1993-04-21

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this week, April 18 to 24, is National Volunteer Week.
This is an opportunity for all of us to express our heartfelt thanks to the more than 13 million Canadians who volunteer their time, skills and energies to enhance the quality of life in their community.
We cannot repeat often enough how much we appreciate their commitment and the services they provide. Volunteers have become an essential and vital part of Canadian society and a major economic resource.
Through their work, volunteers have made a major contribution to this country. We have everything to gain as a society by maintaining this tradition of generosity and caring.
I suggest we take this opportunity to urge people to join those 13 million volunteers across the country. Since this is their week, I think it is appropriate to say how proud we are of what they do, and I want to say: thank you.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Justice, the current
defence minister, promised additional amendments to the Young Offenders Act. We never saw them. The new minister suggests that some young offenders be publicly identified. However in a letter to a victim's family he says just the opposite, that publication of the young offender's identity may foster an illusion of public safety.
Canadians are tired of empty promises and illusions. They demand substance. The village of Belcarra in my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam wants a full review of the youth justice system, a national and public gathering of those who have something to say about youth crime and a frank discussion of what is wrong with the act. So far 124 B.C. municipalities agree.
I support this effort. We need to know the full extent of youth crime and what is happening with present youth court sentencing, post-custody supervision and rehabilitative programs before we can make improvements to the act.
I hope the Minister of Justice is listening to the village of Belcarra and the other voices in Canada that are calling for a review of youth crime and our response to it.


POVERTY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, there are now over four million Canadians living under Statistics Canada's low-income cut-off line.
A woman from my riding is one of those Canadians forgotten and ignored by the current administration. The woman in question was disabled in a car accident two years ago. Since that time she and her son have had to face the horrific reality faced by 47,000 Manitobans, the horrific reality of poverty.
This includes having to make do on less than $20,000 annually for a family of two; being forced, in her case, to cover the cost of medication not covered under Pharma-care, in excess of $1,000 a year; and facing financial

April 21, 1993
barriers to post-secondary education, where she could do more for herself and her son. That is not to mention the emotional problems and stress involved in trying to get by with so little.

On top of that, Tories in Manitoba are blindly imitating their federal counterparts and making irresponsible cuts in programs targeted to the neediest in our society.
It is time Canada and this government showed they are prepared to fight poverty and the very serious problems it generates.


EARTH DAY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, April 22, is Earth Day. Earth Day reminds us of the precious living treasures we share in our common home, Earth, and that although we have a right to use these gifts there is an equal responsibility to preserve and improve the earth and the quality of life it supports.
Earth Day 1993 is dedicated to a tree planting theme. It is a fitting theme, as the planting of trees is symbolic of environmental awareness and commitment.
In the words of the dedicated individuals of the Earth Day Canada Organization:
The image of putting down roots and contributing to the future
gives us a feeling of well-being and a connection with nature.
In addition, the tree planting theme is a good complement to the government's Tree Plant Canada program initiated under the green plan. The $75 million, six-year initiative is designed to foster and encourage the planting of up to 325 million trees in Canada.
Those involved in making this year's Earth Day theme a reality deserve our thanks and the thanks of generations yet to come.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, in the very near future the Minister of Finance is expected to present a new budget in the House.
What do Canadians have to show for nine years of Conservative economic management? Thanks to unending tax increases the average middle class family now spends almost $2,000 more per year than it did in 1984. That family now spends 44 per cent of its income on taxes and real after-tax income has declined.
Conservative economic management also gave us the worst recession since the Great Depression. We now have over 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, 2.2 million on welfare and 2 million relying on food banks.
We have lost 325,000 manufacturing jobs since 1989 and over 200,000 people and small businesses have gone bankrupt.
It is clear it is time for change.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to a case of great concern to thousands of Canadians and more specifically to people in the Fraser Valley.
Two young Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, have been serving time in a Brazilian jail since 1989. These two people were arrested for their involvement in the kidnapping of a wealthy Brazilian businessman. They denied knowledge of the kidnapping but were convicted and sentenced.
I know the government, specifically the minister of external affairs, has maintained a strong interest in this case and made efforts through diplomatic channels on behalf of these two Canadians. As well, a treaty between Brazil and Canada to facilitate prisoner transfers is completed and awaits ratification and implementation.
There have been reports of terrible conditions in Brazilian jails. As well, there are indications that sanitary conditions in some jails are below adequate standards. I
April 21, 1993

realize that information from the media does not give the full picture but it does raise concerns.
Considering the conditions that Lamont and Spencer find themselves in and the unfinished nature of the prisoner transfer agreement I ask if there is any further assistance the minister and her officials can give these people.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Mexico's lack of financial resources makes it necessary for the government to ensure that NAFTA, if implemented, works to improve the environment through environmental standards that would be enforced in Mexico as well as at home and in the U.S.A.
One approach would be to impose trade sanctions. A better approach would be to launch funding initiatives such as creating a North American development bank. It would provide Mexico with funds to construct sewers, sewage treatment plants and water purification systems as well as finance programs to reduce pesticide use, increase energy efficiency, improve public transportation and reduce pollution.
The bank could trigger private sector financing with the result of substantial benefits in the form of improved human health and quality of life, a clean environment and a healthy economy.
Will the government adopt this approach or accept the indifference shown so far by the Minister for International Trade?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, the National Transportation Agency is now holding public hearings on the acquisition of 34 per cent of Canadian
International shares by American Airlines, the U.S. giant.
By approving this transaction, the government would sign the death warrant of the Gemini reservation system, and any chances of having a genuine Canadian transportation network would be doomed.
In its push to promote competition at any cost, the Tory government is about to turn our Canadian carriers into mere northern arms of major U.S. carriers.
Last summer the Minister of Transport openly sided with PWA against Air Canada, with Calgary against Montreal, by spending enormous sums to subsidize Canadian. He has opted for competition regardless of the cost, to the detriment of the civil aviation industry in this country.
If he really wants to let the market decide, the minister should stop giving in to pressure from the west and allow the creation of a genuine Canadian monopoly with international stature. Most major countries in the world have this kind of system, something they can be proud of.


GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, here is something to crow about.
I quote from an article in The Globe and Mail entitled "Confidence in Mr. Crow". It says:
Mr. Crow has scored an impressive hat trick: low inflation, low interest rates, and a lower exchange rate. He has achieved all three, however, because he had just one goal in mind: low inflation. It is useful to think what would have happened had he not been so single-minded. As inflation rose, Canada's creditors would have sold our bonds, and gone on selling until interest rates rose enough to compensate them. Foreigners dumping their Canadian dollar holdings would have set off a cascading decline in the exchange rate, far overshooting its long-run value. With the prices of domestic and imported goods rising, workers would have demanded higher wage increases, and we'd be off on another inflationary spiral. Without confidence, all is lost.
That is the Crow rate. To the opposition I say: "Let them eat crow."

Oral Questions


MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
April 21, 1993
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives took office Canadian manufacturing productivity has grown at only two-thirds the rate of the G-7.
I invite all people, all members of this House, to promote volunteerism within their communities and to recommend worthy individuals for next year's awards.
Over the past four years Canada has lost 365,000, or 18 per cent, of its manufacturing jobs. To help reverse this decline and increase our competitiveness the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is proposing to introduce ISO-9000 quality standards, already adopted in Europe and Japan, to Canada.
The CMA has even offered to run this program for the government and can do so for less money than this government spent on its still-born prosperity agenda.
Now that the government has the opportunity to do something really practical, it refuses. Other governments work co-operatively with their manufacturers but not ours. It is little wonder we are mired in 11 per cent unemployment. We urge the industry minister to reconsider his refusal to co-operate with our Canadian manufacturers and introduce this ISO-9000 program.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Volunteer Week.
I would like to remind members of this unique national program sponsored by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This program recognizes the enormous contributions of volunteers to their communities and to their country as a whole.
Since 1977 hundreds of caring and committed Canadian volunteers have been recognized through the Canada volunteer award program. Each year the department presents Canada volunteer award medals and certificates to those Canadians who have made outstanding voluntary contributions toward improving the health and social well-being of their fellow citizens.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been told by the Chamber of Commerce to cut social programs, unemployment insurance, and federal support to Canadians and their families. This approach of forcing the burden of paying off the huge debt that the Liberals and Conservatives have created onto the least affluent in Canada has been a disaster.
Statistics Canada tells us that 94 per cent of our debt is a result of high interest rates and tax breaks to the rich and profitable corporations and only 6 per cent is a result of government program spending, all spending not just social spending. Yet this government insists on trying to solve the problem by attacking social programs.
The contrast to deficit control measures of provincial governments is striking. The New Democrat approach in Saskatchewan has the support of a substantial proportion of the population and has been one of compassion so as to spare the least affluent as much as possible.
There is a better approach. Before the Minister of Finance finalizes his budget I hope he will contact the minister of finance of the New Democratic Government of Saskatchewan to get her advice on how to actually reduce the deficit and do so without attacking the most vulnerable in our society.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
We learned this morning from the press that there is a fantastic story developing in Europe in relation to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development.
April 21, 1993

We are told of unbelievable expenditures there for staff and of millions of dollars for marble, furniture, bars and dining rooms. They spent two-thirds of the money on themselves and one-third of the money to help countries in need.
According to the British press there was only one director who stood against the wishes of the bank's president, Mr. Attali, and it was Mr. McCutchan, the Canadian representative. We have learned that he has been called back to Canada.
We would like to know why a Canadian who takes the interest of the taxpayers not only of Canada but of many other countries into consideration, who is doing his job, has been called back at the request of the Canadian government.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost this is not a new story. It is about 10 days old. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition is now getting engaged in it.
Let me say at the outset that the Government of Canada fully supports the goals, objectives and aims of the EBRD, particularly with respect to the reform process, the privatization process, and particularly as it relates to developments in central and eastern European countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union.
The fact is that our director did take issue with the expenditures on the advice of the Government of Canada. We have a policy that is consistent throughout-


Ms. Copps:: Why did you fire him?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why did we fire him? This is the kind of nonsense, babble and drivel that is misleading to the Canadian people.
This person is an employee of the Department of Finance. There is a normal rotation process. We have just recently rotated the personnel out of the IMF and Mr. Scott Clark, who was with the IMF as Canada's representative for two and a half years, has been called back to Canada. This is part of the normal process. We continue to fully support the position taken by Mr. McCutchan because it is consistent with government policy as it applies at home and as it applies abroad to other IFIs.
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, he took exception to what was going on there and the director general of that organization was under heavy criticism in Europe.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister why he called Mr. Attali to give his support. I quote what Mr. Attali said in his defence: "Brian Mulroney has just telephoned me to express his support".
Mr. Attali cannot get support anywhere in Europe. The only support he is getting is from the Prime Minister of Canada when the Minister of Finance of Canada and the director he had appointed had expressed dissatisfaction with the attitude of Mr. Attali. Why is the Prime Minister double-crossing his Minister of Finance?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with comments like this it is no wonder that yesterday John Munro, a former Liberal cabinet minister, was calling for the resignation of the Leader of the Opposition.
The issues were entirely different. The minister said that Mr. McCutchan acted under the instructions of the Government of Canada which he did. He is a nominee. He is an employee of the Department of Finance. He operates pursuant to instructions of the-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What did he promise you?


An hon. member:: Why does she get special privileges of talking?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to try again.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. McCutchan is an employee of the Department of Finance. He is a nominee of the Department of Finance. He operates pursuant to instructions of the Department of Finance.
The budget that was brought forward by the EBRD was voted against by Canada, the only country, pursuant to a decision of this government to instruct its nominee to cast a ballot against that budget. It was because we had questions in regard to some of the administrative practices of that budget.
The question that my hon. friend refers to involves a commitment by the Government of Canada to support

April 21, 1993
Oral Questions
Mr. Attali in the policies that he is pursuing as chief executive officer of the bank in regard to its development in eastern Europe and Russia where it is widely recognized that it has performed a tremendously useful series of actions and Canada supports those. I support and my government supports Mr. Attali as he pursues those objectives.
We have clearly supported him and those objectives and we have voted against any abuses in public finances as we would hope the member here would vote against any abuses in public finances in Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He tells us that what Mr. Attali did is completely unacceptable.
Why is the only head of government in the world that Mr. Attali is using to justify himself, the Prime Minister of Canada? If Mr. Attali is incompetent, as the Minister of Finance says, the Prime Minister of Canada had no obligation. On the contrary, he should have called Mr. Attali and asked him to resign.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there are two completely wrong statements in what the Leader of the Opposition said.
He said that I found what Mr. Attali did completely unacceptable and he also said that the Minister of Finance referred to Jacques Attali as incompetent. That is completely false. The two statements are wrong.
I clearly explained that we supported Mr. Attali as chief executive in pursuing important policies of the bank for Europe and Russia, but that we had instructed our agent to vote against a budget where there were administrative abuses. The two are perfectly reconcilable and there is nothing wrong there. Let us stop dealing in gossip and talking nonsense like the Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, let us try to understand from the minister's reply the situation as it is today.
Back in January we had an expression of concern from the Minister of Finance to the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development about the way in which the bank was being administered.
Then the Canadian director was instructed by the government not only to express further concern about the administration of the bank but to vote against the 1993 budget. The Canadian director was the only director who did so.
Then the Prime Minister, according to the London press and the president himself, called the president and said he had the "continued support" of the Canadian government. The Prime Minister today says the Canadian support relates only to the activities of the bank in eastern Europe. It does not relate to the administration of the bank. We voted against his administration we criticized the bank's administration. Which is it?
Are we dividing our support for the bank? Are we saying on the one hand that the administration is no good at all, we agree with the British and others on that but on the other hand it is doing all right in eastern Europe?
Would the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance please tell the House what the Canadian policy is vis-a-vis the bank.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to that because I know the hon. member would understand that when we apply a policy we apply it consistently across the board to all international financial institutions.
In that regard, in January I sent a letter to all of my G-7 colleagues expressing concern about the expenditures by all international financial institutions, including the World Bank, the IMF and the EBRD. As a matter of fact in part I said: "We are all attempting to minimize public service costs and constrain wage expectations and in comparison recent increases in IFIs, international financial institutions, administrative costs appear to be definitely out of line". I went on to say: "In my view IFIs should not be exempt from the realities facing the private sector and the governments of each of our countries."
What was happening was that our director was following through on government policy and voted against what he considered to be an excessive budget, as we have voted against excessive pay increases in other financial institutions as well, and so the policy is consistent right across the board.
April 21, 1993


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I think we should pursue this chronology a little further.
The minister says that the Canadian representative was carrying out the instructions of the government, as well he should. Then within days of voting against the 1993 budget, of voting against the administration of the president, our director is pulled out of London. He is brought home, but the minister says this is merely regular rotation in the foreign service.
I was in the foreign service. I know what regular rotation is. This is not regular rotation. Mr. McCutchan had not finished his regular three-year term at the bank.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He did not have a three-year term.


Roy MacLaren: The government brought him out against the background of the Prime Minister's statement that the president still has the "continued support" of the Canadian government despite the abuses that we have seen.
Let me ask the minister this. The Minister of State for Finance is replacing him next week at the annual meeting of the bank. Is it the minister's instruction to pursue the lines that Mr. McCutchan has pursued and if so, why is Mr. McCutchan being withdrawn?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has indicated that in the normal course of events, as my hon. friend knows, there is rotation for all representatives in the-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's not what he said.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says three years. That is false, absolutely false. The representative for the IMF has just been returned after about two years.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's what he said. Two years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And they vary from institution to institution.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is the normal course-


Mr. Speaker:: I think it might be wise if when a minister is answering or a member is putting a question all members gave that member the courtesy that should properly be extended to them. The right hon. Prime Minister.
Oral Questions


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: How about a few manners?


Martin Brian Mulroney: And so I want to just tell my hon. friend-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Maz, don't heckle Sheila.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could get on with it. The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Sheila, don't heckle Maz.
By way of illustration and in response to the substance of the question of my hon. friend, the Government of Canada has registered personally and in writing very strong disagreements with the United Nations, for example, about the administrative practices of the United Nations, where we have sought reforms. We have voted against budgets because we thought they were in disagreement with the objectives that we ought to be pursuing. That did not mean that we did not support the United Nations or the objectives that it was pursuing or that we did not support Perez de Cuellar at the time. We supported him actively while disagreeing with administrative practices in his organization. That is exactly what has taken place here.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The finance minister claimed last week that the dominant issue facing Canadians was the deficit and that the way to tackle this deficit was to continue the failed Tory economic policies that we have had over the last nine years. I might add that the same failed policies have more than doubled the debt since this government came into power and have resulted in this government being $10 billion over its target for deficit reduction had been.
It is clear that the government's economic policies have failed Canadians, have failed to reduce the deficit and have failed to reduce the debt. Will the minister consider changing course, making the choices that will

April 21, 1993
Oral Questions
address both the fiscal deficit and the tragedy created by increasing unemployment in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians believe and hopefully some day the leader of the NDP will believe in the concept that deficit reduction and control of the debt are key to growth in the economy, key to the creation of jobs and key to confidence in the economy. Even her friend, the premier of the province of Ontario, is starting to realize that.
Clearly the premier of Saskatchewan realized that fact when he brought in a very tough and difficult budget. That budget can clearly be termed as nothing other than being a tight-fisted budget, a budget that is touting austerity as the headline in The Financial Post alluded to this morning.
I know that there is a fundamental difference in economic philosophy as it applies to the government and the New Democratic Party, but I think we are on the side of Canadians when they have clearly registered in massive numbers their concern over the deficit. We hope to address that in the budget when I bring it down.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
There is no question of the concern that everyone feels about the deficit and the debt. There is a real debate about how we address that and whether we address it by creating unemployment and more unemployment as this government has done or whether we address it by reducing unemployment so we can create more taxpayers to truly address the debt and the deficit.
This government's policies have cost Canada over 400,000 manufacturing jobs. Not only do we see the loss of jobs, but we also see the loss to communities and individuals. Today we have representatives from 2,500 workers who will lose their jobs if GM closes its foundry plant in St. Catharines. This is the human face, the real face of unemployment, the real result.
If the minister wants to convince somebody about changing opinions he should talk to the one in four Canadians who are looking for jobs because they know that is the real problem.
Since the Minister of Finance is going to be bringing in a last budget before the election, will he really begin to address those 2,500 workers from St. Catharines and the 1.5 million other unemployed and those 2 million underemployed and provide some hope and work for Canadians so we can truly address the debt and the deficit?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the NDP got so wrapped up in her rhetoric she has now got the unemployment at 25 per cent. That sort of misleading nonsense does not augur well for creating confidence in the Canadian economy.
I remind the hon. member that we have had eight consecutive months of employment increases. As a matter of fact there have been 202,000 full-time jobs created since August.


Mr. Langdon:: Tell it to the gallery.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the hon. member from Essex wants to ask a question I will answer it. I would hope that he would give me the courtesy of replying to his leader. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of policies that we have put in place that are showing signs of promise. She mentioned the manufacturing sector.


Mr. Barrett:: How many Tory senators have you named?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just the other day it was reported by Canadian Press-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could move on to the next question. The hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the government is always repeating that Canada must be competitive internationally, so there will be no program to put people back to work.
The European Community has just agreed on a huge program to put Europeans back to work and the same thing is happening in Japan and the United States.
When the only thing that Canada seems able to create now is unemployment, how can this government say that it wants to make the country competitive with the present unemployment rate?
April 21, 1993


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can complete the answer to the earlier question.
I guess the NDP had a bad caucus today. Those members do not want to hear any good news. The Canadian Press reported yesterday or the day before that Canadian manufacturing order books were overflowing in February as the outlook for the industry continued to improve.
Statistics Canada reported today that unfilled orders jumped by 5 per cent from January, the largest monthly rise in five years, to reach $22.6 billion. If that is not a sign of confidence and if that is not a sign that our policies and programs are working, I do not know what is.
I do not know what more evidence they want.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Why has the minister been unwilling until now to give us a firm date for his next budget? Is it because the political well-being of the Conservative Party is more important to him and his government than the economic well-being of Canadians and their need for a lot more jobs and a lot more economic growth than they have had so far?
I ask the minister, will he give us a firm date for his next budget today and in fact right now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to assure the hon. member, and he knows and I know he will believe me, that I always will place the interests of Canadians and the interests of the Canadian economy first and foremost, and I will do it on this occasion as well.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the House and Canadians will note that the Minister of Finance has still not given us a firm date for his next budget.
I again ask him to do so. If he cannot do so today would he explain why he cannot do it since we have been waiting since last February. Why can he not do that and give us an undertaking that his next budget will be different from all his other budgets so that unlike those
Oral Questions
other budgets, they will create a lot more jobs and a lot more growth for Canadians? Why can he not give that commitment and give us the date for his budget today at the same time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in December I issued an economic statement which I think was well received across the country. A number of those initiatives are being put in place.
I can assure the hon. member that I will give him the date of the budget today.


MONTREAL ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Tonight, the candidates for the leadership of his party are meeting in the Canadian city that is suffering the most from his government's policies, namely Montreal. As we now know, these candidates have nothing to say about how a government must ensure that there is economic growth.
For a long time, the city of Montreal and the Quebec minister of industry have been demanding a real national industrial policy as a precondition for recovery in Montreal, but they have had no answer from the federal government.
How many more jobs and how many poor families must be sacrificed before this government and its candidates see that they are right?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle- Emard takes a much too simplistic approach to what the federal government is doing in Montreal and in Quebec as a whole. He knows very well that of the $8.5 billion invested by business and government in Quebec and in Montreal, $5 billion is from the federal government. He knows that I personally signed a $300 million agreement with the person he named, the Quebec minister of industry, who said then that the co-operation between Quebec and Ottawa was the best Quebec had seen in 20 years.
The federal government, through agreements and particular programs, is active in all sectors of the Montreal economy and I think the Government of

April 21, 1993
Oral Questions
Quebec and Quebecers are aware of it. Nevertheless, we must face the economic problems that confront all countries of the world. In co-operation with the Government of Quebec we have done our job and we will continue to do so.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister of industry stated very clearly in Davos that the big problem is the lack of a national industrial policy and that the federal government was to blame for that. He was right.
The Prime Minister and the minister continue to give trivial answers while thousands of people are suffering in Montreal.
In view of the obvious lack of economic vision of the Tory candidates, can the minister at least assure us that in its next budget the government will finally bring forward positive measures, not only cuts but specific measures to support the small and medium sized businesses in Montreal, Quebec and Canada, to provide training for single mothers and to create jobs and employment opportunities for young Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard accuses the Canadian government of being trivial and nonspecific in its actions with respect to the greater Montreal area.
I have an article identifying Montreal as the heartland of research in Canada. It reads as follows: "The Montreal area is a centre of attraction for pharmaceutical research in Canada. This high-technology industry employs 8,000 people in Quebec, where 47 per cent of total spending on research and development in Canada is made".
That is a vital action in a critical area of our national life, in Quebec and in Canada. It is important to note that the bill that generated such extraordinary employment in the Montreal area was opposed by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard. In fact, every Liberal member of this House voted against that bill, which is so crucial for the future of Montreal.


EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: My question is for the Prime Minister. It deals with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This bank, I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, as of last month spent twice as much on itself as it spent on the reconstruction of eastern European economies.
In the answer to a previous question the Prime Minister said that Canada often complains about the administration of the United Nations through its ambassador. However I do not recall shortly after an ambassador to the United Nations complained about the administration of the UN us pulling the rug out from under the feet of our ambassador and recalling him.
The fact is that Mr. McCutchan voted against the 1993 budget and he publicly criticized the profligate spending habits of Mr. Jacques Attali.
Will the Prime Minister not agree that he is sending the wrong message to Canadians when he recalled Mr. McCutchan for doing the job for which he was sent to this bank to do, to be a watch-dog for Canadian tax dollars?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend. Mr. McCutchan, who is our nominee and an employee of the Department of Finance, voted against the budget. He did not wake up in the morning and decide he was going to vote against the budget. He consulted with the Department of Finance and received instructions from the Minister of Finance to vote against the budget.
All he was doing was doing his job because there were administrative problems there that left us dissatisfied as a government. Obviously he was fulfilling the wish of the Government of Canada, as we have recently conveyed our views to the IMF and the World Bank with regard to salary increases there and as we have to the United Nations in the past. He was doing his job and he did it well. He reflected the interests of the Government of Canada.
April 21, 1993

The rotation is one that takes place in the normal course of events. I do not know why my hon. friend fails to recognize and acknowledge that.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. This has to be the only government that treats somebody who does his job with recall.
It was reported that Mr. McCutchan's recall came shortly after the Prime Minister had a meeting with Mr. Attali in a Canadian forces jet.
This is a time when the government is telling Canadians that they have to tighten their belts, that we have to reduce the debt and the deficit, and that they have to make sacrifices.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister had a choice to make between the responsible actions of Mr. McCutchan and the extravagant Gucci tastes of Mr. Attali, why did he once again opt for the life-style of the rich and the famous?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have never had a meeting with Mr. Attali on a Canadian forces jet.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You just brought him over.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, we did not bring him over on a Canadian forces jet. Wrong again. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. It might be good if you got your facts straight.


Mr. Riis:: Tell her the facts.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Prime Minister on the European bank scandal.
The Prime Minister speaks about administrative problems. The fact is that instead of helping the people of eastern Europe the president of the bank, Mr. Jacques Attali, has helped himself to $5 million for custom door frames and wall panelling, $2.5 million for an Italian marble floor, $1.5 million for Italian marble for the bank's elevators, more than $1,000 each for 600 desks, nine private dining rooms, and a private bar with 70 designer chairs. The whole project is being personally overseen by Saddam Hussein's architect.


Mr. McKnight:: I don't know why they voted that way.
Oral Questions


Mr. Beatty:: Even Chretien has a hard time keeping a straight face.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why did the Prime Minister recall the only person with the guts to stand up against this outrageous extravagance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend lays out the administrative problems in the bank and the allegations there. Now she knows why we instructed Mr. McCutchan to vote against the budget.
I know my hon. friend would like to hold me responsible for a lot of things but even she will give me a break on Saddam Hussein's architect.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
Given the outrageous extravagance of the President of the European Bank, why did President Attali himself say: "Brian Mulroney has just telephoned me to express his support?" Why does the Prime Minister give his support to the President and send home his own representative at the European Bank?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Jacques Attali is a senior French civil servant. He was Frangois Mitterand's chief of staff for 10 years and he was highly respected throughout Europe. He was the unanimous choice of the heads of government of Europe, of the President of the United States and of the Prime Minister of Canada and his government to assume these new responsibilities. He was given the mandate of establishing an international institution in the heart of London in a very short time.
In retrospect, there is no doubt that some administrative mistakes were made. It is for this reason that we instructed Mr. McCutchan to vote against it. However, we totally reject the implication that Jacques Attali is incompetent, as the Leader of the Opposition claims, or dishonest. Mr. Attali is an honest and upright man who is doing an important job in Europe. We can correct the management errors not by destroying the bank or by unduly tarnishing the reputation of Jacques Attali, as the hon. member is doing.

April 21, 1993
Oral Questions


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister may try to twist and turn but the reality is that Canadians are not amused. At a time when they are being promised a tough budget we know that $129 million U.S. of Canadian money has been committed to this bank. We know that over twice as much money has been spent on headquarters, extravagance and payroll as has been spent on reconstructing and rebuilding eastern Europe.
We know that a representative of the Minister of Finance who sits to the right of the Prime Minister has confirmed that Mr. Attali had asked for Mr. McCutch-an's removal. He had complained about the fact that he had opposed extravagant expenditures and as a member of the board had voted against the budget of the bank.
Will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance confirm that the president of the European Bank had indeed asked for and petitioned for the removal of Mr. McCutchan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance again. I want him to understand because he looks decidedly uncomfortable sitting to the right of the Prime Minister today.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It beats sitting to the right of Sheila.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will the Minister of Finance verify that the president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development oversaw more than two times the amount of money being spent on extravagance and waste as was spent on rebuilding eastern Europe?
Is he telling us that there was no word of complaint whatsoever from the president or his representative to the Canadian government about the fact that Mr. McCutchan was the only official who stood up and said no to the extravagance at the European Bank?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I answered no to the first question, because the hon. member suggested that
President Attali asked for the removal of Mr. McCutchan. The answer to that question was no.
In so far as the actions of Mr. McCutchan are concerned, he carried out instructions pursuant to our policy. As far as I am concerned the record stands and his record clearly speaks for itself.
The fact of the matter is that this is part and parcel. I am not aware of any complaint made by Mr. Attali.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Or?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Or who?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Or his representative.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not aware of that. The fact of the matter is that there is veiy clear knowledge that our director, one of the 23, voted in the manner in which he did consistent with the policy of the government, as we have in the case of other international financial institutions.
The reference to the letter I wrote to my G-7 colleagues is part and parcel of the policy we have been following as a government.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, today I received a highly credible report.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John F. Brewin: I would ask the government to take this report seriously because the reputation of Canadian peacekeepers is at stake. I am prepared to share the details of it with the government.
In February an unarmed Somali civilian was shot by Canadian forces in Belet Huen. That is one item in the report. The second is that the Somali who was killed on March 4 was unarmed. It was in fact a deliberate homicide against this unarmed Somali. Along with the March 16 homicide which the government has conceded is a homicide there was a persistent and deliberate cover-up of these incidents attempted, at least by the Canadian commanding officials in the area.
April 21, 1993

Was the government aware of all this? Will the government agree that there should be an immediate independent investigation of all this by the government and a report back to the House as soon as possible?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I am
absolutely astounded, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Victoria would malign and slander the Canadian Armed Forces in the way he has just done.
Those incidents, every one that he has talked about, were announced by way of press release in Mogadishu in theatre as is customary. In every single issue there is an investigation started. Until now everybody else in the House, except apparently the hon. member, recognized the presumption of innocence until the investigation is complete and the courts have ruled.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the families of the Canadians involved have been asking for the facts to be made public. They do not know what is happening and the government refuses to tell them. The public does not know what is happening. The Canadian forces do not know what is happening.
I agree the rights of individual Canadian soldiers have to be covered, but beyond that there must be a concern for the relations between Canada and the Somali community and for Canada's peacekeeping reputation. It is a reputation which has led to these reports coming to us.
Would the government not agree that there should be a public inquiry into what is happening and that the Minister of National Defence should be held accountable for her administration of Canadian forces in Somalia?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what is happening and what every hon. member in this House except apparently the hon. member recognizes is that anybody under investigation is completely innocent until a court decides otherwise.
As has been the custom in this House for as long as I have been here, every hon. member has respected the tradition of not interfering with investigations particularly dealing with criminal matters.
There is no limit to the level the hon. member in his anxiety to despoil the reputation of the Minister of National Defence will stoop.
Oral Questions THE BUDGET


Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
After extensive consultation by the government concerning the 1993-94 budget, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance at this time and after a second question has been asked if he has completed all his investigation and consultation. Would he be ready today to announce the date that he is going to be presenting the budget to the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very sensible question. I advise him that I have completed the formal consultations. I have completed all the logistical and technical aspects of the budget. I am pleased to inform the hon. member and announce to the House that-


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Next Tuesday?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, it will not be next TUesday. I will be bringing a budget down on Monday, April 26.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of fisheries perhaps I could put a question to my good friend the minister of employment.
He will be aware of the problems in the Atlantic fishery with the quota cuts and the plant closures and so on. I wonder if he would indicate to the House whether he knows if his colleague the minister of fisheries, who admitted yesterday that present programs are not quite enough, is going to be making that announcement about a new compensation package today, or how soon we can have that package for the people in Nova Scotia, the Gulf of St. Lawrence generally and Newfoundland?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, soon.

April 21, 1993
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, today I am raising a question of privilege concerning the manner in which division No. 458, held yesterday on Bill C-62, was tallied and reported in Hansard of April 20, 1993.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate being able to make myself heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I ask the co-operation of all members to give the hon. member the time and atmosphere to present her question of privilege.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I am raising a question of privilege with respect to yesterday's vote. I will now continue my remarks.
Yesterday at 3 p.m. the Acting Speaker called in the members to put the question on Bill C-62. After the bells rang for 15 minutes, the Acting Speaker read the motion and asked all members who were in favour of the motion to rise. After all Conservative members had voted, the Acting Speaker rose and asked all those opposed to please rise. The Liberal leader rose, with all Liberal members present, as did the members of the New Democratic Party, and we in the Bloc Quebecois did the same.
Subsequently, the Acting Speaker rose and again asked those opposed to please rise. We in the Bloc Quebecois immediately voiced our disapproval of this procedure, which created considerable confusion in the House and led me to rise on a point of order. My point of order was not allowed until after the Clerk had read the results of the vote, which was 223 yeas and no nays.
My point of order was duly reported in Hansard of April 20, at page 18183. In my point of order, I mentioned to the Acting Speaker that we had voted against the motion. However, the Chair did not bother to reply
or even comment but instead proceeded with the question on the main motion.
I have a video of what happened yesterday during the vote. If you wish, I can leave this copy with you as evidence.
My colleagues and I were quick to express our disagreement even before the results of the division were read. Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 223(5), page 76, has this to say:
An error noted during a division may be corrected before the total
is announced.
As I said before, I raised a point of order immediately, as indicated in the same edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 78, citation 235.
Consequently, I ask that division No. 458 be recorded in Hansard to reflect how the members of the Bloc voted, which was "nay", and that Hansard of April 20, 1993 be corrected accordingly. I ask this only on behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, since the Liberals and the New Democrats did not ask me to speak on their behalf.
However, Mr. Speaker, if you think that my question of privilege is a reflection on a vote of the House in the meaning of Standing Order 18,1 would ask that Division No. 458 be rescinded.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to have a long intervention but my colleague has made some comments which I think have to be given due consideration.
I remind the House that there is such a thing in law as an innocent mistake. I do not wish to dispute the facts my colleague has referred to because I think, by and large, she is almost completely accurate.
Yesterday there were two votes. The first vote was that the motion be now read and the second vote was that the motion be now referred to the appropriate committee.
On the first motion, members of the government stood and when the last member of the government sat down, the Leader of the Official Opposition stood in his place. At the same time, and this is where I think the innocent mistake may have come in, the Chair assumed that the Leader of the Opposition would be rising in his place to oppose that motion. I think that was where the mistake

April 21, 1993

Routine Proceedings
was made. We hollered and raised our voices to the Chair and the Chair understood and proceeded by taking those names, which has led to the conclusion my colleague has made reference to.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is an actual question of privilege here, but you might want to review the tape my hon. colleague has made reference to and perhaps comply with her request. I think it was evident from the Bloc Quebecois' subsequent to it that the Bloc Quebecois were opposing both the motion that it be now read, which is the procedural aspect, and the second motion which was to the substance, that it be referred to the appropriate committee.
I am not standing to support the members' cause. I am not standing to say their cause is not valid but I hope the Chair, under the guise of fairness and because it was an innocent mistake, will take a look at this and report back to the House at his earliest opportunity.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would especially like to have the attention of our colleagues on the majority side. I did witness the situation yesterday and quite an innocent error was made, but we could correct it quickly. Everyone admits that there was a mistake and I respectfully submit to you that if the House desires, we could resolve the problem immediately. We do not have to put it off till tomorrow, but do it immediately, not by recognizing that there was an error but by strongly suggesting that the votes of members who were really caught by surprise yesterday be considered as votes against. We could immediately end the incident now.

I hope we can end this immediately by simply recognizing that yesterday, without a shadow of a doubt as my hon. leader said so well, an innocent mistake was made. Instead of referring that to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration, perhaps the House would be kind enough to give unanimous consent so we can correct that vote right now. By saying that the vote it attributed to the bloc yesterday as having supported would simply be opposed, that would be the end of the incident. Otherwise he will have to review it as it was put by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert and then come back for a final decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I listened carefully to the representations made to me by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, the House leader of the opposition and the member for Saint-Denis, who I thank for their advice and opinions.
I think it prudent under the circumstances for the Chair to take this matter under advisement and review the video tape and Hansard, to be able to suggest to the House as soon as possible a way to resolve this question to the satisfaction of all members of this House.



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 five petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CURRENCY ACT


Bernard Valcourt: for leave to introduce Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Currency Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Valcourt (for the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) 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.

April 21, 1993
Routine Proceedings



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-420, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Immigration Act and the Narcotic Control Act (marijuana legalization).


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


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to bring before the House a bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Immigration Act, and the Narcotic Control Act, as well as the Psychoactive Substance Control Act.
I have two brief quotes I would like to put on the record before providing a quick understanding of the three clauses. In 1923 in this Chamber without a single member speaking, marijuana was criminalized and in fact since then we have seen the penalties increase to the point that some marijuana offences now cany life imprisonment as the sanction in this country. It is the strongest sanction outside Malaysia and Thailand where people are executed.
Emily Murphy, a judge in Alberta in 1922, wrote in the book The Black Candle the following, which I think explains why many Canadians took an unusual view toward marijuana for a long time:
Persons using this narcotic smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are immune to pain and could be severely injured without having any realization of their condition.
While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility. When coming under the influence of this narcotic these victims present the most horrible condition imaginable. They are dispossessed of their natural and normal willpower and their mentality is that of idiots. If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the untimely death of the addict.
.(1515)
That was 70 years ago. The legislation that is still before this House is based on that. Let me just say that the three clauses are called: the Campbell-Charest
clause, which is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act; the Clinton clause, a reference to President Clinton, which is an amendment to our Immigration Act to allow people like President Clinton to come back into Canada; and the final clause which includes the amendments to the Criminal Code and the Narcotic Control Act that are called the "smoked meat amendments" in reference to Hughie Segal. I hope this bill passes soon.


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



SHOP CANADA DAY


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House the government should proclaim
Sunday, July 4, 1993 Shop Canada Day to keep consumer dollars in
Canada and to support Canadian retailers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with all parties and the independents, and having reached some agreement, it is my pleasure to bring this motion before the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge that there have been consultations in terms of being able to encourage Canadians to support Canadian producers, retailers and manufacturers. This is certainly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it seems to me, if my recollection is correct, that under the North American free trade agreement this type of policy would be impossible. That is why we are opposing the NAFTA.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Bill read the first time and printed.
April 21, 1993

Routine Proceedings



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That six members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
and two staff persons be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C.
from May 25 to 28, 1993 to visit the General Accounting Office.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to table a petition signed by close to 1,000 residents of Canada who state that approximately 200 Polish immigrants have been waiting in Greece for over three years to emigrate to Canada under the former self-exiled designated class.
The Canadian government cancelled this program while these immigrants were awaiting issuance of visas to Canada and these Polish immigrants have severed all ties with Poland and are stranded in Athens through no fault of their own. Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Canadian government to allow these Polish immigrants to emigrate to Canada as quickly as possible.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition requesting that the government defer its intention to merge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council.
These petitioners are not convinced that there will be any saving of money or increased efficiency by the government's intended move. They ask that this be deferred and studied. Then a decision can be taken.
I fully support this fair request.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 330 people in British Columbia.
It says that the two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison have suffered a miscarriage of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination in sentencing and parole.
The riots in the same compound where they are held have demonstrated that there is a real threat to their health and safety in prison. The only relief available from such severe punishment is for Canada to request their expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Prime Minister to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada in accordance with Brazilian law.
We have not forgotten Christine Lamont and David Spencer and we are going to do our best to get them out of that Brazilian prison.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several residents of Canada mostly grouped in and around Edmonton.
The petitioners point out that more than 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs have been lost since the free trade agreement became law in 1989 and that, if implemented, the North American free trade agreement will cause even more Canadian jobs to be lost.
They say that the current Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement sharply reduces the power of all Canadian governments to develop the Canadian economy and point out that Canada's interests are best protected and promoted by cancelling the FTA and the NAFTA.

April 21, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Therefore they call on the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the FTA's termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty today to present a petition in accordance with Standing Order 36 from 138 residents of Toronto, Guelph, Scarborough, Sutton West, Whitby, Rexdale and Don Mills who wish to draw the attention of the House to the following.
They say that the proposed North America free trade agreement has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada and that it will therefore cause Canada to lose more good jobs. It would also result in further restrictions placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, to conserve natural resources for Canadian benefits and to advance needed social programs.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition to present on behalf of quite a number of people from Vancouver who still express great concern about amendments made to the Immigration Act in Bill C-89.
They oppose the provisions that allow decisions to be made retroactively that would cause many individuals and families who have already relied upon an earlier decision to be affected in a serious manner. They call for the government to withdraw these amendments.


FIRST NATIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and indeed an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents.
First, a number of Indian and native reserves throughout my constituency point out that Canadians generally wish to designate a date of recognition of Canada's
original inhabitants. They suggest that June 21 is the most appropriate day to recognize the First Nations.
They are calling upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal people of Canada. They are asking Parliament to consider that.


WATER DIVERSION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter the petitioners are by and large from central British Columbia. They simply indicate a whole set of reasons why they oppose the exportation of fresh river water and lake water to the United States and Mexico. They are of the opinion that the North American free trade agreement will facilitate this.
They are asking the government to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that our rivers will never be diverted to the United States.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 75 individuals regarding section 745 of the Criminal Code which is a provision that would allow for the reduction in the number of years of imprisonment for people convicted of either second or first degree murder.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to remove section 745 from the Canadian Criminal Code thus resulting in the situation where those convicted of first and second degree murder would in effect serve the minimum as prescribed by the Criminal Code.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
April 21, 1993


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
{English j

Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That, in relation to Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of report stage and one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, eveiy question necessary to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


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.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: 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:


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]

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


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 20, consideration of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 21 to 64.
Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You will remember in the debate yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization purported to demonstrate in the House that there would be savings. Yesterday I rose during the debate to challenge the member to table in the House those documents that purported to show that the amalgamation of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council into the Canada Council would in fact save money.
The parliamentary secretary did table a document toward the end of the proceedings yesterday afternoon but it did not show any savings at all in bringing the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council into the Canada Council. What he tabled was a press release from the Canada Council showing how it was going to cope with a 10 per cent mandatory reduction that the government has imposed on the Canada Council. It did not demonstrate at all that the amalgamation was going to create greater efficiencies or savings.

Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
B lo nd i n-And rew Charest de Cot ret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) Dimer (Vancouver Quadra)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Of course, I had to listen to the point raised by the hon. member, but on reflection I must conclude-and I recall the incident very well-that it is a document which was not officially tabled. The hon. parliamentary secretary simply offered to table a document to which he alluded in his speech
April 21, 1993

Government Orders
and the Chair does not have to make a judgment on the value of that document.
Therefore, I cannot accept this point of order. This is part of the debate and if the hon. member makes a judgment the Chair will take note, but it does not have to judge this document itself.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I deferred to the member for St. Boniface and thank him for giving me this opportunity to speak on the motion before us which reads:
Resuming consideration of report stage of Bill C-93, an act to
implement certain government organization provisions of the budget
tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, as reported
(with amendments) from a legislative committee.
In debating this issue I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues two or three amendments that my colleague from St. Boniface has introduced to improve the bill. It would otherwise not be supportable because it is unfair to our social scientists and to our scientists involved in the humanities.
The amendments will ensure that there is security of funding for the social sciences and humanities and will secure the identity, integrity and importance of these disciplines. If this bill is passed as improved with these amendments there will be accountability to Parliament.
Motion No. 32 proposes that the separate mandate of the new agency, which will include research, arts and international cultural relations, be funded through separate budget appropriation votes in the House of Commons.
The importance of this approach is to ensure that not all of them are taken right away. We must not forget one very important segment of the total, and that is the social sciences and humanities review. We would like to ensure that funding for this discipline is continued and have shown the value of this discipline.
Having practised medicine for some time before entering politics, I know the importance of the social and humanities discipline even in the practise of medicine. We need our social scientists if we are going to take care of the whole patient. Their importance can be multiplied many times in other disciplines as well.
On the second point, the security of identity of this discipline, Motion No. 24 would reflect, if accepted, a change of name from Canada Council for the arts, research, social sciences and humanities, to the arts, social sciences and humanities Research Council of Canada. In essence, this proposal would truly reflect a merger of the two and not the abolition of one and the retention of the other.


An hon. member:: You got that right.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: It is human nature that in order to give importance and recognition to any group, its identity has to be retained and recognized. Recognition of its identity and integrity is an important tool in ensuring and enhancing its continued productivity. I do not think this government is prepared to tell the House of Commons and Canadians that this discipline is no longer important. If it is not it ought to be reasonable and accept this very reasonable proposal.
The government has argued that the rationale for merging the two agencies is to develop efficiency and effectiveness. Critical in any measurement of efficiency and effectiveness is the important need to have a tool to monitor the program and ensure accountability. Motion No. 40, as proposed by my colleague from St. Boniface would reflect this need for accountability and monitoring of whatever new changes are made. We would like a parliamentary review committee to review the function of the new entity and agency five years after the legislation comes into effect. It is a reasonable proposal that this government can truly ill afford not to adopt.
There are many more issues that I would like to address. In the interest of maintaining the importance of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council as well as the Canada Council, I think our proposals are very reasonable. The proposed amendments strike at the heart of the concerns that these groups have brought to the attention of this government.
On December 2, 1992 the Canadian Association of University Teachers made a very useful observation when it indicated, and I quote: "Its profound disappointment with the government's decision to merge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council without any consultation with the stakeholders involved." Lately we have been hearing from the

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
leadership candidates in this government that they would like to consult with Canadians. Here is a golden opportunity. I challenge them to come forward and say they would like to consult with Canadians, listen to their views and not just hear without listening.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers has indicated as well that a convincing rationale has not been offered for this sort of consolidation. We have to respect the Canadian Association of University Teachers. This is its field. We have to give it respect for its expertise.
On that note I would like to say I am disappointed that this government is still hesitant to adopt the proposed amendments by my colleague from St. Boniface.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a number of issues but I want to begin by saying that what we are doing here is simply combining two organizations to save administration costs. Today people are concerned about tax dollars and where they are being spent. I think they would applaud this kind of streamlining move which really just reduces some of the overburden and additional cost of carrying two administrations. Let me break this down a little bit.
First of all, there was reference made in an article to a figure of $1.5 million suggesting that that would be the net savings for five years. That is not correct. The savings will actually be $5 million per year.
I think that is a worthwhile number of dollars to attempt to save through the combining of two administrations. The savings that will accrue to us because we have taken that step. That $5 million will kick in probably starting in the third-year operation of the council.
One will notice in other streamlining procedures in the private sector that it is usually two or three years down the road before one begins to see the net savings. There is an upfront cost associated with this. However, we think $5 million a year is worth the effort. We know that this is what the figures will be because we have had advice, contrary to what my hon. friend opposite said, from the boards themselves. We talked to the Canada Council, SSHRC and the Treasury Board.
Let me just give an example of how these savings are realized. For example, we will have a streamlined program structure. We will have much simpler, more flexible financial management to deal with. We will only be dealing with one location. Instead of paying two rents we will be paying one. We will have rationalized common services. For example, we will only have one personnel manager, we will only have one financial manager and we will only have one council instead of two.
All of this makes sense for a savings of $5 million a year, at a time when we have to find more innovative and efficient ways to deal with our tax dollars and the expenditures that are putting such pressure on our debt and the deficit that we have to contend with.
I think it is important also to remember that these two councils operated as one for over 20 years, so this is not new. It is not a tremendously unusual departure from what was normal. For 20 years they worked as one council. That is an important point.
We will remember that the council developed a structure that had adapted to two clienteles. It had no trouble with the creation of an academic advisory panel as a parallel to the advisory arts panel, and the establishment of a separate administrative staff to deal with the academic community.
At that time the differentiation of the roles between the two was fully understood and accepted by the two bodies and their relationship was characterized by mutual respect. I say this to my hon. friend across the way.
I think we should also note that in its appointment of the new council the government of the day, which was the Liberal administration, took the Canada Council as its model and gave the new body, SSHRC, the same kind of composition in terms of its board and similar budgetary and expenditure practices.
These two organizations are very similar and they have a long history that goes back to a time when they were actually one. We are not creating any hardship here for anybody in the community. As a matter of fact, the government is committed to keeping the three budgets separate for each of the council's clients so there will not be any confusion about who gets what or whether or not the humanities people will get their fair share of the funding or the grants. That will not be a problem because they will be kept separate.
April 21, 1993

The Treasury Board has already met with the management of the two existing councils to see how this can be achieved administratively and to iron out the technical details.
Also, Bill C-93 says:
The government shall have regard to the importance of maintaining
a broadly representative membership that reflects the function of the
Council.
What this means in practical terms is that the council will represent the interests not only of the artistic and academic communities, but of all Canadians. That is what we want. We want the agencies that we fund in Ottawa to reflect the broad interests of all Canadians. If we can save money at the same time I think we are accomplishing what most Canadians would like us to accomplish.
I might also mention that some points were made yesterday that perhaps require some clarification. There was a discussion, for example, of the calculation of the percentage of administration overhead. As a matter of fact, it was the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle on page 18158 of Hansard who used some percentages that I think were intended as an expression of the administrative costs in relation to total costs.
In other words, the dollars that we spend on grants and the numbers of dollars that have been distributed will rise as they have done over the years. However, the administrative costs are fairly standard. One cannot make comparisons of the administrative costs today with the administrative costs of yesterday because obviously the costs today would be lower because the grants are higher. The costs are still significant. As we see, $5 million can be saved by streamlining the administration of the two.
Another comment was made about 200 per cent CPI inflation. When the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance mentioned this, the hon. member for Terrebonne, he referred to the 200 per cent increase in the administrative costs. What he was talking about was nominal dollars. He did not in his speech discount for inflation in that period.
What we are saying is that as a point of comparison, the growth in the administrative costs since 1977-78 have actually exceeded the rate of CPI inflation. That is where we are going to realize those savings by reducing the
Government Orders
administration and streamlining and actually saving a total of $5 million a year which is not, as one will agree, an insignificant amount of money. It certainly underlines the necessity of combining these two agencies so that Canadian taxpayers could realize the benefit of a far more efficient and streamlined operation.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada people will be looked after. Their interests will be protected. They will continue to receive grants and be able to continue the work that they do which is so important to the country. However, we will be saving money overall because we are taking a more practical and efficient approach to the way we deal with these agencies.
I also want to point something out about voting. We are not saying that there will be one vote for appropriation purposes. The ministers and Treasury Board will decide how many votes there will be. They will doubtless take into account the wishes of the management and the views of the two boards. There will be input from the people who are most impacted and most affected in spite of what my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North said a few moments ago.
Finally, I want to point out that $35 million will be the combined administrative overhead for all three of the agencies. It is included in the $217 million which is a total of all the funding, including the overhead, the grants and so on for all three sectors.
Again, just to underline what I have said before, when we combine these agencies there will be a net savings of $5 million a year starting in the third year. Those are significant dollars. If we take a look at it over a 10-year period, it will be more than $5 million because obviously inflation on an annual basis will have taken those administrative costs well beyond that.
I hope I have clarified things. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this today.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South did not clarify neither for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North or for the members of this House of Commons. This is because she talks about $5 million in savings that would be accrued by merging the two organizations that we are debating today, yet we really do not know where she pulled those $5 million statistics from.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
She is now leaving the Chamber. I wish she would hear this so we could perhaps clarify her mind on the situation.
My colleague for St. Boniface who has been doing a yeoman's job for our side on this particular committee has said in the debate, both in committee and in the Chamber, that no such reports, findings or studies have ever been produced by government members or by civil servants who have come forward before the committee.
One would think, if there was any truth to the suggestion that there would be savings of $5 million plus, then at some point during the committee stage some bureaucrat, minister or government member would have put that testimony before the appropriate committee or in fact documented that particular study. To date, no official has ever shown any study proving that there will be savings.
We know and we have heard from various officials themselves that there will be a $1 million start-up cost. I do not think it should be simply a given and automatic for one to say that collapsing two different houses that provide roofs over these organizations into one bigger house with one bigger bureaucracy will save dollars.
No one has a monopoly on trying to be fiscally responsible in this Chamber. In the end we all represent that same taxpayer with the dollars. One of our functions is to spend those moneys wisely and frugally.
It is not good enough to have this member of Parliament or this government thinking, without any evidence and with simple assumptions, that it will save all sorts of dollars by collapsing two homes into one.
Second, there has not been one study or report that shows that the one new organization would either be more efficient or effective. Once again, in committee, when challenged, no officials were able to point to any type of evidence that would suggest that on an effectiveness and efficiency factor the new organization would be superior to what is being produced now.
Third, some government members and officials only a while back were actually considering withdrawing their proposal for an amalgamation of the Canada Council
with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council because they knew that they had not proven their case. Notwithstanding that, they continued.
We heard the story before that government members have come to us to try to approve some types of different organizational structures or promises on the grounds that it would save Canadian taxpayers all sorts of dollars. That case has yet to be proven in a very tangible and substantive way.
The other factor that I think is a particularly hurtful one in this equation is that there has been little or no consultation with the affected personnel in either division. That speaks to the type of governance that we have had for nine years. Perhaps that is the type of talk used by one of the ministers in the leadership race when speaking about the new style of politics. This comes because people are tired of the Conservative brand of politics in terms of the politics of inclusion. Here is a perfect case in point where scientists, researchers and academics were not even consulted with respect to the possible merger of these two organizations.
In fact, I received a copy of a letter from the Association of University Teachers. It was addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister and in its opening paragraph it says:
I am writing this open letter to you to express our profound
disappointment with your government's decision to merge the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council
without any consultation with the stakeholders involved.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but before five o'clock I have to indicate that tomorrow will be an allotted day.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that we have in this country over 100 universities, 13,000 to
15,000	social scientists, over 200,000 people represented by the arts community and close to 30,000 Canadian academics. That is a fairly impressive and significant constituency.
When one talks about two councils that directly impact on this significant constituency one would think that it would be normal, prudent and logical for the government to consult the stakeholders of that constituency.
April 21, 1993

However, when those individuals come before the committee and write to the Prime Minister of the country to say that they have not even been consulted, what kind of decision making do we really have?
If we are truly concerned with the output and substance of the work those two councils do and if we are serious about the work they produce on behalf of Canadians then clearly and surely one would think that a government before moving to combine the two organizations would not only make a convincing argument based on fact, and not based on perception, but would also consult the various stakeholders. That is without even talking about the best interests of Canadians at the end of the day.
From these vantage points my friend from St. Boniface and others who have been engaged very seriously and in detail on this bill have moved a series of amendments that would speak to that accountability, that would speak to providing the facts rather than perceptions and myths.
I do not think it was too much to ask in those amendments for a greater accountability by the government rather than dropping figures loosely on the floor of the House of Commons and then going somewhere else to speak to the actual facts in the matter.
We have been somewhat disillusioned because the significant constituency I quoted moments ago has not even been consulted; because no official, minister or government member has had the foresight to document their arguments on effectiveness and cost savings, and because we are actually trying to make it more accountable with Motion No. 40, put forward by my colleague from St. Boniface, which tries to make it more accountable than the government is suggesting as we wish to have an accountability review every five years rather than the longer term suggested by this government.
We do not need to be lectured or preached to in terms of who is more accountable. We all have to be fiscally responsible but we do not accept as a given arguments that are based and founded on political quicksand rather than on hard scientific facts.
Government Orders
Therefore, having been refused at the committee stage we are appealing through the Chair to the government during this important report stage of Bill C-93 to listen once again to those arguments, not for our sake but for the sake of the important constituency that is out there working on behalf of Canadians and our country and enriching that vibrant life which is part of this Canadian mosaic.
On behalf of members of a very important constituency who surely cannot all be wrong, at least give those people the time of day to listen to their arguments. After all, as I quoted from the letter, they are the real stakeholders in this case. It would lead to better government if we practised the politics of inclusion rather than the reality, which is to exclude everybody else except the government.


Mr. Robitaille:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For your information and that of the House, in his speech the hon. member challenged the facts presented by my colleague from Winnipeg and myself concerning potential savings of $5 million. I would now like to conclude, if I may, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I cannot accept this point of order because it is really a matter of opinion and opinions can differ. The rules of debate are very strict and this is not a point of order per se.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words regarding report stage of Bill C-93. I want to make my comment in the context that we all acknowledge the fact that we are in a knowledge-based economy in which education, training and research is critical and paramount in terms of future positive economic growth in Canada and full employment for Canadians. That is why most of us are shocked, and that is putting it mildly, to see that the government is determined to proceed with part III of Bill C-93.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
Why do I say that? I say that simply because my hon. colleague from Regina-Qu'Appelle has put forward a set of amendments which essentially delete part III of this act. He has acknowledged that to reduce government spending and wasteful government expenditures is something that he and we enthusiastically endorse and support.
When the government launches something that is regressive, that will ensure that the arts and social sciences in Canada will not proceed in the same way as they ought to, that will diminish the status of research and that will diminish the quality of education, training and research then it is something that no one in their right mind would support.
My friend from Regina-Qu'Appelle has put forward a set of amendments that say: For the sake of decency, reasonableness, the future of Canada, and jobs and opportunities for young Canadians in the future let us take this section out of this legislation.
We are not alone in this call. This bill was sent to committee so we could listen to the experts, to those who understand these issues more than ourselves, who live in this experience, and who have made a career and a profession of education and research and developing the social sciences and humanities.
Witness after witness appeared before the committee and every single one of them said to do the same thing. They said to scrap this section of the legislation because it is bad, it is wrong, and it is not in the best interest of Canada.
In a democracy part of our legislative process is to go to the people who are most knowledgeable in the area we are considering in a piece of legislation and ask them for their input. We ask for their advice and suggestions.
To be fair we do not necessarily automatically follow all of their suggestions and advice, but we accept what they have to say as being reasoned and very sensible and very important from their perspective. Based on that we make a judgment.
When there is some commonality to the extent that every single witness appearing says to do the same thing, scrap the bill, and makes long presentations as to why this would be appropriate, when not a single member of
the government can criticize what they have to say and members of the opposition support what they have to say then it becomes clear this section should be deleted.
A lot of my friends on the government benches hold that same position. I know some government members have actually lobbied the minister to get this section out of the bill. Why? I guess they are beginning to listen to their constituents for once.
There has been a great to do in the last little while about the new emerging leadership of the Conservative Party saying it is time we listened to the constituents, it is time we listened to the people of Canada. Where the hell have they been in the last eight and a half years? Is this not the way a democracy is supposed to work?
All of a sudden there is this new revelation, this great new approach, that we should try listening to the people of Canada. Now is the time for those leadership candidates to show they actually mean what they say. When we vote on this motion that would delete the section that literally all Canadians who are aware and understand this process want to see removed then we will believe what they say. Then we will believe they will actually listen to the people of Canada because they certainly have not on issues like the GST, the North American free trade agreement and others.
I listened with interest to the previous speaker from Winnipeg who said the reason that the government is doing this is to save money, to save the taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars. If that is what this is intended to do, it does not do that. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no saving at all.
One does not have to listen to me to make this point. We can go to the Treasury Board and see what it has to say because the Treasury Board did a very thorough analysis, as it is wont to do, of this new cultural agency. In other words, it examined amalgamating the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the international cultural program into the Canada Council.
It asked what the savings in dollars and cents by doing this would be. The Treasury Board went through all of the computer programs, the analyses and so on. Lo and behold there would be no savings in 1992, no savings in 1993-94, no savings in 1994-95, and so on and so forth. In other words, the government itself said that there is no
April 21, 1993

financial advantage to doing this. That makes a mockery out of what the government is doing.
If the point is to save taxpayers' money and the government says in its own analysis that it does not save any money, then for goodness' sake let us not use that argument.
What other argument can be used? The only other argument that can be used was reflected the other day by an individual from the other place, Conservative senator Finlay MacDonald. He was the first senator appointed by our Prime Minister and he is absolutely furious about what the government is doing. He is a Conservative member of the Upper House, the Senate, and he is furious because he says all the government is really doing is catering to the Reform Party by taking some Draconian, unnecessary, and horrible steps that will set back advanced education and research in this country for many years. The reason the government is doing that is to cater to the Reform Party and its rather outmoded and "dinosaurial" platforms.
Perhaps I should quote from the senator directly. He said: "The whole exercise is the government's attempt to feed the public perception that chronic deficits are caused by waste and mismanagement for it allows the public to believe there is a painless way to solve our serious financial problems. The whole exercise might be nothing more than a symbolic act to protect the party's right flank from attacks from the dreaded Reform Party to cause sufficient pain and spill enough blood to impress the voters. If true this might be good politics in the short term but it is not good public policy in the long run". Those are brilliant words from Senator Finlay MacDonald. He is saying what the government is doing is absolutely haywire, absolutely wrong and not in the best interest of Canada.
I want to again commend my colleague from Regina- Qu'Appelle for bringing forth this set of amendments that will now give the House of Commons an opportunity, and particularly those on the government side, to vote against including part III in this legislation and voting in favour of keeping the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the international cultural program separate in terms of funding agencies.
It is our way, as parliamentarians, to show that we acknowledge the tremendous role that social sciences
Government Orders
play these days in the future of the country. We recognize the tremendous value of the humanities in developing Canadian culture and that these should be recognized and funded separately from other funding agencies and institutions.
Let us stand up for those people who will build the economy of the future, a knowledge based economy of the future. Let us do the right thing by all accounts and support these amendments put forward by my hon. colleague from Regina-Qu'Appelle.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my opposition colleagues in condemning such a move of course. Recently, this government has been making one blunder after another. First, it attacked the unemployed with Bill C-113 and then, with Bill C-92, it proceeded to protect the family trusts of the rich who fund the party. Now it is attacking research and the whole area of humanities and education sciences at the same time.
When just for the sake of cutting $1.5 million in expenditures the government is down to attacking things that are so fundamental for a nation, for both our nations, Quebec and Canada, when it is down to attacking such fundamental things, it means that this government is totally out of control and does not know which way to turn any more.
While it is ready to spend $1.5 million to send a Prime Minister on a farewell tour in Europe it is merging two organizations which do not belong together at all to save $1.5 million.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know and the hon. member knows, we are presently at report stage and, normally, the rule would dictate that we deal only with the amendments before us. The hon. member's remarks bear no relation to the content of these amendments.


Louis Plamondon: Not only are they attacking, Mr. Speaker, but they are also trying to apply censorship. Imagine that. I would remind the hon. member for Terrebonne that freedom of speech is first and foremost in a democracy. However that is a right he has relinquished, consistently following like a sheep the party line

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
on every bill that was to the detriment of the Canadian people over the past year.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise the same point of order again because we do have rules in this House which require that the hon. members' remarks deal with the substance of the debate, the content of the amendments. It is not censorship; it is simply a matter of complying with the rules of this House. I urge my colleague to comply, and I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to remind him of how important it is to try to comply with the Standing Orders of the House as much as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Indeed, as we all know, we are presently debating Bill C-93. I call upon the hon. member, who I believe was making his opening statement, to deal more specifically with the substance of this bill.


Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for straightening out the hon. member for Terrebonne who was once again away off track. If he were to review the speech he made yesterday on the same bill, he would see how far he wandered from the subject of the amendments, while I was only making an opening statement and was about to move to the group of amendments in question, group no. 2 which includes 20 or so amendments.
I would like to get to the crux of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I hesitate to recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary again. Allow me, I do have the floor. The hon. member has just mentioned the amendments and I think what he said was relevant to the debate. At any rate, I am willing to give the hon. member for Terrebonne once more the benefit of the doubt.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, this is simply to remind the hon. member for Richelieu that the group in question deals with part III of the bill, not part II.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Actually, the debate is on Motions Nos. 21 to 64.


Louis Plamondon: That is exactly what I said, Mr. Speaker. It just goes to show the hon. member for Terrebonne does not know what he is talking about. This reminds me, I had an old philosophy teacher who used to
say, when the class failed to understand something that was perfectly obvious, that it was like casting pearls before the swine. I think that would apply to many members, especially Tory members from Quebec, who have failed to understand the disservice they are doing their constituents by agreeing to be silent accomplices in a debate on these fundamental principles and by voting like sheep, as they did in the case of the unemployment insurance bill, in the debate on the Constitution and in the debate on the referendum bill. What happened to the Liberals in 1984 will happen to them. They can look forward to a crushing defeat in the next election.
Now for the subject of today's debate. I would like to quote an article by 40 academics which appeared today in Le Devoir. The hon. member for Terrebonne may not think very highly of them, but to me, academics are the thinkers of our society. These 40 academics were from the University of Quebec in Montreal, the University of Quebec in Trois-Rivieres, the University of Montreal, Laval University and the University of Ottawa. They decided to get together to formulate their comments. In fact, they appeared before the committee at the same time as the Canadian Federation for the Humanities. What did they have to say about this bill? They said the following, in the second paragraph of their statement:
This merger brings together agencies that do not at all operate the same way. After careful analysis, in 1978 the federal government decided to create a separate social sciences and humanities research council, in addition to the Canada Council. During the past fifteen years, two entirely different work traditions evolved around these agencies. In the field of humanities, experts work mostly in universities. They have developed a system to evaluate research projects and activities which is based on a tradition of the scientific world, namely the assessment made by peers. This has ensured remarkable progress in the training of the new generation of scientists, as well as in applied and basic social research.
The merging of those two bodies, which the government is now considering, jeopardizes these progress. This measure is a step back, given Canada's objective to develop scientific research. It is an implicit non-confidence vote on the part of the federal government to those who have been working for fifteen years to build our scientific future in the field of social research. Merging the two bodies gives no guarantee in terms of effective support to research in humanities.
Some members of the federal government have offered verbal guarantees to preserve the traditions of the SSHRC. However, Bill C-93 contains none of these guarantees. There is nothing to guarantee some administrative and financial autonomy to humanities in the new council resulting from this amalgamation. There is nothing either to guarantee that members appointed to the new council will have a
April 21, 1993

minimum of qualifications in the field of humanities, and of course the same would be true as regards the arts.
Today I referred to these 40 academics because my colleague spoke earlier about the arts. But it is the same questioning and the same total rejection of Part III of this bill. And it is unbelievable that some members are party to such a measure which-
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me the additional minutes which the hon. member for Terrebonne has tried to take away from me. Nevertheless I will conclude after the last paragraph, which I would like to quote, of this most interesting text by these 40 academics. They say:
The merger was done without any consultation. This idea was conceived in the offices of the federal Minister of Finance. It was never the object of consultation with the other departments and the councils concerned, nor with universities or organizations in the fields of humanities and arts. This project is not supported by any study on the effectiveness of the councils or on the future prospects in these fields.
The merger is unanimously criticized by all the stakeholders concerned. Every organization which knows the plight of social research in Canada has asked that the part of Bill C-93 which provides for this amalgamation be withdrawn. This not only includes organizations which represent specialized researchers in the field (the Canadian Federation for the Humanities), but also organizations which represent all the universities. Every scientist sees in this plan to merge a threat to the development of scientific research in Canada. In fact, organizations representing Canadian artists also denounce a merger which does not suit their needs either.
The federal government continues to turn a deaf ear to the unanimous calls made -
This is what is so reprehensible. This merger comes after hearing all the Canadian academics condemn such a measure, as well as all the people in the field of arts. After the committee heard all these witnesses say that part III is unacceptable. The government talks about the savings which could be made when it does not take into account that a reorganization will be necessary, that leases will have to be broken, and that in the end there will not be a saving of $1 million at all.
It would be a lot better to cut the million and a half dollars which will be spent for the Prime Minister's travels and let our scientists help the Canadian and Quebecois nations grow, and also let the arts grow independently. By controlling their affairs through their
Government Orders
board of directors the arts often contribute to the growth of a nation in a way that helps differentiate it from other nations. Here, in Quebec as well as in Canada, we badly need those two bodies. The amendments proposed are to the effect that part III should be overlooked, and it is my hope that the majority of members in this House will support these amendments.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the specific content of some motions that were presented, let me clarify something about the allegations of opposition members who questioned the information given in this debate by my colleague from Terrebonne and my colleague from Winnipeg, especially concerning the potential annual savings of $5 million from this merger as of the third year.
My colleagues specified that this information came from discussions between Treasury Board, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canada Council.
I do not think that my colleagues would allow themselves to toss figures around, as the opposition members claim. We are rather used to the opposition tossing figures around and I suggest that my colleagues find out from the Canada Council or Treasury Board before casting doubt on what my colleagues said.
Let us return to the discussion of what specifically interests us. I will talk about Motion No. 24 concerning part III and the Council's new name.
The provision in the bill is the result of much thought and consultation by the government. We believe that it expresses both a certain continuity, an important factor for future clients of the Council, and recognition of the increased prestige which the Canadian social science community has acquired since the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council was created in 1978.
This is a sensitive issue to resolve. The name Canada Council is meaningful for thousands of Canadians and citizens of other countries who are directly affected by its mandate. It is a short title to which many are attached,

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
both in French and in English, and I think that we should build on that advantage.
This bill seeks to increase the efficiency of government and not to spread confusion about what the future holds for us.
Motion No. 24, proposed by the hon. member for St. Boniface, would simply add to the present English name of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council the words "Arts and."
Some might conclude that the Council's role with respect to the arts is limited to funding research. That is clearly not the case and I doubt that it is my hon. colleague's intention. Therefore I ask all members to vote against this motion and to opt for a solid tradition that goes back nearly 40 years.
I will now deal with Motion No. 25 which concerns the composition of the council or the representation for each of the distinct functions. The wording proposed in Motion No. 25 would lead to dissent. It could encourage each interest group and discipline to insist on having a member on the new council to represent very limited interests. I am not talking only about the arts and humanities but about the various disciplines in them.
I do not think that is a particularly good approach. We run the risk of having official pressure groups on the new council. Such a situation could be a source of division and great difficulty.
Let us not forget that the council's mission will be to meet the needs of all Canadians and not only of the main client groups. This proposal would create a precedent the consequences of which could hinder the council in pursuing its own interests.
The intent may be good, but by seeking proportional representation on the council with a mechanism that is too rigid and awkward, we would set a dangerous precedent. That is why I also ask my colleagues to reject this Motion No. 25.
I now come to Motion No. 26 which concerns eligibility to serve on the council. Motion 26 does not take into account the basic principles of corporate management. Moreover, if agreed to, it could be a source of conflict.
The proposed amendment would limit membership to experts in a field of concern to the council. Therefore this amendment would exclude any Canadians who would not have an academic or artistic background. The Council is a Crown corporation as defined in the Financial Administration Act. It must be organized and must perform like any non-profit or socially-oriented corporation, public or private, which means that its board of directors must act in the interest of society as a whole. According to this widely accepted principle, an appointment to the Board can be based solely on professional expertise or other.
Finally, this amendment could be a source of conflict. If for some reason someone challenged an appointment on the ground that eligibility criteria set out in the act were not adhered to, the government could find itself in a position where it would not be able to make any appointments. If only for practical reasons, challenging an appointment should not be possible once made. Otherwise the board would be paralysed. This is why I ask hon. members to reject this motion.
It is clear that Bill C-93 is consistent with our government's policies to reduce spending by streamlining. I believe that Bill C-93 is a good bill and that the government is proceeding as set out in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to oppose Bill C-93 in regard to part III which would amalgamate the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the International Council of Canadian Studies within the already large and useful Canada Council.
Trinity-Spadina, the constituency I represent, includes the large and central core of the University of Toronto. It is a university of about 50,000 students with many important faculties and departments, including the arts, sciences, social sciences and so on. I have been asked by people at the University of Toronto to oppose part III of this bill. I agree with them and am happy to do so. I support the amendments of my friend, the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, who has moved to delete this part and retain the independence of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the International Council of Canadian Studies.
April 21, 1993

The member for Winnipeg South has said that she favours the bill because the independence and funding of both of these sections will be maintained. That is very difficult to believe. The official explanation of the bill in brief is this: "The purpose of this part", that is part III, "is to wind up the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and transfer its functions and staff to the Canada Council and to transfer certain functions and staff of the Department of External Affairs concerned with the promotion of Canadian culture abroad to the Canada Council." As a sop to the so-called independence of these two groups which are to merge, I quote again: "The Canada Council would be renamed the Canada Council for the arts and for research in the social sciences and humanities to reflect its expanded functions."
.(1715)
We are told that we will save $5 million on administration, but administration at the University of Toronto is not something to be scrapped. Administration of the International Council for Canadian Studies is not something to be scrapped. It is not clear at all and it has not been explained to us how an essentially domestic body, the Canada Council, will be able to take over the functions of those two bodies and particularly how a domestic body can take over the functions of external affairs and carry on the negotiations with other countries which are being carried on at present by the Department of External Affairs.
I have a letter addressed to the Minister of Communications from the Social Science Federation of Canada. It begins by saying:
On behalf of the 15,000 social scientists represented by the Social Science Federation of Canada, I am writing to express our concern about part III of Bill C-93 and its implications for the future of social science research in this country.
Mr. Speaker, 15,000 scientists in Canada, through their democratically organized representation, have opposed this bill because of part III. They have offered five amendments which have been almost completely ignored by the government in the drafting and rejected by the government in committee.
Government Orders
The fact is that in our modem society we have needs that are not properly reflected in the structure of parliamentary government. Parliamentary government in Britain was established in its present form about 150 years ago with the two-party system of government. Only a minority of men were able to vote and no women could vote. Only a minority of men and women could read and write. An urgent message from Edinburgh might be brought to London in several days by a strong rider on a relay of strong horses and it took six weeks to cross the Atlantic. This was an agrarian society and Parliament as well as the universities were elitist and for the few.
We now have a modern industrial-commercial society in which large segments of the economy and society are not properly represented by the parliamentary system and 295 MPs and 100 or so senators are sent once every four or five years to Ottawa and expected to make all the important decisions for the whole of Canada. When
15,000	scientists say "hold on, you are making a mess of that decision of merging these two structures, we know because we work there" they are ignored. When they come to the committee to speak about it they are thanked courteously, agreed with by many members of the committee, including even some government members and ignored by the government as the committee can be ignored. Some committee reports have been totally ignored by the government.
We need a change of structure, not only internally in Parliament but in the relation of Parliament to Canada. Then a group such as the 15,000 scientists in the Social Science Federation of Canada would have the right to have a voice in making these decisions instead of coming cap in hand and being politely turned away as if it had never come at all.
The other body to be merged, the International Council for Canadian Studies does not have 15,000 people. It has hard-working staff in certain overseas offices who engage with foreign governments and foreign universities in exchange relationships which have benefited Canada in many ways. Now they will be removed from those foreign posts such as London, England. They will be concentrated in a domestic structure in Canada and will simply not have the funding for staff to do the administrative work presently being done by the International Council for Canadian Studies.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
The letter from the International Council of Canadian Studies states:
Moreover, a large part of the money spent on Canadian studies
abroad is returned to Canada in one form or another, for example
through academic visits, purchases of Canadian books, and so forth.
An American study has shown that for every Canadian dollar spent in
such a program three dollars are returned to Canada.
That was known in the culture of my youth as killing the goose that lays the golden egg, wiping out one dollar of expenditure to wipe out three dollars of return.
It is unfortunate that for these eight or nine years this government has pursued a policy of no consultation or phoney consultation. Several years ago the government asked for ideas on housing, received 400 beefs and gave no opportunity for discussion of those beefs. The government paraded consultations across the country about immigration levels but never once mentioned its basic intention to change the whole structure of immigration in Bill C-86, the composition of those levels and whether grandparents should be included in the family any more. Those things were never discussed.
The change of treatment of refugees was never discussed before the public. Now we have this foolish change in part III which-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate concerning Bill C-93, which is a budgetary item and deals specifically with one organization. I would like to explain to the House the importance of the decision being made by the government and why I personally am very opposed to it as is my caucus. I am also very supportive of the amendments being proposed by my colleague from St. Boniface.
It has taken the academic community in Canada several years to mature and develop the sophistication it now has. One of the major steps taken by the academic community was to join the government in working on the development of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
I had the good fortune at the very early age of 31 to become a member of the board of directors just after it began in late fall, 1977. In 19781 joined it and as of April
1, 1978 I was a member of the board for the next five years. Thus I bring to the House not only my perspective as an academic and teacher for 18 years, but my views as somebody who was responsible for decision-making within the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council during its formative years.
I would like to take some time to explain to the House how we built up this organization. Those who follow the House may wonder if this is not an arcane discussion about a fairly small organization. They should consider the fact that we try to build up a series of organizations in this country one step at a time which have the capacity to research and develop good minds, reward good minds, give them the resources they need and at the same time not go around in circles.
Those who have been involved with the creative process will know that if the structures of research are not done properly, it is very difficult for people to develop careers and to have the resources to do the full research. The government at the time decided to move away from a joint organization of the Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council because it found that when it came time to make decisions it was dealing with apples and oranges.
Culture is defined in terms of the theatre, music, literature, and all endeavours that are genetically under the arts. The organization of the cultural community in Canada, the organization of the arts and the organization of the creative processes of the arts are much different from the organization at work in the social sciences world which although it overlaps is different from what is done in the humanities. Most of it, although not all of it, takes place within a university setting. It requires a special type of organization to liaise not only with the individual researcher but also with the academic community.
I was impressed by the difficult task before us. For example, the university system as members know is driven mostly by provincial considerations. In the 10 provinces there are many different ways that universities are structured. Most provincial legislatures have particular acts. Therefore when spending relationships are developed with these organizations it takes a while for one organization to know another.
April 21, 1993

I can remember, for example, the question of sabbaticals was handled much differently in highly unionized situations. In the province of Quebec it was handled differently than it was in my province of Manitoba.
As a member of the board we learn from experience the significance of different methods. In the first five years of the board we managed to attract some outstanding Canadians who had previously been involved with the Canada Council. They brought to bear in the new organization not only their experiences in their host organization and/or their private lives but the work done by the Canada Council before that.
We were headed by an outstanding public servant, Andre Fortier, one of the first generations of Quebecers to end up playing a major role in the federal government. Andre was able to bring a sensitivity to the job that was appreciated by everyone. Similarly we managed to attract people of the calibre of Michel Belanger and Doug Kenny, former president of UBC, who had organizational experience that made it possible for us to make decisions.
The reason I say this is that the relationship between the university world and the federal government is at best a delicate one. We are dealing with questions of ideology, the career patterns of individuals and the distance between Ottawa and some pretty remote universities. It takes a while to build up confidence within both.
We need the freedom to do the research as generated by the researcher and defined by the research community. At the same time I do not have to tell the House how important is the context of public expenditure controls, being a watch-dog organization over how government moneys are distributed.
The objectives are not easy to combine. It is not easy to ask somebody what research they are going to do, have them apply, have their work evaluated and have the money put into the community through the university or to the individual directly to make sure a product is produced and the person's career continues.
At the same time we are dealing with the publishing world on some major projects. We took the initiative over 10 years ago to develop projects of national concern. One great frustration we have as academics, and I
Government Orders
think in the general public, is that so much of the university world seems to be esoteric and driven by curiosity in a way that is not related to societal needs.
We started a program to define some national interest projects dealing with aboriginal people and women and helping out small isolated universities. This required us to do targeted research in a very rough way.
The resistance in the academic community was understandable, but we forged ahead and developed a new working relationship with it that allowed the government to have work done that was of concern to Parliament and at the same time it was defined by the research community.
That balance comes from organizational experience and from having some understanding of how that mind works. From my own experience I can say that mind works much differently than those found in the artistic community. It is very different from dealing with, for example, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. It is a much different creature than the University of Winnipeg. The Young Peoples Theatre is much different than the University of Manitoba. Even when there are overlapping areas such as drama departments we still find the work world is much different.
I listened in committee to the different groups that came forward to make some suggestions and try to get the government to withdraw this part of the act. Government members themselves heard them. I must thank them for the courtesy of listening to my thoughts at the time.
To have worked from 1977 through to 1993 building up an organization, 16 years of working with and finally developing a working relationship, which meant committees, subcommittees, advisory boards and board members who have some interest in this area, were not easy accomplishments. It struck them that it did not make any sense to spend 16 years to move this along and finally get it settled, not with the big organizations but with the individual researchers, and then to take it away.
They do not show any savings if it is taken away. There has not been one report presented to Parliament showing that one nickel will be saved. They do not show it is

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
going to be any more efficient; the work still has to be done.
We have presented amendments, as has my fine colleague from St. Boniface in bringing his great experience in the university community and in government to bear, dealing with the board of directors, parliamentary review, defining the separate roles in these organizations and even such minor suggestions as changing the name and recognizing social sciences and humanities as being an independent and equal groups.
No, that is lost with them. They are turning back the clock to 1976. It makes me so sad that in five years a group of parliamentarians will ask: "How do we unravel this? How do we build up an organization for university researchers?" They will turn back to this debate and ask; "How could these members of Parliament waste the Canadian taxpayers' time and money?" For that reason I object to what the government is doing and hope there is still time to see changes.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment that deals with part III. I want to make three or four points.
It has become obvious that in spite of the rhetoric we are hearing from the Tory party now as it faces a national leadership campaign and the inevitable election and defeat it will suffer in the next few months in Canada, it is saying that it has to have a new style of politics, to develop more consultation and to have more involvement with the Canadian public. That should have happened over the last nine years when it had the opportunity to implement what it now mouths.
Canadians in my riding of Surrey North in the last two or three weeks are simply stunned by this new-found concept of participation, a new style of politics and consultation. A government that has done everything opposite is now taking this type of a stand. This government has refused to consult with people. It has used closure more in this Parliament than in the total history of Canadian parliaments.
It is another example of legislation being brought in without consultation and against the advice and wishes of the people being affected.
The organizations that have openly opposed the government in this regard are the Canadian Federation of Humanities, the Social Science Federation, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the academic communities and the arts community. All of them say not to do this. They also do not accept the government's proposition that this is somehow going to save money.
I have been in administration most of my adult life. I have had administrative responsibilities for very large organizations, some of them with budgets into the $50 million range and with 350 or 400 staff members. The bigger the bureaucracy the more difficult it is to maintain efficiencies and maintain direction, intent and focus. We had two or three different organizations that represented distinct and very important areas in our society, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canada Council. They are not the same entity. They are not going to have the same priorities, nor should they. They are not going to have the same vision. All we have done is create a big, amorphous bureaucratic blob.
At what point in time in Canadian history are we doing this? I want to talk briefly about a couple of issues on which the public are crying out for more specific research and investigation. In the social science area, the whole issue of juvenile violence and crime is becoming a major issue right across this country from small communities to large cities, and certainly in areas like my riding of Surrey North.
There is the Surrey crime prevention society, which has done remarkable work in the last couple of years. There is the mayor who set up a special advisory committee to deal with this growing and difficult social problem of youth violence and crime. There have been a number of murders in my community. We must have our best social scientists directing their minds, as well as participating with community members, the police, and the public, to examine this kind of issue and in conjunction with the community to arrive at ways to solve it.
I have found myself in a very unique position because I started off working in juvenile corrections far too many years ago. In the late 1950s and early 1960s I worked in juvenile courts and juvenile detention centres. I sat down with the mayor's advisory committee, Bob Bose's committee, a week ago and tried to set out for it what I
April 21, 1993

thought were the changes that had taken place in society which had helped to cause the increase in youth violence. Yes, we had some information. We had some information that had been obtained by proper social scientists and research, but there were tremendous gaps.
The gaps included just little things like trying to document how much of the youth violence and crime is related to drug use in terms of committing of thefts in order to obtain money for drugs, and how much is involved in youth being under the influence of various kinds of drugs while they are committing crimes. We do not have accurate information. What is the role that is being played in the use of firearms and other concealed weapons like knives?
We do not have good information. What is the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome and foetal alcohol effect as it relates to juvenile anti-social behaviour?
A committee in this House looked at that problem. One of the first thing it called for was systematic social research. Can you see this government saying no, we are going to lump all these people together in this great big blob. Great big blobs produce little blobs. That is all they produce. They do not produce anything meaningful.
We have to look at the issues for juveniles under the Young Offenders Act. What really is the impact of longer sentences on youth? What is the impact of putting a 16-year old in with 45-year old murderers? Is that the effect we really want?
What is the impact on our communities, particularly the urban communities where kids have anonymity? They can get in their car or on a sky train and go to a neighbourhood where nobody knows them. That is not what I grew up with. If I got in trouble in my small town, everybody knew it. Worst of all, my parents knew it.


Mr. Angus:: Very quickly.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: And very quickly. Probably before I got home. We do not know what the social changes are. I sat down with Mayor Bob Bose's committee. He gave tremendous leadership in this area. We talked about the social changes that have taken place in the last 20 or 30 years that make it that much more of a difficult problem to deal with. More important, what are the things we should be doing so that this does not become the problem that it is in the United States where each day
100,000	kids go to school packing a gun.
Government Orders
Last year there were more people killed in the state of Texas by firearms than by automobile accidents. We have a government that says we do not need groups of people who are dedicated to studying this type of social problem, we do not need to have a distinct group of social scientists.
People in my riding say this is false economy. Even if there was some economy, which everyone has refuted, it is false economy. This is an important problem. Society and the communities want participation, research and solutions.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 21.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. As ruled by the Speaker, we now move to Motion No. 65.


Ron J. Duhamel: Motion No. 65
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 137 by striking out lines 34
to 36 at page 50.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
Ele said: Mr. Speaker, the subject being dealt with in Motion No. 65 was brought forward before the committee by the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada.
This institute comprises over 1,000 patent and trademark agents across Canada, both private and corporate, who in turn represent many more patent and trademark holders.
The institute contends that the merger of the Trademarks Opposition Board with the Copyright Appeal Board to form a new intellectual property tribunal will result in inefficiency and additional cost to government.
I think it is important to point out that this is a massive bill that deals with a number of organizations. It must be very complicated because I believe the government members have not understood the intent of this. I will explain why this is a problem.
For example, for trademark matters, as part of the new intellectual property tribunal the bill contains a provision that in trademark composition no new evidence can be filed in the event that the matter is appealed to the Federal Court of Canada. Imagine that, no new evidence can be presented?
Today if you file an appeal you can file new evidence whereas in the proposed subsection no new evidence may be filed. This is a good example of the government going forward blindly, not knowing where it is headed and not doing its homework.
By removing the lines indicated, as I have proposed in the amendment, an individual would once again be allowed to submit additional evidence. This it seems to me is a most reasonable request, not unreasonable at all.
Under the system today when there is a trademark opposition evidence is filed by both sides in the form of affidavits, written arguments are filed and there is an opportunity for an oral hearing. The opposition board is chaired by a lawyer and two other hearing officers. Trademark agents then plead the cases of their clients before the board.
At the present time less than 2 per cent of these cases are appealed and hundreds of cases are heard annually. The system works well. Le systeme fonctionne bien, il ne faut pas oublier cela.
What will happen as a result of this bill? We will have a new intellectual property tribunal which hears trademark opposition cases and for which all of the evidence has to be filed before the intellectual property tribunal because no new evidence can be filed on appeal. This is not going to work. This will lead to more cross-examination and more affidavits. It will be the affidavit of the officer, the affidavits of customers in serving evidence and it will turn into a much more costly system.
The government said it wanted to save money. Here is a change that is going to cost it more money. C'est malheureux, c'est vraiment malheureux, monsieur le President, qu'ils ne comprennent pas cela.
This is why I am suggesting we remove this offensive section and once again allow additional evidence to be submitted.

There is a basic principle involved here. If the changes proposed by the government are accepted-I think regretfully it did not understand that and I hope my friend opposite will reconsider the matter-it will be impossible to submit new evidence. Everything will have to be done from the outset. The result will be extra work and therefore extra costs. Things will not go as smoothly as they do now, so why change something that is already working very well.
There is a lesson to be learned here. The government tried to make all kind of changes and came out with a massive bill which has generated a number of amendments about various organizations, and I believe the government went astray. It does not know where it is headed. It does not have a clue.
The government said in the beginning that it was introducing this bill in order to save money. Costs were supposed to go down, but that has not been proven. Then it got scared because we said: where is the proof? It argued it would improve efficiency. We said: where is the proof? Have you done any studies? It said: " No". Then we started to ask pointed questions like the one I raised a moment ago: " Did you consider this in detail?" Yes,
April 21, 1993

more or less. Obviously no thorough study of the bill was made. Elere is a reasonable proposal. If the government really wants to prove that it listens to the people, to opposition members, it has a golden opportunity to do so.

I would submit that not only this particular amendment but the other ones that I made previously are really quite reasonable. They attempt to respond to the complaints that we have heard. Many people wanted the whole thing withdrawn and the government resisted that even though it was flirting a little bit with the possibility of rescinding it.
We know that and it knows that, but the big hammer of some minister came down and said: "No way". I said: "Okay. Here are some reasonable amendments. If you were a reasonable group of people, and I think that many of you are but you probably do not have a chance to show that reasonableness, then here is an opportunity. I gave you several opportunities with the amendments that were just debated a short while ago which we have just finished debating and I am presenting another one. Surely you want to respect the basic fundamental of democracy and that is that you can submit more evidence if you want to appeal a decision, that it does not stop there".
That is it. I think I made my point, and I hope the government will support this particular amendment, as well as all the others we submitted.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on Motion No. 65, tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface. I am a little disappointed by the hon. member's attitude. It is incredible to see that such a nice colleague, such a nice man is so pessimistic, has such a gloomy view of the future and doubts the efficiency of our measures. I can assure my colleague that time will show that his fears were quite groundless.
As for the savings, the opposition constantly harps on about the money we are going to save with these measures, through streamlining administrative costs.
Government Orders
They criticize us for quoting figures at random, but I will remind my colleagues that the figure of about $5 million which has been announced, as I mentioned yesterday in the House, is the result of the discussions that have taken place between the management of the Canada Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Treasury Board. I would advise my colleagues, once and for all, to pick up the phone, it is not even a long distance call from here, and call the executive board of the Canada Council which will no doubt be happy to confirm the figures that were put forward here.
It is a commonplace for additional evidence to be tabled before the Court of Appeal and for a new lawsuit to be engaged in there. This approach is very time consuming for the judges of the Federal Court and in general it is a source of useless spending on the part of the clients. The government does not know any other instance when such a practice is tolerated in Canada.
The government feels a provision forbiding the tabling of additional evidence in the case of appeals would only eventually make the Intellectual Property Tribunal procedure consistent with all the other established practices and would allow cases to be correctly dealt with from the start. This principle follows from the analysis of the matter which can be found in the Henderson report, published in 1991, and I wish to refer my colleague to it. It is an important study on the legal controversy mechanisms, prepared by one of the most distinguished members of the Canadian legal profession. Out of that study came the recommendation for the creation of the intellectual property tribunal.
According to government data, between 15 and 30 appeals are lodged with the Federal Court each year. Therefore, contrary to what the member for St. Boniface is trying to say, the time alone spent by judges on those appeals could lead to tremendous savings.
It is a matter of common sense. One does not have to be a genius to figure it out.
Finally, the government feels that as a result of this provision forbidding the filing of new evidence a greater number of cases will be settled before the hearing. At the present time, hearings are often devoted to questioning and discovery which should be of a more informal nature.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
The Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada seems to have concerns with the added obligation of avoiding mistakes right from the start. They feel it might jeopardize the livelihood of the trademark agents who are not lawyers. These agents are required to appear before the actual Trade Marks Opposition Board. Now the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada fears that lawyers will be called upon to intervene more often than the agents.
The government feels this concern is unfounded. The increased efficiency of the process will probably allow the trademark agents to deal with a larger number of cases in less time and the lawyers' services will be required for the more contentious and more complex traditional legal issues.
In a competitive context, the success of our intellectual property specialists, including trademark agents, depends on efficiency.
The government has already put forward, at the committee stage, an amendment which dealt to some extent with the concern expressed by the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada with respect to the government's decision to remove the opportunity for a new hearing of the evidence by the court under an appeal from a decision regarding a trademark invalidation or opposition procedure.
Pursuant to the amendment put forward by the government, a Federal Court judge would have the discretionary power to authorize the hearing of new evidence when circumstances warrant it, and this in order to prevent any serious injustice.
Transitional provisions are made in sections 155 and 157 of the legislation, and the hon. member for Richelieu would do better to read the bill, for he would know what he is talking about. Under those provisions, the trademark registrar continues to have jurisdiction with respect to any matter referred to him under the former regime. By registrar we also mean of course the former Trade Marks Opposition Board that has not been formally set up by a legislation.
Therefore, the adjustments to be made by the intellectual property specialists will be made gradually over a
long period of time. At the end of the day, such adjustments will serve everybody's interests, because efficiency and productivity are the objectives aimed at by all interested parties.
As for the allegations by the hon. member for St. Boniface that we should listen to people, that is precisely what we are doing. The public has clearly indicated to us that it is fed up with politicians who come here to the House claiming they have innate knowledge and propose major expenditures without any regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay, ordinary citizens, those who work 40 hours a week and try very hard to make ends meet.
We listen to these people, and they tell us that we should do what needs to be done to streamline government, to streamline our administrative costs and reduce our expenses.
I would have thought that the hon. member for Richelieu, who is so close to the people, was listening more closely to his constituents. If he went to see them more regularly and talked with them I am sure that is the message he would get from these citizens, these men and women who work 40 hours a week, who pay taxes and ask their government and their representatives to strive to cut government costs and expenses.
That is what Bill C-93 is about, no more and no less.
The hon. member for St. Boniface is wrong in saying that we do not listen to the people. Just recently we distributed 7,000 survey questionnaires in the riding of Terrebonne and received replies from 1,167 constituents who took part in a budget-making exercise. The signals we got from the riding of Terrebonne were very clear: Cut expenses and reduce the tax burden on the public.
That is what Bill C-93 does. That is why I ask the members of this House, in particular the hon. member for Richelieu who claims to be close to his people, who constantly boasts of paying attention to his constituency, to do the honourable thing once and for all in this House for their constituents; respect their ability to pay. He should stop being partisan and engaging in petty, partisan politics and quit his empty rhetoric. He should do something positive in this House and support a bill to reduce government spending and the tax burden on the taxpayers in his riding and mine, in Quebec and across Canada.
April 21, 1993

I think that would be the most honourable thing the hon. member for St. Boniface and all opposition members should do, out of respect for all Canadians' ability to pay.
Therefore I urge hon. members to reject Motion No. 65 because it is not realistic. It is not in keeping with the intent of the bill, the purpose of which is to increase efficiency and reduce costs.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it certainly amazes me when I listen to government members justifying their actions.
They start out by saying that these measures are undertaken to reduce costs and the deficit. With regard to that nobody has any problem. We want to see costs, deficits and debt reduced absolutely. We have no problem with that whatsoever.
However we maintain that what the government is doing is actually increasing the debt and the deficit. We have heard previous debates dealing with part III of Bill C-93. We have introduced evidence from documents obtained under access to information in which the Department of Finance shows that there are no net savings to the measures this government is taking by abolishing SSHRC and the cultural programs of external Affairs and rolling them all into the Canada Council.
We have demonstrated that there are no savings. In fact, we can assume it is going to cost money. What we are hearing now is that there is a need to move into a new building. There is the cost of integrating these three different functions. This costs more money than was originally anticipated. This is costing money.
We are dealing with an amendment which is worthy. The government is trying to defend its opposition to this amendment introduced by my colleague from the Liberal Party on the basis of cost.
I was just reading the submission in committee by Mr. Robert D. Gould who is a member of the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada. He has a fair amount to say about this section. What this section does is to
Government Orders
prevent new evidence from being introduced on an appeal to the Trade Marks Opposition Board. This gentleman says:
Under the system today, when there is a trademark opposition, evidence is filed by both sides in the form of affidavits, written arguments are filed, and there is an opportunity for an oral hearing. The Trade Marks Opposition Board is chaired by a lawyer, having close to two decades of experience in these trademark matters on the board, ably assisted by two other hearing officers. Trademark agents who are lawyers or who are not lawyers plead the cases of their clients before the board. There can be cross-examination of affidavit evidence, although this takes place in less than 5 per cent of the cases, and the entire procedure is summary in nature and not extremely expensive.
Less than 2 per cent of all cases decided by this Trade Marks Opposition Board are appealed and hundreds of cases are heard annually, so the system works well. For those cases that are appealed the parties are able to file additional evidence on appeal and, I repeat, that is only in 2 per cent of the cases.
Now, what is going to happen when, as a result of this budgetary process, we have a new intellectual property tribunal, which hears trademark opposition cases and for which all the evidence, for now and for all time, has to be filed before the Intellectual Property Tribunal because no new evidence can be filed on appeal.
Do you think there is going to be cross-examination in only 5 per cent of the cases? Hardly. Because this is a person's last chance, I would expect there will be cross-examinations going on in the majority of cases. Then, what about a small Canadian company that is the applicant or the opponent and that is going to file today perhaps the affidavit of its officer?
Under the new system, where this is your last chance, it will be the affidavit of the officer, the affidavit of customers, and survey evidence, and it is going to turn into a much more costly exercise.
I estimate to clients I deal with that the cost of an evidence stage of an opposition is between approximately $1,000 and $2,000.
Then in his testimony he is suggesting that under the new system it is going to cost $10,000 to $20,000. He suggested as well in his testimony that now lawyers are going to become involved in the process.
Here is his summation:
I would submit that it is not an answer to say that this provision about no new evidence is going to be deferred.
We heard the government members saying that they will not implement this right away.
If it is not worthy of being in the legislation today, or implemented today, surely if it does become worthy at some time in the future, that is the time to put it in.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
Basically what he is saying is that this provision under the act that will not allow new evidence to be introduced on appeal is going to cost more money. It is going to cost more money for those people who have failed themselves on this process and it is going to cost the government more money.
Here we see again in this particular provision that the government is going to end up having a greater debt as we see with the previous part III of this bill that abolishes SSHRC and that is going to cost the government more money.
A few weeks ago there was a study that looked at the cuts to the Canada Council. It came to the conclusion that the government was going to lose more money with the cuts to the Canada Council than it was going to gain because of those cuts. This study showed that because of these cuts there were going to be fewer taxes collected and fewer cultural industries producing things and employing people. There was going to be an increase in welfare, an increase in unemployment insurance and the net effect was going to be a decrease in government revenues.
We see how this government's attempt to reduce its costs and to reduce the deficit that it has the opposite results. It is no wonder that after more than eight years of the Tory government's attempt to reduce the debt and deficit we have seen the deficit double because these people across the way do not know how to use their intelligence to start reducing government waste and government costs. Every time it turns around and introduces a measure it only increases the debt of the country.
It is no wonder that after eight years of Tory attempts to control expenditures we have seen our deficit double. It is because of measures found in Bill C-93 that we begin to understand why our deficit and why our debt has doubled over the last eight years. This government in its pigheadedness insists on introducing measures that in the end will cost Canadian taxpayers more money.
It is about time we had a new government.
[Translation\


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this amendment. Allow me to begin with a short preamble, as the member
for Terrebonne did. Looking at us, he said: "Be logical." If we follow his logic in politics, then we can understand why the government is ready to pass such a bill. The member for Terrebonne voted yes during the 1980 referendum. He then got elected in 1984 by promising to bring Quebec back with honour and enthusiasm. Meech Lake was a failure. Twice he called the Bloc Quebecois to join them but got scared and did not make the move. Later on, he said that he would never support a Canadian referendum but he voted for the Referendum Act. He voted against the interests of Quebec by supporting Bill C-113 regarding unemployment insurance. He even became an accomplice by making speeches in favour of this bill. We do not trust his logic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would ask the hon. member to abide by the rule of relevancy.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would apply the same rules and, above all, be as flexible with me as you were with the hon. member for Terrebonne when he directed his remarks to me and wandered off the subject of Motion No. 65.1 am just responding to what he said, but I will get to Motion No. 65.
I referred to his comment that we should be logical. He also talked about reducing expenditures with this amendment. How can we believe a government that says this amendment will no longer allow the tribunal to receive appeals? How can we believe this government, when we realize that in its budgets since 1984, its global budgets, it has always been wrong? Why should it not be wrong now if it was wrong about those budgets? It means that the forecasts for all the changes it wants to make are wrong as well. In 1987 the government predicted that in 1992 it would no longer have a deficit. We now have a deficit of $37 billion. These are not minor mistakes.
I heard the hon. member for Terrebonne making a case for the administrative reasons behind this amendment and why we should try to cut spending within the tribunal, while ignoring the principles of justice. I think he was talking about better administration. He told me to listen to my constituents. In my riding, people are telling me a lot about spending cuts. People have a lot to say about this, but they all know whose fault it is. It is because this government failed to cut its own spending.
April 21, 1993

Now all of a sudden it has discovered the virtues of sound administration. However to them the word administration means what it meant to my ancestors when someone was on his death bed and people would say go get the priest so he can administer the last rites. That is more or less what this government has in mind when it uses the word administration. It sees Quebec and Canada as a future corpse it is about to bury under a pile of debt. Meanwhile it is going to administer the last budget rites. I realize why the hon. member for Terrebonne is so confused in his constitutional and economic thinking.
This amendment is necessary because it will maintain the possibility of appeals. We all know the cost involved will be minimal. Hundreds of agents have expressed their support, in testimony and letters, for maintaining the tribunal in its present form. There would be no advantage to changing it. The so-called savings involved would be more readily achieved, for instance, by cancelling the Prime Minister's trip, which will cost $1.5 million and serve no purpose at all. Meanwhile, parties who wish to file additional evidence will not be able to do that. They will have to state their case, without being able to file additional evidence in the course of the proceedings.
We know that hardly 3 per cent of the people who appear before these tribunals file an appeal. This is just one more case of violating minority rights. The government's refusal to accept this amendment is all part of its new vision, a philosophy that permeates this government and influences every single piece of legislation it has tabled.
It is a limitation for ordinary people to go to court just to have better access to the democratic process. We saw it in Bill C-114, when it was done the same way. It had a mini reform not to limit the spending of the money bags that finance the Conservative Party. It attacked the poorest by requiring an ID card to vote and on the matter of prisoners' right to vote. It rammed the bill through in haste on a Friday, using regulations that are normally never used. Why?
This government is blind because it does not see that with Bill C-114 it is limiting the democratic process and limiting the rights of the unemployed with Bill C-113. It is limiting people's ability to come forward with new
Government Orders
evidence in hearings. By accepting the amendment from my colleague, the member for St. Boniface, the government is again limiting the people and individual rights which historically have always existed in Quebec and in Canada.
This over-all philosophy that now guides the members of the Conservative Party blinds them so much that they do not see the widespread discontent among the people and especially they do not listen. For example, they turn a deaf ear to the demands of the university people who I just mentioned and who have come out clearly against that bill. They do not hear the humanities federation and all those in some way connected with the arts in Canada and Quebec. They refuse to hear appeals, on the pretext of saving money-which is far from proven-by eliminating the 2 per cent who occasionally appeal to those tribunals. The government is again going after the people instead of the real problem.
This new tribunal will not speed things up, because more affidavits and more documentation will have to be presented and the tribunal will have to examine much more voluminous evidence and that will of course take much longer.
We see that the government's intentions will be completely defeated because the volume of documentation will be greater from the beginning. All the cases were generally settled fairly easily because those who wanted to plead had a chance to present the evidence during the tribunal proceedings and had an opportunity to present additional evidence from time to time at any point. This greatly accelerated the solution. Supposedly to economize the government would prevent the presentation of new evidence during a hearing. This is completely contrary to the logic of all other tribunals.
The member for Terrebonne quoted material from 1991. Instead of reading documents like a sheep, documents which he is given to read in the House as if he were a parrot of the Conservative Party, why does he not find out what his constituents think and get the will of the people, which is completely opposed to this bill?
I see the member for Portneuf here. I went to his riding, and I will share with him what the people of Portneuf said to me: "Do you see our MP in Ottawa? We never see him in our riding." I told them: "Yes, I see him from time to time, but you-

April 21, 1993
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member's time has expired.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Terrebonne.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, no wonder the member for Richelieu cannot see the member in question, he is never here.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is a point of order. Will you grant me that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would be extremely disappointed if the excellent atmosphere which has prevailed since the beginning of this debate was to be spoiled by temporary vagaries. I would simply point out that the rules forbid us to mention whether or not a member is present in the House. That being said, I am quite willing to give the floor to the hon. member for Richelieu for a brief remark.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, during my first speech, half an hour ago, I was interrupted three times by the member for Terrebonne on points of order which were not really points of order. Once again, points of order degenerate into insults. I have made more speeches in this House than the member for Terrebonne. I have been here more often than he has.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The message did get through on either side. Could we then get back to the subject of the debate?


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I will make no comment regarding whether or not some parliamentarians are here since, as the Chair mentioned a while ago, it is against the rules. Of course, it is totally acceptable, as far as the rules are concerned, to mention whether or not a parliamentarian is in his riding even though that might annoy the member for Terrebonne or some other member. Of course we are not allowed to mention the absence-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is, among all parliamentarians, one of the most experienced and most knowledgeable of the rules. I would invite him to get back to the subject of the debate.


Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I meant to talk about the presence, in spirit, of all the members concerning the debate that we are having this afternoon on Bill C-93.
This bill has been very controversial from the very beginning. First of all, it must be emphasized that the government took some measures not by presenting them as good ideas, but by praising them as budget measures. That is how they were announced in this House. For example, and this deals with another part of the same bill, when it talked about merging the Canada Council with another council, the one on social sciences and humanities, there was no evidence, and there is still none today, that would save money. All that was introduced to the House as a budget measure.

Now we are discussing Motion No. 65 presented by the very distinguished member for St. Boniface. He presented this motion in this House to remove the offensive part of the bill, namely to strike out lines 34 to 36.
The subject of the issue in question was brought before the legislative committee by the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada. I should point out that there are some 1,000 patent and trademark agents across Canada, both private and corporate. They represent many patent and trademark holders, obviously several times the number of patent and trademark agents. The Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada has indicated to our colleagues in the parliamentary committee that the merger of the Trade Marks Opposition Board with the Copyright Appeal Board to form this new so-called intellectual property tribunal will result in what it calls inefficiency and additional cost to the government.
Wait a minute. Allegedly, the whole reason we are doing this is to save money. If it is to save money and this is going to cost more then how come we are doing it? There is something wrong here, something is just not right.
Could it be that the government has discovered that this is not working but it does not want the humiliation of backing down, that the Minister of Finance, who is going to present a budget to us in a few days, particularly does not want to be humiliated by backing down from something he indicated in a previous budget? His selfish pride is more important than the good of the people of Canada. I would not think that, but if I was more partisan
April 21, 1993

I might be tempted to. I say that to my colleague for St. Boniface. It is quite tempting to arrive at that conclusion.
For the trademark matters as part of the intellectual property tribunal, the bill is going to contain a provision that in trademark opposition no new evidence can be filed in the event that the matter is appealed to the Federal Court of Canada. Today, if one files an appeal one can file new evidence whereas in the proposed subsection no new evidence may be filed. Why is that? What happens in these kinds of cases where new information becomes available? If the object of all of this is to make things more just and better, why are we removing something that exists right now in favour of replacing it with less? As I indicated previously, the institute that I just referred to also says it is going to cost more.
Flere we have a bill for which the purpose is allegedly expenditure restraint. By the way, that is totally unproven. It is going to cost more and provide less, at least as it pertains to those particular lines in the bill. The amendment of my colleague for St. Boniface is indeed very reasonable.


Ron J. Duhamel: The member for Terrebonne knows that.


Don Boudria: The member for Terrebonne who I am sure is listening attentively to these remarks will know that it is a reasonable proposition as well. I know that the member for Richelieu also thinks this is very reasonable. I can tell that he thinks it is very reasonable. I can see it in his face as we are speaking right now. I know the member for Richelieu made a profound speech in favour of retaining the existing federal board. I am glad to see this new-found interest in federalism on the part of the member for Richelieu. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members of this House when I see this conversion on the way to the electoral box on the part of the hon. member in question.
The opposition board is chaired by a lawyer and two other hearing officers. Trademark agents then plead the case of their clients before this board. Presently, less than 2 per cent of the cases are appealed and hundreds
Government Orders
of cases are heard annually. The system obviously works quite well as it is.


Louis Plamondon: Speak French when you are talking to me.


Don Boudria: I am glad to see that the member for Richelieu agrees that we should maintain the current system and keep the federal tribunal as it now exists and which has the support of the member for Richelieu, that great federalist who is well-known in this House. All members are rejoicing at that.


Louis Plamondon: Rejoice.


Don Boudria: I too am rejoicing with my colleagues when I see this conversion-not administration, because he mentioned the word administration earlier-but this conversion that he went through because we would rather see him convert before we have to administer him, to use his own word. By that I do not mean to give him the last sacrament, because since he is converting, he will certainly not need extreme unction.
I congratulate our good friend, the member for Richelieu, for his new words. We, at least on this side of the House, greatly appreciate his concerns for the interests of all Canadians.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 65 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface. 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.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (for the Minister of Finance) moved:: Motion No. 66.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 171 by striking out line 35 at
page 59 and substituting the following therefor:
"adding thereto, immediately before the headings preceding section 31".


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, my comments on this technical amendment proposed in Motion No. 66 will be short. The government wants to change the wording of section 171 by substituting the following words: "adding thereto, immediately before the headings preceding section 31".
To understand the meaning of this motion we have to read clause 171 from the beginning. As to the substance of the motion, I want to make clear that this is a purely technical amendment requested by the lawyers responsible for this bill. My opposition colleagues will want to read the quite technical explanation that was given on this motion which was recommended for practical considerations. The only purpose of the proposed amendment is to set the right order for clauses 30 to 30.2.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly touch on a technicality. First, as the hon. member from Ontario did, I would like to make a few preliminary comments on something perhaps not directly related to the amendment before the House. The hon. member concluded, from the speech I made, that I had found new interest in federalism. Of course, if I consider that this tribunal must be preserved it proves that members from the Bloc Quebecois do not want to dismantle institutions dear to the federal government. While we stay in this Confederation we want to make sure that the institutions which are working well can
keep up their good work. However, when the time comes to define our sovereignty we will take our share of that tribunal, as long as it is still in the interests of our people and has not been dismantled, which is exactly what the government wants to do with this bill. I just have a few words to say about the technical amendment. There is not much to say. It is mostly a question of grammar and interpretation. I will focus on the other amendment.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to know if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, recognizes that the government made a mistake. He only has to nod, because I think several mistakes were made, although the last one we saw was a bit different. Is that so? Am I right?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As a rule, there is no question or comment period. However, if there is unanimous consent to allow this exchange the Speaker has no objection. I understand there is consent.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I was nodding does not mean that I endorse in any way the remarks made by the hon. member. I would like to make it clear though that we on the government side recognize that we are not perfect. Perfection is something we leave to the opposition.
Sometimes we need to make some adjustments. The legislative process that we have in Canada, with all its different stages, including second reading stage, legislative committee stage, report stage and third reading stage, is designed to allow us to make technical or other adjustments when necessary, for the benefit of the Canadian people.
Therefore it cannot be said that this amendment results from an error but rather from the desire of the Canadian government to do things right, as is always the case.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat amused. First of all I wish to go on record as also supporting the amendment. It is a technical amendment. It is one in which the government corrects what was imperfectly drafted to begin with.
April 21, 1993

I fully sympathize with the parliamentary secretary's explanation. Of course as human beings, and this being a human institution, we are quite capable of making mistakes. The ability of correcting those mistakes has to be natural.
That is why legislation goes through the various stages. Each stage should be like a filter. We give critical examination of the legislation. As things come out in debate, in consideration and critical analysis those things that are seen not to be quite right are corrected.
I just wish the government would take that principle and extend it a little further. During the debate if the government was really honest, not in a partisan mood, not in a mood of saying this is what we have brought down and this is what we are going to force through, but rather if the government was more open, it would realize the things that had been brought forward in the debate on this bill, whether at second reading, in committee or report stage, that where it hoped there would be savings there was not going to be savings.
Some of the things that are still in Bill C-93 are going to create more hardship and more cost rather than making things efficient and reducing cost. We have pointed this out. Members of the academic community have pointed things out. People involved in patent and patent rights have pointed these things out.
Unfortunately, the government has not been listening. It might have been listening but it is not hearing. This is of course we find unfortunate. If our parliamentary system worked properly and we were able to set aside our partisan differences, then on a matter like Bill C-93 we should have been able to have many more significant changes that would have been good for this country, would have been good for the people, those parts of Bill C-93 which are supposed to serve.
Again, we will support the government amendment. Our only wish is that the principle would be extended as well to other sections and other recommendations and amendments that we have introduced.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Ron J. Duhamel: Motion No. 67
That Bill C-93 be amended in clause 17 of schedule I by striking out line 40 at page 82 and substituting the following therefor:
"regulations imposing, on any licensing body, licensee or user".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have an opinion that I would like to put on the record. This would give the government another opportunity to make a correction and respond to the series of very reasonable amendments. I am hoping that my colleague from Terrebonne, among others, will get an opportunity to examine it carefully and perhaps support it.
I want to read that opinion into the record to make sure it is not misunderstood. It reads as follows:
That the word "assignee" is not an appropriate use of the term in the amendment because SOCAN is in fact an assignee of copyrights. Also, copyright holders should be removed from the amendment because it will spread the liability for costs to all of SOCAN's members since they are the legal copyright holders.
Those are important points that need to be recognized. Here is an opinion of someone who believes this current legislation is improperly worded:
The problem with Bill C-93, section 17(2) as it now stands is that SOCAN, a clearing house that collects fees for the users of creators' works and distributes these fees to the creators is liable for a large portion of the costs associated with the operation of the intellectual property tribunal.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
These costs as indicated by the officials at yesterday's hearings
could amount to well over $1 million annually.
That is a direct quote of an opinion that was sent to me and the government as well, I believe, so it could examine the current bill. There is one more paragraph:
This is fundamentally unfair since other parties, namely the users
of creative works, also benefit from the operation of the tribunal.
These parties should also be responsible for the tribunal's costs.
Again, I want to make a plea to the government to look at this. It does not seem to be unreasonable. It seems to have made an excellent point. I hope it will be examined carefully. It would be unfortunate to pass this bill and have to change it later.
Let me summarize the conclusions of the analysis that were done for me on this bill. I would like to enter them into the record.
SOCAN opposes the introduction of those provisions of Bill C-93 that provide the proposed intellectual property tribunal with the power to fix both the costs of particular proceedings and the costs of the tribunal generally.
The process of the approval of royalties for the performance of musical works is not apt for the imposition of these cost provisions. Alternatively, if it is decided that the principle of user pay tribunal must become a feature of the proposed intellectual property tribunal, the statute should be amended to set out guidelines in the statute and not regulations. They should clearly provide guidance to the tribunal and ensure that licensing bodies are consulted in determining the nature and extent of those costs and the manner in which the licensing bodies can pass those costs on to their licen-cees.
Licensing bodies should also be given the right to appeal any decision that may determine those costs for which they will be responsible. To treat these costs as proposed in Bill C-93 amounts to a tax on the incomes of composers, lyricists and songwriters. It is grossly unfair to them.
There are a few points that need to be underlined. [Translation]
It seems to me that this opinion, which I think is shared by the government, clearly indicates some weaknesses in this bill. In its present form, the bill is too vague, and that could cause some very serious difficulties. There are principles of fundamental injustice in this bill. I would simply ask the government to consider what was said, what I just proposed, so that I and the people I represent can be sure the whole bill will reflect the remarks I just made.
As I said earlier, it would be unfortunate to proceed with this enormous bill only to find in it the kind of potential errors I just pointed out.
I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you have an excellent memory, that I suggested a few minutes ago, when we studied Motion No. 65, that there may be some serious errors in that part of the bill also. The government brought forward this enormous bill, so enormous that it got lost in it. I am beginning to fear that, because I am an opposition member, the government will not listen to what I said. In fact, the suggestion did not come from me, but from someone else, and I thought it made sense. That is why I make those recommendations to the government.
[English)
There are some potential traps in this particular bill. I outlined some in Motion No. 65 and in Motion No. 67 with my amendments. I would like the government to simply look at them. I hope they will not be simply discarded because I am a member of the opposition. Remember that these are professional opinions that have been entered into the record from responsible people who are really quite concerned.
If the government proceeds with the bill without looking at this I believe it would be irresponsible on my part not to call it irresponsible. I hope the comments I have entered into the record and shared in openness and sincerity will be looked at and I will be given some reason why they are not acceptable if that is the case.
Perhaps I am dreaming but I would like to hear some good reasons why this whole series of amendments I proposed would not be respected. They seem to be minimal changes that respond to the needs and expressed concerns of Canadians who have a lot of information about this bill.
April 21, 1993

I believe I have made my point. I look forward to a rebuttal of the points I have entered into the record. Failing that rebuttal, I will assume that the government supports my amendments.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: To start with, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is perfectly normal for people to express concern. However, for a member of this House there are always two alternatives: members either fuel that concern or they try to calm things down. That is what I was trying to do for the benefit of the hon. member for St. Boniface.
If this proposal was agreed to, the government would have to widen the scope of the cost recovery provisions in order to be able to charge directly to users, licensees and consumers the costs associated with creative works administered by a licensing body.
SOCAN, the only body as such to stand against the government proposal to charge user fees to clients of the intellectual property tribunal, is indeed requesting that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Boniface be adopted. This amendment would widen the scope of cost recovery provisions and allow for charging directly to users, licensees and consumers the costs associated with creative work administered by the licensing body. The government's policy is to recover the costs from the licensing body which could then bill users according to economic conditions approved by the intellectual property tribunal.
Thanks to the application of user fees with the option of cost recovery in the sector under the board's jurisdiction, the copyright system will operate like many other government services which recover real operating costs from users instead of making all taxpayers bear these costs.
The National Energy Board and the CRTC are two good examples of this practice. Both agencies have the discretionary power to recover costs from users as appropriate, and they do so from time to time. However, the agencies are under no obligation to do so. The United States has a similar system with its copyright royalty tribunal. Here again, there are no specific rules
Government Orders
providing for cost recovery from users, licencees or consumers.
I would like to make it clear to hon. members, and more particularly to the hon. member for St. Boniface, that the government's proposal will represent savings of over $1.2 million annually for taxpayers. SOCAN revenues, which are all under the jurisdiction of the proposed intellectual property tribunal, represent about $70 million of the $120 million now covered by the Copyright Board. As new licensing bodies are created, for instance in the photocopy sector, the share of costs billed to SOCAN will diminish.
The purpose of the new provisions of part VII of Bill C-93 is to guarantee that the principal clients of the intellectual property tribunal, including SOCAN, the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association and photocopy licensing bodies, will assume a fair share of the tribunal's operating costs. A cost recovery system based on user fees will not come into effect until the appropriate regulations have been drafted and put in place. Details of the system cannot be worked out until the regulatory process has begun. This process will include broad consultation with interested parties and consultation and co-operation between those parties and the government.
It is very difficult to recover costs directly from licencees and consumers who, ultimately, pay the royalties passed on to creators by the licensing bodies. SOCAN alone has more than 35,000 licencees, ranging from major cable network companies and the CBC, down to restaurants and church basement auditoriums.
In Motion No. 67, the term user may be interpreted as including consumers, who total 25 million in Canada. It is preferable to give the proposed intellectual property tribunal the discretionary power to recover costs instead of providing for a system by regulations or legislation. Furthermore, it would be very difficult and extremely complex to develop detailed provisions that would cover the broad range of users, licencees and consumers.
Finally we would like to point out that the only licensing body opposed to the cost recovery principle proposed in this bill is SOCAN. Consequently, the government cannot accept any amendments at this stage. The legitimate concerns of SOCAN can be dealt with most effectively during the regulatory process and

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
through the submission of briefs to the intellectual property tribunal.
The motion is unacceptable because it would lead to a policy that would be neither sound nor practical. It is practically impossible to develop a specific system for billing costs to the many and various classes of users, licencees and consumers for works that are administered collectively for licensing purposes. Licensing bodies will probably obtain the desired results through the far more effective approach of billing costs where appropriate.
Consequently I would urge all members to reject this amendment, for the reasons just mentioned.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I really tried to follow what the parliamentary secretary was saying but I am afraid I am going to have to wait until I read Hansard tomorrow. I think what the parliamentary secretary was doing was just reading out what bureaucrats had told him to read out.
It is a technical amendment. There are technicalities in it. I am not quite certain the parliamentary secretary totally understood what he was saying but I suspect what was happening is that he was given something to read by some bureaucrats. It sure sounded bureaucratic to me.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the Chair and the hon. member who alluded to the fact that I was reading a text the assurance that this is not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I cannot allow this point of order because if I did we would have constant interruptions. In this House members may differ in their opinions of the behaviour or statements of their colleagues, but they cannot seek a remedy from the Chair.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I was not objecting at all to the hon. member referring to his notes quite often. I was wishing that he would have expressed the concepts and the government's arguments in his own words. Had he
done so I think we would have all understood the arguments a little bit better.
The problem is that when bureaucrats write these briefing notes the bureaucrats have their own language. It is a language that I find at times hard to understand. Particularly when the bureaucrats are trained in law they have sentences that run through half the page and quite often are hard to understand. It takes another bureaucrat to totally understand the argument they are making.
SOCAN made a representation to our committee and I thought at the time that it made some sense. I did not think that government members or people from the government departments succeeded in refuting their concerns.
What is the situation? SOCAN represents the composers, lyricists and so forth, the creators of musical works. It collects certain royalties and fees. To establish the level of royalties and fees it goes to the board that is being created here. It has to do this. It is not a choice on its part. It has to go through this process. There is no problem with that and SOCAN does not have any problem with that.
The users of their musical works also have the right to make presentations to the board if they object to this provision or that fee and so forth. I do not think anybody has any problem with that. That is due process. SOCAN goes and presents its fees and then the users who have to pay those fees have the opportunity to give their objections and comments. SOCAN objects to the fact that the cost is entirely borne by them.
The parliamentary secretary is wrong when he states that SOCAN is against the principle of cost recovery and user fees. From reading and remembering its testimony before our committee I can say that was not the argument it was making. The argument it was making is that the cost should be borne by all the parties concerned.
Let us say I am a restaurateur, as I was before becoming a member of this august body, and let us say I have a sound system that works and that I should pay a fee to SOCAN. I do not like the fee but I am an ornery son of a gun and I am going to go on the war-path and create as much trouble as I can for SOCAN so I appeal and do all kinds of harassments. I do not have to pay any of the cost. SOCAN has to pay all the cost. Therefore
April 21, 1993

SOCAN is exposed to all sorts of nuisance actions against it. The people initiating that action bear no costs but SOCAN has to carry all the cost. From what I understand that is SOCAN's argument, and I think it is a reasonable argument.
I wish the government would get off its high horse and listen to these arguments and begin to recognize that perhaps this should be changed a little. It does not require a major change, it does not require a change from the basic principle of cost recovery. All we are asking for is some change to make certain that if a group brings nuisance actions it too will carry the cost and not just SOCAN itself, not just the composers and lyricists, the people who create the musical works. They should not be the only ones that carry the cost of this.
It seems fair to me. It seems just to me. What is the government's problem on this? Why can it not see this? Why is it not more conciliatory, more willing to work with all the actors, with the opposition, with the users of the services in making certain that we have good legislation that everybody can live with? Why will the government not be a little more constructive?


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words on this very important amendment. Once again, it is an amendment from the opposition which would be very easy for the government to accept, since it would not translate into costs to the government and it would merely ensure the sharing of the costs of an appeal before a tribunal for users as well, in addition to collectives or copyright associations.
A nation grows and lives through its creative talents. If a nation such as the Canadian or Quebec nation exists, it is because it has had artists and creative minds in the scientific field and in every other field, especially at the artistic level. This is often what identifies a nation, and it is said that a great nation emerges when its composers and creative minds are at the top of their profession through their publications and the way they are accepted by the public.
France exists and rose through its great authors, the same way the Americans spread their culture through
Government Orders
their musical composers and their creative talents, especially in the field of movies.
However, in Quebec and in Canada we are a third world country. In terms of the way copyrights are treated, as well as the status of the artist, we are several years behind, even though the government opposite made a little step forward with Bill C-88, as I recall following pressures from various organizations.
However in this case, as in Bill C-62, we are dealing with copyrights. I talked to the president of the association des auteurs-compositeurs du Quebec, who told me how unusual the situation was. For example, the owner of a public place-we talked earlier about restaurants, but we could also have mentioned public waiting rooms or shopping centres-can decide to challenge, before the tribunal, the fact that he has to pay copyrights for musical works which he uses to attract clients and to provide them with the most comfortable environment. Therefore he pays for a picture on the wall. He pays for a chair, but he refuses to pay when he fulfils the dream of those people waiting in the emergency room, in the restaurant or in the bar. Then there is a challenge.
He finds himself before a court, oftentimes on an appeal, and sometimes he loses, but the costs will be billed to the management corporation. In that sense, the amendment is very important since it proposes to add the user to the list and, in doing so, it could put an end to some abuses. Government says it wants to ensure better management, to cut down on expenditures. However if it wants these agencies to spend less it should not open the door to anyone who wishes to challenge anything for any reason whatsoever, however bizarre. Instead it should say: Very well, you want to challenge so you will have to share the costs if you lose your case just like you would in any other court.
This is what this amendment is all about. It would not cost the government a cent. This amendment is a salute to our artists who make it possible for our two nations to come together, a salute to those artists, especially those from Quebec to whom I want to pay tribute, who created that new nation which will soon become sovereign and will join the group of world nations.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
It is the same for the Canadian nation; Canadian creators also played a part in the shaping of Canada and when our two nations will engage in a neighbourly-


Ron J. Duhamel: You will always be welcome among us.


Louis Plamondon: My colleague, the member for St. Boniface, tells me we will always be welcome. You will too. Besides, it is obvious that in our thinking about sovereignty we will no doubt suggest that all those who wish to, either Canadian or Quebecer, will be able to get both a Canadian and a Quebec passport. We will also propose an agreement, some form of trade relations as there should be between civilized countries. In any case, trade relations exist automatically among countries bound by great international agreements.
As far as respect for both nations is concerned, I am quite convinced that the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation will maintain a very respectful relationship and will co-operate toward their mutual success.
In that respect, as I was saying a minute ago, before my friend from St-Boniface's interjection, these amendments will allow our authors to have a better income, not necessarily in terms of salary but in terms of decreased costs for collecting royalties from public places for instance. These amendments will allow the Societe des auteurs-compositeurs du Quebec, or SOCAN, the society which manages Canadian authors and composers, to act more freely to collect as well as to redistribute dues more rapidly without constantly facing complaints from people who have no right to do so since they are using the music, words, material and brainpower of authors.
In that respect, I think the tribunal should also be allowed to decide whether or not to consult users when setting ways to calculate and pay costs.
I will end on that point. I wish that Quebec members, those who are constantly forgetting that they should be promoting Quebec's interests within the government, those who choose to stay within the government, those who represent 40 per cent of the government caucus, would wake up. They should pay attention to what authors are asking of them. They should stop being yes men and become passionate promoters of Quebec interests.
They still have a golden opportunity to do so.
I want to remind them that this bill on which we will have a vote later is completely rejected by the minister, not a sovereignist minister, but by the minister Cannon from Quebec, who says: "No, this bill must be amended". He has made incredible claims about telecommunications. Even his predecessor, Mrs. Hebert, used to say when she talked about the control the federal government still had on the telecommunications bill: "It would be worse than the Meech Lake failure if this bill was passed."
We realize again to which extent, whether it be the unemployment insurance bill or the electoral reform bill, our hon. members from Quebec have an important part to play within the government. Instead of following the set course of action they must try to direct it with the help of their colleagues. We have reached the point of saying that when a Conservative member winks in Ottawa he opens an eye. It shows how passive the Conservative members are in the House. Instead of defending the government, they should defend the interests of their constituencies and of Quebec.
Aagain they miss the boat and they remind me sometimes of my mother-in-law. They stand at the edge of a financial abyss, after the constitutional failure and the economical failure, they wrap themselves in the Canadian flag and say: "I am going to jump and the flag will open like a parachute to bring me to the promised land." This reminds me of my mother-in-law. She dreams that Celine Dion is getting married and the pope is coming to sing at her wedding. Dreams are not for real. I too dream that Chretien and Mulroney become gas station attendants. However this will not come true. So the hon. members who are dreaming must wake up.


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

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
April 21, 1993

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 67 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill which is now before the House.


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the division be deferred until later today, that is until 8 p.m., meaning that the bells will ring for 15 minutes starting at 7.45 p.m. and that the vote will be held at 8 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been asked by the parliamentary secretary to defer the vote until a later time.

Accordingly pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 7.45 p.m. today, at which time the bells will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Thx Act, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and a related act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and a related act, as reported with amendments from the legislative committee.
Although the name of the bill relates to tax and taxation it has other implications including health. As I understand the bill, there are four measures being presented in it.
One, there will be tighter controls on the distribution and sale of duty-free tobacco products. Two, there will be improved markings on tobacco products to better identify duty-free tobacco products. Third, there will be the addition of proceeds of crime provisions to the Excise Act and Customs Act to enable law enforcement agencies to seize the proceeds of crime. This could be a big deterrent. Finally, there will be the imposition of higher penalties for smugglers and sellers of contraband goods.
That is the intent of this bill. In essence, by allowing this to proceed it could impose an increase in export taxes and impose higher fines on smugglers and sellers of contraband. As well, it will also help stop tax evasion.
I should say at the outset that the root cause of smuggling in this country is moral decadence and the absence of a public sense of duty to fellow citizens. When that duty to fellow citizens to protect their health is omitted then there is really a danger to our nation.
I submit that when we allow the sacrifice of human lives and greed for money to run a personal business of smuggling then there is really something wrong with our

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
country. We ought to undertake as a nation any means we can marshal to stop this moral cancer.
The implications in this bill go beyond taxation itself. They go to the area of health care. There are also implications in this bill for the tobacco farmers and there are implications for workers in the tobacco industry.
I would like the government to have a multi-faceted approach, not a patchwork or piecemeal approach, to increasing taxation thereby decreasing smuggling and the consumption of cigarettes. These are all excellent goals that we hope to attain as a country.
In so doing there is no doubt that there will be hardships and difficulties on the tobacco farmers and there will be hardships and difficulties on the workers in the tobacco industry. We must have alternative programs for those workers. We must have government aid.


Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I think the government should hear what the hon. member has to say. There is not a single minister in the House, and that is against the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind the hon. member that no comment on the presence or absence of colleagues in the House is in order.


Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: At least one minister should always be in the House and there is none. When a bill is before the House at least one minister should be here to listen to the opposition. I would like to take this opportunity to ask whether we have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We do not have a quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We do now have a quorum. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, certainly the point made was that we would like members of the government side to listen to the debate.
The debate about the health of our nation and the health of our citizens is so important that we ought to have a minister of the government present in the House of Commons. It is a point well taken by one of my colleagues.
Bill C-102 has implications for the tobacco fanners and the workers in the tobacco industry. We have an obligation to those workers and farmers that as we pursue the intent of this bill we do not forget them in our programs. We must have programs to help the farmers diversify their crops during the transition period as the sale of tobacco decreases.
We must have training programs for the workers so they can acquire the skills to face the new challenges in fields other than the tobacco industry.
I would like to state very clearly as the critic for the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, that we support increased taxation on cigarettes as part of the over-all strategy to decrease the consumption of tobacco and cigarettes in this country.
This is only part of the over-all strategy. Taxes alone are not enough. We say categorically it is the official Liberal policy that we will not roll back taxes on cigarettes.
What do I say about those who control the policies in the tobacco industry? We have to challenge them and their consciences so they do not direct life-style advertising at our young Canadians.
It is known that if we are able to prevent people from smoking before the age of 18 years they are much less likely to smoke later on. What a tremendous success. I should say to our tobacco industry that is concerned about the success of our anti-smoking policy that we can be a model for other countries.
April 21, 1993

It is difficult. It is a dilemma because we would like to support the workers in this industry and the source of the product, the farmers, as well. However we have to help them with other programs because the industry producing cigarettes is about the only industry that truly produces a product that harms Canadians. It leads to harm.
The harm to the Canadian citizen starts even before birth. It affects the growing child, adolescents and adults. We know the human toll in terms of disability from disease caused by smoking. It affects the lungs. It causes the destruction of our air sacs. It causes obstruction of air flow. The afflicted citizen has difficulty breathing, yet continues to live for a long time with the disability. It exacts a human toll on the quality of life of that Canadian citizen afflicted with the smoking habit. It also impacts on the productivity of that citizen in the labour force.
It also leads to other diseases. It is a significant cause of heart disease and cancer, particularly of the lungs. When you put this all together it shortens the life span.
After a period of time smoking becomes an addiction that is not easily broken. The government must have programs to help those addicted to stop the habit of smoking.
Cigarette smoking has also led to fires and the loss of homes. The toll it exacts on the human person in terms of disability and illness impacts on our medicare system in the course of delivering health care. The cost of our medicare system would go down considerably if we could prevent a number of illnesses related to smoking.
As we look at Bill C-102 let us not forget that we must also challenge the manufacturers of cigarettes to stop directing their life-style advertising at youth so they do not start smoking.
We should also have programs to help those who are already smoking but not yet addicted stop their habit while it is still sheer habit and not an addiction.
Let us also provide counselling services for those afflicted. Let us have a government program to help distribute the nicotine patch and instruct people in its
Government Orders
proper use. We congratulated the government when the change in labelling was passed recently. It is an issue that this critic from the Liberal caucus has demanded from this government since 1989 when I was first elected to this House.
We welcome increased fines to vendors to prevent them from selling cigarettes to our youth.
We should also delete the industries' names when they sponsor sporting and cultural events.
In this position taken strongly by the Liberal Party we have the support not only of those opposed to smoking for the reasons I have indicated, but the support of the smokers who would like to break the habit.
The Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and many other health groups support us and many Canadians in our efforts to have an over-all strategy to help stop smoking.
In conclusion, Bill C-102 is truly a challenge to leadership. When things are good in the country and there are no problems there is almost no need for strong leadership because there is agreement. When hard choices have to be made there is a real call to leadership.
We want to send the message that the smuggling must stop. It is inherently morally decadent and the continued practice of smuggling and selling contraband affects many Canadians.
We also want to indicate that we care about the tobacco farmers and the workers in the industry. When we have the opportunity to form the government after the next election we will have programs for them so we can truly have a consensus in this country.
I challenge this government to seek international co-operation. It must talk to the United States government and President Clinton and tell them to follow our example. In that case there will be almost no opportunity for smugglers to make a packet on the health of Canadian citizens. We need a comprehensive approach.
I am delighted to have spoken on this bill. The Official Opposition supports this bill because we feel it will help stop smuggling to a great degree.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
It will help prevent smoking. It will help those who are smokers to stop smoking. I have one last word. We can have all the laws in the land but if we do not provide the resources and the human personnel at the borders to help enforce the laws those laws may mean nothing.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Corbeil that Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water, be read the third time and passed.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that my caucus supports this legislation and will be voting in favour of it.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I too, along with my colleague from Thunder Bay, had the privilege to serve on the Standing Committee on Transport. It saw members from the government side and Her Majesty's Official Opposition, as well as the third party, work together to conclude a process that will see the modernization of Canada's existing legislation concerning the carriage of goods by water by adopting on a gradual basis the two international conventions known as the Hague-Visby rules and the Hamburg rules. Until that committee meeting I did not know what the Hamburg rules were. It turned out that they were a lot more than two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce and cheese.
In the absence of an industry-wide agreement on the adoption of either of the two rules the stage approach represents a compromise that ensures that the Canadian law is at least in step, and this is what we had a concern with in committee, with that of our trading partners.
We too will co-operate with the government on the passage of Bill C-83.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I concur with my Liberal colleague and my New Democrat colleague. We had a long debate on that bill on Friday just before the Easter recess and I believe that we reached a consensus. Therefore, I would ask for the consent of the House to move that the bill be adopted on division.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I just had to rise for a moment on behalf of the government to tell all those assembled who are listening that Bill C-97 is an act respecting marine insurance. It is a new act that is intended to provided a very clear legal framework for marine insurance contracts.
The Marine Insurance Act will establish for the very first time a federal framework that governs the relationship between marine insurers and insurance buyers, their rights and obligations under a marine insurance contract and the principles and conditions of indemnity for losses covered by the contract.
I would like to express everybody's appreciation, all members of Parliament, to the transport committee for their excellent work. They worked particularly hard but with a great deal of co-operation because it was helpful to the nation. Opposition members may not be able to say that in their own sense but I would like to say on behalf of government members that the co-operation
April 21, 1993

from the opposition was much appreciated in this situation.
That same transport committee dealt with Bill C-83 and thus saved some further valuable time of the House and the nation for a good purpose as well. The way these two bills we are dealing with had been treated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I realize that I made a mistake. We have no amendments at report stage. There is no debate.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I just would point out to the House and Canadians who are listening that for a member from Calgary, Alberta, marine insurance in our area is not particularly large. However, the consequences of marine insurance do affect prices across the nation because maritime shipping is an important aspect in the lives of all of us.
I want to say thanks again to the committee and to say to Canadians that the importance of this piece of legislation should not be measured by the length of the debate but on its merits which are indeed considerable.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, before we call the vote with regard to this matter I want to thank the hon. member opposite who expressed his appreciation for members of the opposition on how they acquitted themselves on this particular piece of legislation.
I know my colleague would want to be even more specific in thanking the hon. member for Hamilton West who is a very distinguished member of this House, as well as my colleague from Ottawa South who has also
Government Orders
followed this legislation very carefully and with great prudence.
My party is happy to support the subject matter which is before us but I do want to thank the hon. member from Calgary who has expressed his appreciation to members of the Official Opposition and I am sure members of the third party and others for their co-operation with regard to this subject matter.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of brief comments.
We are obviously supporting the legislation as we did in committee and as we did at second reading. However, I think the public does not appreciate the kind of work that members of Parliament do and that there are a lot of pieces of legislation that are processed through this House that are not partisan in any way. They are reviewed in a thoughtful and conscientious manner by members of all sides of the House. They come from the departments. In this case it was the Department of Transport but it could be Employment and Immigration, Revenue or what have you. We look at them and seem them as appropriate mechanism and appropriate changes to bring the laws into today's time.
These two bills, the one before us and the previous one, are examples of that. We looked at them. We talked to people who had concerns about them. In some cases we made some minor modifications but basically they were good pieces of legislative work.
Too often in the press we are seen as combatants as opposed to partners in making Canada work. These two bills are examples of the kind of work we do here on a regular basis.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I concur with my friend from Thunder Bay. He is absolutely right. In short order government members, members of the Official Opposition and members of the NDP worked together on these two bills. It was not an easy piece of work: we had to sit down and had to read over these things.
Obviously we trust each other to a certain extent but there always has to be that check and balance when it comes to legislation before the House. Therefore we spent some time sitting in our offices between the hours

April 21, 1993
Government Orders
of 6 p.m. and whenever we left for home reading through these kinds of things and making sure they all work.
What we found, especially on Bill C-97, was that the main provisions established a statutory framework for the contractual relationship of the principal parties to a contract of marine insurance specifically, for example the insurer and the insured and their respective rights and obligations arising out of the contract and the principles of indemnity for losses covered by the contract. The legislation is essential to correct all the anomalies and uncertainties that make the conduct of business unpredictable in so far as marine insurance contracts are concerned.
I thank the opposition House leader and my colleague from Ottawa South. We worked hard on the bill and achieved something we can be proud of, something that will better the business of Canada.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since there are only a few seconds left before the bells at 7.45 p.m., I would ask that the proceedings of the House be suspended and that the vote take place at 8 p.m.


Louis Plamondon: This is a government without ideas which is not even capable of tabling bills. We are ready, we are here to debate and we have no intention of stopping now. When bills are tabled, they must be
debated.
When bills are tabled, they must be discussed and
debated.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there is nothing left on the Orders of the Day, since there is no bill right now, the sitting of the House is suspended for two minutes, until 7.45 p.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 7.43 p.m.. [English]


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 7.45 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 21 to 64 inclusive.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 7.45 p.m., pursuant to order adopted earlier this day pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The first question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 20 inclusive.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blondin-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) Turner (Vancouver Quadra)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Therefore I declare Motions Nos. 2 to 20 lost.
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley
Brightwell
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clifford
Collins
Corbett
Couture
Danis
Della Noce Dobbie Duplessis Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Holtmann
Horning
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Larrivee
Littlechild
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River)
Malone
Mayer
McCreath
McKnight
Merrithew
Monteith
Nicholson
Paproski
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Halibu rton)
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Vankoughnet
Vien
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bjomson
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling
Dick
Dorin
Epp
Felt ham Fontaine Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson
Hawkes
Horner
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Langlois
Lewis
Lopez
MacKay
Marin
Mazankowski
McDermid
McLean
Mitges
Moore
O'Kurley
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle
Vezina
Vincent
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-118


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think You Honour may find that the House would be willing to apply the result of the vote on Motion No. 1 to all other divisions except those on Motions Nos. 38 and 66 in terms of the amendments to the bill.
We would apply the result of the vote on Motion No. 1 to all other divisions except those on Motions Nos. 38 and 66, and then we would apply the result of the vote on Motion No. 1 in reverse to Motion No. 38. That will necessitate an actual vote on Motion No. 66.


Mrs. Catterall:: Mr. Speaker, not to withhold unanimous consent but merely to indicate that in giving it I would expect the indulgence of the House, since I was not here for the first vote, to add my name to the vote as recorded with my party.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. White:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I agree but I will be voting in favour of all the motions from Motion No. 21 forward and then with the government on the final motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blondin-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) Turner (Vancouver Quadra)

[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blond in-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) Tbmer (Vancouver Quadra)
The Etouse divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 464)
++YEAS
Althouse
Angus
Barrett
Bevilacqua
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brewin
Caccia
Crawford
Dingwall
Duhamel
FI is
Members
Anawak
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Blaikie
Boudria
But land
Catterall
de Jong
Dionne
Ferguson
Fontana
Foster
Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)
Heap
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacLaren
Manley
McGuire
Mitchell
Pagtakhan
Plamondon
Samson
Stupich
Vanclief
Walker
White
Funk
Gardiner
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Laporte
Lee
MacLellan
Marleau
Milliken
Nunziata
Parker
Robinson
Stewart
Taylor
Venne
Wappel
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-60
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley
Brightwell
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clifford
Collins
Corbett
Couture
Danis
Della Noce
Dobbie
Duplessis
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Holtmann
Horning
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Larrivee
Littlechild
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River)
Malone
Mayer
McCreath
McKnight
Merrithew
Monteith
Nicholson
Paproski
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Vankoughnet
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bjornson
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling
Dick
Dorin
Epp
Feltham
Fontaine
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventu re-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson
Hawkes
Horner
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Langlois
Lewis
Lopez
MacKay
Marin
Mazankowski
McDermid
McLean
Mitges
Moore
O'Kurley
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle Vezina
[Stage Direction]
April 21, 1993
Government Orders
Vien	Vincent
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-117

[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blondin-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) Turner (Vancouver Quadra)

[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blondin-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) TUmer (Vancouver Quadra)

[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont -Du ndas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blondin-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) TUrner (Vancouver Quadra)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 66.



[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blondin-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) Tlirner (Vancouver Quadra)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.



[Stage Direction]
Blais
Cadieux
Clancy
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Loiselle
Roy-Arcelin
Blondin-Andrew Charest de Cotret Harb
Karygiannis
Landry
MacDonald (Rosedale) TUrner (Vancouver Quadra)
++NAYS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley
Brightwell
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clifford
Collins
Corbett
Couture
Danis
Andre
Altewell
Belsher
Bjornson
Blenkam
Bouchard (Roberval) Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West) Darling


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.

April 21, 1993
Government Orders


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:


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find the House willing to apply the vote taken on Motion No. 1 in the name of Mr. Dingwall in reverse to this motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House.
It being 8.20 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 22,1993