efficiency and safety of proceeding from one place to another, although presumably when at anchor the ship is stopped and waiting to continue moving to its final destination.
Anchoring is most commonly seen as a method to hold the ship in position while it awaits a berth in a harbour to load or unload cargo. It is considered economically efficient and environmentally sensible because the consumption of fuel is reduced dramatically while at anchor.
Private Members' Business
It is also efficient in that the ship can generally be anchored close to the area where the loading or unloading will ultimately take place.
Anchoring is more significant when looked at from a safety point of view. A ship cannot be kept stationary without an anchor except those that are equipped with sophisticated engine controls and substantial power to overcome the effect of drifting due to wind and tide. Throwing out an anchor-and I use that as a figure of speech since a large ship's anchor and chain weighs several tonnes-simply keeps the ship from moving. A ship that is not moving or drifting is not in danger of grounding, colliding with another ship or subject to the stresses of the open sea. It really is a very safe way to wait before continuing on a trip.
Members may also be interested to note that a vessel at anchor must continue to be crewed as if it were under way. A navigation watch is maintained by certified navigation officers to ensure the ship's position is maintained, to watch other ship traffic in the area and to do whatever work is necessary to ensure the ship's safety.
In cases where the weather begins to deteriorate the practice of good seamanship dictates that engines are put on standby and are ready to move the ship should the anchors fail to hold. All these activities are consistent with safe navigation.
Some members might suggest that a ship could hold off in the open ocean, far off from more sensitive coastlines, until it can steam directly to port and not have to anchor. The recent tragedy off Nova Scotia illustrates the danger of exposing even the largest of ships to the rigours of the open ocean. The safety of crews, the rigours that the open sea inflicts upon them and the protection of the environment require that the practice of good seamanship be followed and ships reduce their exposure to the risks of the high seas and exposed coasts.
Ships anchored with proper care accorded by good seamanship are less likely to be involved in a collision or grounding than a ship in motion. In rare cases where a ship at anchor is dragged around by high winds or currents, the results can be much less severe than when a ship is moving under power and collides with another ship or runs aground.

Private Members' Business
Anchoring is also an emergency procedure to prevent a ship that has lost power from drifting into such danger or on to a reef or a shoreline. In fact ships are equipped with at least two anchors for use in such emergencies. It is interesting to note that in most cases where a ship has lost power anchoring is a simple and successful manoeuvre that holds the ship in place until the engines can be restarted.
This background demonstrates that anchoring is considered to be active navigation as part of the process of getting from one place to another safely. The matter of restricting navigation and therefore anchoring is currently considered in the context of existing common law.
Members may not be aware that existing common law defines the public right of navigation as a paramount right, that is to say a right that supersedes other common law rights and includes all rights necessary for the right of passage such as the right to pass, to anchor or moor and to remain at one place for a reasonable time for loading and unloading.
The significance of this right is that a ship may anchor at any place and at any time so long as the anchoring is in accordance with the good practices of seamanship. I say this in the context of what the hon. member and I heard this morning in the legislative committee, that the legislation involving the Canada Shipping Act accords the Coast Guard the opportunity to restrict the anchorage of vessels under certain conditions or when a particular boat or ship is in less than the best of condition.
The second issue I should like to address is that of the identification of an anchorage. There are no regulations perse to establish an anchorage. Anchorages are normally designated by harbour authorities in consultation with the Coast Guard and marine pilots and then printed on charts and publications to advise mariners. These anchorages are normally identified for large ships and marked on charts or noted in reference books so that other ships can know that ships may be in anchor at those locations and to efficiently distribute ships sharing a harbour where more than one anchorage is designated.
Designated anchorages are only found within harbour limits. On the west coast alone there are approximately 20 harbours that are equipped to receive large ships. Not all of these harbours have the designated anchorage
noted on a marine chart, but ships visiting these ports can anchor at or near them.
In 1990 the west coast recorded some 287,000 movements of ships. These are movements of commercial ships and not just fishing boats or pleasure boats. In the extreme, essentially every movement would require an environmental assessment since cargo changes with each loading or unloading as do the risk factors of weather and traffic.
The government supports a more efficient approach to address the concerns raised in this motion. This approach includes a regime which focuses on preventing accidents before they happen and to ensure if they do, that an effective response is mounted that is appropriate to the environmental sensitivity of the area. Again I thank the hon. member for her motion.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion. It goes back to many of the principles we raised in the House on May 13 with the opposition motion that read:
That this House regrets that, despite the many grand announcements in international forums and despite the passage of two and one-half years since the launch of the green plan, the government has failed to integrate fully environmentally sustainable development as a goal of public policy.
Today there was a press conference and a one-year report on the earth summit which took place in Rio de Janiero just a year ago. Canada took great credit for its leadership role with respect to bringing sustainable development and some of the measures needed to ensure a sustainable future to the attention of the world. It took credit for some success in specific conventions that were negotiated to achieve that purpose. Yet when environmental organizations gave Canada its report card on the first year since Rio, I am afraid the mark was an F in nearly every category.
Fundamentally what the motion addresses, without going into the specifics of the Gulf Islands or the other issues that the member has raised, is the need to integrate concern for preservation of our resources, our environment and our planet into all government decision making. We are far from doing that.
Perhaps unrecognized as one of the most important promises in the green plan was that there would be an environmental assessment of every policy going before cabinet for approval and then when a policy, program or
June 1, 1993

bill was tabled in this House there would also be tabled an environmental statement.
The importance of that was to allow the public to review decisions being taken by the government and Parliament in the light of their environmental impact. Regrettably this has happened by exception rather than by rule.
The most important policy document of any government is of course its budget. Two and one-half years after this green plan promise we still have not had a budget that has been accompanied by an environmental statement. In fact most bills coming into this House have not come with an environmental statement notwithstanding the promise of the green plan.
What is important about this green plan promise is more than the information it brings to Parliament and therefore to the public. What is important is that it forces policy makers, both from the first moment of conception of policy deep within the bureaucracy to the moment when it appears in this House, to consider the environmental implications of their decisions.
The member for Saanich-Gulf Islands is raising precisely this issue here. On important issues that affect important environmental resources Canada holds the stewardship not only for our own use, enjoyment and future but for the world. Decisions on those resources are being made certainly without adequate attention to the environmental implications of those decisions.
Both the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and the member who responded for the government referred to the Shipping Act that is now before a legislative committee on which I am also participating. This is a good example of the second element that the motion before us today addresses, which is the need for community involvement.
As a witness before the legislative committee said this morning, people will safeguard those things they love. Whether it is the people of the Gulf Islands or the people in my riding who value their proximity to the Ottawa River and its quality, the people living in a certain environment understand best how it works. They understand how changes to that environment will affect it. That is why it is so important that they be involved in the process of decision making about those resources.
Private Members' Business
The Minister of the Environment has said repeatedly in this House that this was the essential change that took place at the earth summit in Rio, not just the specific conventions, not just agenda 21 which laid out a road map for the next millennium, but the fact that the process of decision making had to change, had to become inclusive, had to become more transparent, had to become more accountable.
What we have seen with the Shipping Act before us is that in fact the industry was consulted and there were substantial face to face discussions hammering out best solutions between industry and government officials. Virtually excluded from that process were environmental organizations that have been involved for many years now with how to prevent oil spills and how to most effectively respond to major oil spills. It is only in the process of the legislative committee that we have seen that in fact this has been a closed process, not an open process. It is exactly the kind of thing that this motion purports to address; the need for the involvement of local people who know the situation, who will live with the results of the decision and who are there as the front line guardians of our environmental resources.
I want to talk particularly about some local issues that affect my riding where this certainly applies. This happens to be our nation's capital. The National Capital Commission, an instrument of the federal government, plays a very important role in this region. It is a far step from the Gulf Islands to a major urban environment but the environmental issues are equally important. To a major extent what we do in our cities has a greater and more damaging impact upon our environment than what we do outside cities.
The National Capital Commission in this region controls or owns one-third of the property on both sides of the river on the Quebec side and on the Ontario side. Therefore it has a substantial ability to influence the decision making of local governments.
In a sense in this region we have the opposite problem to that which the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands was describing. We have the problem of the National Capital Commission taking a hands-off approach and, in my view, not taking enough responsibility to use and implement its obligations under federal environmental assessment legislation to ensure that it is co-operating with local government certainly, but nonetheless that it is

June 1, 1993
Private Members' Business
bringing its federal mandate with respect to making this an environmentally sustainable urban region into the discussions.
I will give just two examples in the short time I have left. The first example is that we are now in the midst of a major bridges study in this region with major involvement from the federal government through the National Capital Commission. Notwithstanding the fact that we are now getting close to the 21st century and hopefully have learned some things from the mistakes of the past, we are in the middle of deciding where to build bridges to accommodate more cars, to consume more fossil fuels, to do more damage to creeks, wetlands, conservation areas and neighbourhoods which have been clearly established by the Supreme Court as part of what we need to consider in an environmental assessment.
What communities are looking for is not only local leadership but national leadership to look at more sustainable urban communities, more emphasis on public transit over more cars, more roads and more gas consumption, preserving in an urban environment those natural environmental features that are so important, even more important where the environment is under the major stress of urbanization. I give this as just one example. There are many dimensions to bringing environmental concerns into all our decision making.
In any case, I am pleased to speak on the motion. I think we need to constantly remind ourselves, those who are in government and those who hope soon to be in government, that our obligation to future generations is something that has to be part of all of the decisions we make in this place.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we have before us, moved by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that ship and freighter anchorages within the Gulf Islands, or within three miles of environmentally sensitive coastal sites, be required to undergo environmental impact assessments and to seek approval of affected neighbours and communities prior to receiving permission.
I am very pleased to rise in support of my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands. I am speaking in favour of
this motion and I hope all members of the House will agree that the motion not only is an excellent one but should be adopted unanimously by the House.
Let me say first of all that the motion itself deals with a particularly important issue to the Gulf Islanders. I have had many opportunities to visit Pender Island and the other Gulf Islands. I know that the people in the Gulf Islands who are so ably represented by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands fully support this resolution and would ask the House to adopt it.
I am also pleased to support the motion moved by my colleague because of the work she has done as a spokesperson for our area and for all Canadians on issues of the environment in her first term as a member of Parliament.
The member has given courageous and decisive leadership on environmental issues since she first came here in December 1988. She attended the Rio conference, the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, last year. She has been a leading member on the environment committee of this House. She has spoken out on a whole range of issues on the environment, most recently on issues concerning the ozone layer.
I pay tribute to the leadership she has given and the tenacity with which she has followed these issues. She is a great credit to her party and to her constituency.
This motion is one of a number of measures which are now before the House to deal with the issues of tanker traffic in our area and across Canada. The greater Victoria area is particularly sensitive to issues of tanker traffic and other ship and freighter traffic through the region.
We have seen disastrous oil spills on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Daily we see tankers going back and forth on the Straits of Juan de Fuca. We have been saying in this House over the last four years that it is essential that this Parliament and the government deal with the issues that occur as a result of the heavy traffic through our region.
I have the honour to chair the legislative committee looking into Bill C-121. That is a very progressive piece of legislation brought forward by this government in
June 1, 1993

response to the review panel chaired by David Brander-Smith of Vancouver.
That review panel was struck by the government following the oil spill disasters of 1988-89. The panel came forward with 107 recommendations. I am pleased to see that in many areas the government is proceeding under the leadership of the Canadian Coast Guard to implement those recommendations.
One part of the implementation process is the bill that is before the House, Bill C-121. This bill adopts a number of the recommendations proposed by Mr. Bran-der-Smith and the panel. Very specifically it sets up a regime to deal with an oil spill once it has happened and to try to reduce the incidence of oil spills.
There are some who falsely say that we should not tiy to deal with the problem of an oil spill, that once it has happened nothing can be done. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We do agree that prevention is 80 per cent of the issue. It is very important that the government proceed apace in dealing with the recommendations to head off oil spills before they happen. We should also be aware that no matter what measures are taken, oil spills can occur. As the Brander-Smith report indicated we need to take substantially improved steps to deal with those oil spills that regretfully will occur.
The bill before the House takes a major step forward in that direction. First of all, with some minor exceptions for very small vessels, it requires every major ship entering Canadian waters to have an agreement in place approved by the Canadian Coast Guard under which it would have available a response capacity should a spill occur. It would have to file a plan to deal with any spill that occurs. As well, all unloading facilities have to have a response plan in place.
The bill also provides that the shippers and users must get together to encourage the development of a response capacity in Canada up to 10,000 tonnes, that is, virtually all the spills that might occur as a result of traffic within our waters. The interesting part of this provision is that it was worked out in consultation with the users, the shippers, environmental groups and Coast Guard Canada.
Private Members' Business
The program will be entirely financed by the private sector. The users will have to pay the cost of bringing our response in Canada up to the necessary level.
Furthermore, the bill will increase the maximum fine of $250,000 to $1 million. It will insert a provision that wherever an oil spill occurs the polluter must pay the costs of cleaning up the spill. It fixes that liability clearly and precisely where it should be, on the principle of polluter pay.
The bill also identifies the Canadian Coast Guard as the effective national authority to deal with oil spills and the prevention of spills. The Coast Guard is given full authority to deal with vessels entering Canadian waters to ensure that the crews are trained, available and ready to deal with any measure that may come.
As well the bill gives judges a much broader range in sentencing, including the opportunity to order remedial action.
Finally the bill establishes advisory councils. The committee will be dealing with various proposals for the make-up of those councils. Let me say it is a major and very important advance that advisory councils be established at the national, regional and local levels so that there is public and user input into the policies of the Canadian Coast Guard and to the implementation of those policies.
The people in our area know the impact of oil spills. We applaud the volunteers who in the past have turned out in the thousands to deal with these spills. But we say to the Government of Canada that the pace must be accelerated in developing measures to prevent oil spills and to ensure the quick and immediate response should a spill occur.
I am very pleased with the motion the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has introduced today. It provides very specifically that ship and freighter anchorages within the Gulf Islands regions must be subject to environmental impact assessments before those anchorages can be established and that there should be special attention given to environmentally sensitive coastal sites within the area.
It is part of a package that will give us in this country a capacity to do better than we have done in the past. In some areas it ensures that Canada is a leader in this field. This is an important motion. The legislation already before the House is important and I am very glad to stand in my place to support it.

Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In view of the fact that the late show will start in about 10 minutes, we will suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.49 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.58 p.m.

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

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs to assure veterans that none of the benefits or programs they receive will be cut, especially in light of the fact that an official at the Privy Council Office called for a cut across the board of 10 per cent in all departments.
The reply I received that day was from the government House leader. Unfortunately it did not satisfy me nor did it satisfy the hundreds of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown and across the country.
Please allow me to refresh the parliamentary secretary's memory. The government House leader said: "We in Canada have the most generous program of veterans benefits of any country in the world and we intend to maintain them". His response directly conflicts with that of the Privy Council director.
I then asked the government House leader to assure the people who deliver these programs that none of their
jobs would be cut. He then accused me-and I use that term lightly-of caring not only about the area of which I am opposition critic but also for caring about my constituents.
Let me say what he said. "I thought the hon. member was interested in veterans. Now I find out he is interested in his constituents' jobs". He went on to say: "Let me assure the hon. member that veterans affairs will continue to operate in Charlottetown. As long as veterans are still alive we will have public servants there providing the services they need".
The government House leader thought his response was a good joke. However veterans and employees of the department are not laughing.
I did not find the answers very useful when it came to settling the doubts and fears which have been raised about the long-term plans of this government and the future plans for veterans affairs.
It is a given that Canada has some of the most generous and beneficial veterans legislation in the world and we want to keep it that way. What is not so readily accepted by this government is that the Department of Veterans Affairs has some of the best employees in this government. However morale at this department is now low. As a matter of fact a recent departmental survey shows a great deal of employee dissatisfaction and low morale.
The survey showed that 91 per cent of the workers at St. Anne de Bellevue Hospital acknowledged they were worried about the hospital's future. The veterans and the employees both deserve to know what the future plans are for the department. Will there be staff cuts now or in the immediate future? Will there be cuts to programs? Will the political masters of the department still direct employees to treat the veterans with courtesy, generosity and speed or will there be a subtle change in that policy also?
Will there still be a Department of Veterans Affairs or will these deserving Canadians find themselves and their interests swallowed up in a larger department under the direction of a part-time minister?
Has this government formulated any long-term plans or will it continue, as it has been doing, adding more political appointees to senior positions while at the same
June 1, 1993

Adjournment Debate
time cutting back on clerks and stenographers and program officers who make the department work?
I asked the question on April 29 in good faith. I was asked to do so by both veterans and employees. They deserve an answer. We all agree that a program should be maintained but Canadians have come to learn that the words spoken by members of this government are often very hollow.
The answer I got effectively did not do what I wanted it to do. I ask the parliamentary secretary: What are the plans for veterans programs and what are the plans for employees of the department? I am sure the parliamentary secretary will stand in this House and assure us that neither programs for the veterans nor jobs in the department are in jeopardy.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to remind Canadians that our veterans have the most generous package of services and benefits of any veterans in the world, and to assure them that our veterans will continue to receive these programs and services. In fact, the proof can be found in our Main Estimates for this year. We have a record budget of $2.2 billion, which is $77 million higher than last year's budget. Despite strenuous efforts to eliminate wasteful spending and improve the efficiency of departmental administration, we are still committed to serving our veterans, as evidenced by our increased budget.
We are continually seeking ways in which to improve our services to veterans. For instance, at the end of this month we will begin implementing changes to the pension process which are designed to reduce, by as much as four months, the time necessary to rule on an initial pension application. I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of this recent initiative.
However, I regret that he continues to alarm employees of Veterans Affairs, many of whom are his constituents. I know how important the Veterans Affairs headquarters are to the economy of Charlottetown and Prince Edward Island. I take this opportunity to repeat to
the hon. member that his claim that 400 headquarters jobs will be cut is simply not correct.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I was dissatisfied with an answer provided to me by the government about violence against women.
I asked why the government was spending millions of dollars on research about violence against women while cutting back on shelters for battered women and women's organizations.
The research is telling the government that the problem is even more serious than it would admit. Yet it continues to cap billions of dollars in federal funds to the Canada Assistance Plan which funds shelters for battered women in addition to child care, social assistance and other programs. What is the point of putting millions of dollars into research when it takes billions of dollars out of much needed programs?
The minister answered that the panel on violence against women is necessary and is doing good work. If that is so, why has the government chosen to ignore the immediate challenges for action outlined in the panel's preliminary report?
Many of these immediate challenges such as mandatory violence prevention and education at every level of schooling and for judges and professionals are remarkably similar to the June 1991 report of the House of Commons Subcommittee on the Status of Women report War Against Women. Those recommendations have still not been implemented.
The minister answered that we should give credit for the work women have done over 20 years and the advancements we have made, and we should not be shouting at each other over these issues. Women do deserve credit for years of unsupported and poorly supported work in crisis centres and shelters. They have put this issue on the public agenda and now the government has punished women's organizations with deep and drastic cuts.
Her government has chosen, led by the member for Vancouver Centre, to spend almost $6 billion on 50 military helicopters while cutting shelters to battered

June 1, 1993
Adjournment Debate
women and child care. Women will shout as long as they try to justify this decision. We should be ending violence against women with public money and not funding more high-tech ways to commit it.
A government representative will shortly rise to justify the government's actions on violence against women. We do not want to hear how many communities the panel on violence has visited and we do not want to hear about more initiatives for research. We want to hear that the $1 million cut to the women's program has been restored and there will be no further cuts. We want to hear that the Court Challenges Program will be re-established. We want to hear that the cap is lifted from the Canada Assistance Plan and shelters for battered women will be fully funded again.
Canadian women want to hear that the recommendations of the War Against Women report and the panel's interim report will be put into effect soon. These recommendations include adequate long-term funding for advocacy and services for women. They include mandatory training for judges and all criminal justice and law enforcement officials on issues of violence against women and women's equality.
We want to hear that abusive men will be removed from the home rather than forcing the abused woman and her children to run for their lives. We want to hear that every child will receive a thorough education about his or her rights and responsibilities, about equality and about violence prevention.
We want to hear some concrete measures to promote women's economic equality so that women faced with abuse have a real choice to leave. We want to hear that these specific steps will be taken to make women and children safe, give them self-esteem and new lives and prevent further abuse. In short, we want to see a comprehensive program to achieve economic and social justice for Canadian women.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question again asked by the hon. member.
I am quite proud and honoured to speak on this government's record in addressing the challenge of violence against women. As the hon. member knows and has indicated in her opening remarks, in August 1991 we
established the Canadian panel on violence against women. The panel's final report and a national action plan are expected to be released in about a month.
The government has not waited for the panel report to move ahead on this issue. We are working on several fronts, including research and education, laws to deter offenders, prevention and assistance to victims, to name a few and be specific as the hon. member requested.
The $136 million family violence initiative has funded over 1,300 projects since 1986. In the past two years over half the projects have been related to violence against women. Some of the money has been earmarked for new emergency and interim housing units.
Violence against women is a part of a larger societal problem of violence we are addressing. This year the Minister of Communications announced a five-point strategy to reduce media violence, including a code of ethics on television violence. The Minister of Justice is consulting Canadians to develop a national strategy on community safety and crime prevention that will look at the root causes for violence in society, an idea that is in keeping with the panel's philosophy.
As well, we have introduced legislation to deter offenders. The proposed criminal harassment legislation regarding stalking will hopefully be law before the end of this session. The rape shield law was passed last year and new regulations to tighten parole for sexual and other offenders now exist.
These initiatives are a testimony to my government's commitment to achieving zero tolerance of violence against women in Canada.


HOUSING
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, have you ever visited Tsulquate, Rae Lakes, Repulse Bay, Lac La Ronge, Tadule, Bearskin Lake, Chisasibi, Davis Inlet or Gabriel Elousing project? What do they all have in common? They are all on and off reserve native communities and housing projects. Some are in remote areas of Canada, some in rural areas of Canada and some in urban Canada. They are just a few of the thousands and thousands of similar communities and urban housing projects for natives across our entire country.
June 1, 1993

A great many of them need sewers and running water, but all of them need housing and repairs for existing housing. That is because there is a problem with overcrowding. There is a problem with a great backlog on the waiting list. There is a problem with damages caused by condensation as a result of the heating of these houses, cooking and indoor washing and drying of clothing because of the extreme temperatures in much of our country.
All of this housing has been built under programs either initiated by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This year or next CMHC apparently will have a total of some $41 million for new housing for non-natives and for natives off reserve. That is for 1993. In 1994 there are not going to be any new funds available for off reserve housing through CMHC unless it can generate some savings through efficiencies or through new financing arrangements. That is a real question mark.
As far as the department of Indian affairs is concerned its funding is going to be frozen as of the last budget at this year's level, in spite of the fact according to DIAND it is estimated in 1990 that there was a backlog of some 11,710 housing units.
The government has promised that we are going to have a new housing policy and presumably some new money for natives both on and off reserve and for the Inuit in the Northwest Territories. In answer to the question I asked on May 13, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that the government was in the process of reviewing its policy which would be announced as soon as it was finalized.
By their own admissions various federal governments, not just the present one, have been reviewing this policy since 1975. In light of that is it any wonder that native Canadians across our country are truly worried about what is going to happen next year.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the federal government recognizes that there is a critical need to resolve the housing problems in aboriginal communities and is committed to assisting First Nations in acquiring suitable, adequate and affordable housing.
Adjournment Debate
Over the past four years the Government of Canada has supported discussions and consultations with First Nations to address the issue of inadequate housing. It is not just the government that is reviewing. This is in consultation with the natives of whom the hon. member speaks. It is in their interests and with them that these policies are being developed.
More than 250 meetings were held across the country enabling the government and aboriginal leaders to identify the issues and recommend options for change. At the conclusion of this joint process it was agreed that a fundamentally reformed housing policy was needed.
The Government of Canada is now considering a new policy framework that will be developed jointly with the Assembly of First Nations using the recommendations contained in the report on housing prepared by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and the advice received directly from community leaders.
The immediate goal is to assist Indian communities in addressing the provision of adequate, suitable and affordable housing in a way that promotes Indian control and accountability in the management of activity, greater opportunities for home ownership, sound economic development and employment opportunities for First Nations and assures equity with other Canadians.
By working with First Nations the government has made significant progress in identifying the issues and options for change relating to on reserve housing. Access to affordable, quality housing for native people has been and will continue to be an integral part of the fulfilment of the native agenda.


ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, the world community has agreed that it is in the interests of the population in five continents for their well-being, for their food security and for long-term stability of their lands to ensure that there be no changes in climate. The present trend in climate change must be reversed. It is caused by a number of gases which are being produced as a result of our activities on this planet. They are usually referred to as greenhouse gases.

Adjournment Debate
Having arrived at this conclusion some three years ago, some nations decided to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and some decided only to stabilize them. Canada is in this second group and made an announcement to this effect three years ago. It has said that by the year 2000 it will stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, taking 1990 as the base.
Having made this announcement we still have to see the Government of Canada produce a plan. It is a source of frustration and anger to see this government send the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister abroad where they make substantial speeches conveying the impression that Canada is moving on this item. Yet here at home not even a plan has been prepared.
By contrast, President Clinton announced in April that the United States will have a plan to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by August of this year. This means that the United States will have a plan ready in five months, whereas we in three years have not yet been able to put one together.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the minister of energy seems to be standing in the way by not allowing a vigorous program in energy efficiency at least to be launched in order to achieve this carbon dioxide or this greenhouse gases stabilization. Why is the federal government creating the impression that it has to be dragged reluctantly into the 21st century in the last decade of the 20th century? It is hard to understand.
The facts speak for themselves. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment, Jim MacNeill, the former secretary-general of the Brundtland commission said: "For every dollar of the Canadian taxpayers' money the Canadian federal government spends to promote energy efficiency, it spends over $100 to encourage or support the fossil fuel industry and thereby incidentally encourages more acid rain and global warming".
Mr. MacNeill makes a very important point because it is the dependence on fossil fuels that leads to the creation of greenhouse gases which we want to at least stabilize if not reduce in the interest of the world community.
I have conducted studies on the 1991 income tax returns and the value of tax deductions by the oil and gas industry amounted to $4.9 billion. With these tax deductions the government lost at least $500 million in revenue. Then I notice that the current direct expenditures by the federal government to the energy sector are close to $700 million. Only 5 per cent of that amount goes to research and development on alternative sources of energy.
In essence the government has to introduce a plan that is based on efficiency in our use of energy. Based on adequate research and development it must permit the shift from non-renewable to renewable sources of energy. Neither of these is apparently taking place in Canada.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, greenhouse gas emissions are associated with every aspect of the Canadian economy and in the everyday decisions of all orders of government, business, industiy and even individual Canadians. To be cost effective and successful Canada's national action plan must present and represent a national partnership to be developed in an open, transparent manner and define clear accountabilities for all the stakeholders.
In the green plan the federal government announced its initial contribution to a national action plan. A number of the provinces are bringing forward their initial measures, as are several municipalities, and we are listening. Canadian business and industry are taking many actions that will reduce emissions. We are assessing the extent to which these actions will take us toward our national goal of stabilizing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled under the Montreal protocol at 1990 levels by the year 2000. We are putting in place processes to bring all stakeholders together to begin considering the nature and scope of further actions.
At the earth summit we made a commitment to prepare a national report on what Canada was doing to implement the terms and conditions of the climate change convention, including the actions being taken to reduce emissions. That report will be completed later this month.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have risen in this House three times in less than two months to raise the issue of sexual harassment in the military. My colleagues from Halifax and Nepean have equally risen to raise the issue of sexual harassment
June 1, 1993

without any satisfaction from a number of ministers who have stood to respond.
I want to quote from the 1992 report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In a speech last January, Doug Baldwin, senior vice-president of Imperial Oil Limited estimated that harassment was costing his company close to $8 million a year in absenteeism, employee turnover and lost productivity. The turnover rate was two to four times higher for women than for men. As Mr. Baldwin pointed out, part of the reason was because we have not yet achieved a work place that is completely harassment-free.
While we may not measure the cost in dollars in the public sector, although often I think we should, nonetheless the same costs are accruing to the federal government which is the largest employer in Canada and therefore we can only assume our costs are substantially higher.
Over a couple of years, the ministers have responded in letters and in this House on this issue by saying we have a policy and this policy is one of no harassment. We know from a report that was released recently by National Defence that in fact over 25 per cent of women in the Armed Forces have been harassed. Most of them did not complain because they felt that they would be blamed, they would be targeted, they would be branded as trouble-makers and they did not think anything would be done in any case.
Presumably the minister has come out with a new plan that is going to fix all this. I am sorry but I do not believe it. The new plan the minister is talking about is exactly what the Associate Minister of National Defence was saying in letters to me more than three years ago, that there was a policy, that it was zero tolerance, that there was education and all kinds of help for victims and so on.
This is exactly the new plan. It has not worked, it is not working and it is not going to work. It is time for ministers to take personal responsibility-in this case the Minister of National Defence- for what goes on in the department because the result when they do not is that those who harass and those in the system who protect the harassers stay in the military. They keep rising to the top. The harassment perpetuates itself while those who complain are branded as trouble makers and are cashiered out of the Armed Forces.
Adjournment Debate
This is unacceptable. It is happening in every department of government. It has to be stopped and it will only stop when ministers take personal responsibility from now on and listen to the voices of women who say:"It is happening; it is serious and it is costing us".


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West on March 8 this year was about pay equity, and I can assure you that the Minister of National Defence is fully committed to the government's initiatives in this respect.
As an employer, the Canadian Forces apply the principle of equal pay for equal work. This principle is an integral part of the Armed Forces employment policy.
The salary scale for members of the military does not differentiate according to sex. All members of the Canadian forces are paid according to their rank. On the civilian side, salaries and working conditions of employees are negotiated by the unions with Treasury Board, on terms that are comparable to those for similar employment in the private sector.
The Government of Canada has already taken steps to put an end to payroll discrimination. As you know, the responsibility for this program lies with the President of the Treasury Board, while the Canadian Human Rights Commission is responsible for monitoring the program.
I can say with confidence that all heads in the Armed Forces and the Department fully support the pay equity policy. In all Canadian forces units, unit heads have been instructed to set an example and treat all members of their team the same, regardless of sex.
All members of the Canadian forces receive instructions and guidelines emphasizing gender equality. As for one particular case that was mentioned some time ago by the hon. member, the initial decision of the commandant of the National Defence Medical Centre to turn down a request to put up an information booth on pay equity for International Women's Day was ill-considered. The decision was revoked and orders to set up a booth were given immediately. The booth was installed in the foyer of the National Defence Medical Centre on March 8, International Women's Day.

June 1, 1993
Adjournment Debate
In concluding, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter and thus giving us an opportunity to shed some light on the government's policy on pay equity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to
Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.