1993-04-02

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water, as amended, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Shirley Martin: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present for third reading Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water. This act is intended to modernize Canadian legislation concerned with the rules of liability and compensation for damage or loss of goods during carriage by water.
The new act will make Canada's shipping laws more consistent with those of its trading partners.
I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Transport for their consideration of this bill, the specific amendments which they proposed and which clarify certain aspects of the new legislation.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues with respect to Bill C-83, the carriage of goods by water act. This bill tabled by the government provides for the
Minister of Transport to report to the House of Commons on the advisability of replacing the existing Hague-Visby rules with the Hamburg rules. That action would take place prior to December 31, 1999.
I want to say that the NDP transport critic, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, is unable to be here today. Nevertheless he was instrumental in the process that led up to the debate we are having today. He suggested to the committee and was able to convince the Standing Committee on Transport which reviewed this bill to change it to require the report by the minister be automatically forwarded to the Standing Committee on Transport and the committee have the power to "undertake a review of the minister's report and the committee shall report its findings back to the House including a statement on the advisability of enacting the Hamburg rules".
While to most people this change would seem to be an extremely minor one, it is part of the broader issue which I am also interested in of giving additional powers and responsibilities to standing committees.
Too often the standing committee is excluded from the decision-making process. While from time to time ministers refer specific matters to a standing committee, such as the white paper on freedom to move and deregulation and the National Transportation Agency Review Commission report, as another one that comes to mind, at other times the committee itself decides to embark on a review of a policy matter such as the VIA Rail cuts, high speed rail, or the St. Lawrence Seaway, for example. Nevertheless there is still a broad range of policy decision making that standing committees have not been involved in. This is one more way of involving the standing committee in a meaningful way in the policymaking process.
Many bills passed by the House have a mandatory review provision built into them. In some cases the review occurs after the act has been in place for five years like the WGTA or three years like the Transportation Safety Board. In these cases the government appoints an independent commission to conduct the work.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
The NTA review commission, which was just recently completed, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. There are those of us who believe that the Standing Committee on Transport which reviewed the original policy paper, Freedom to Move and the enabling legislation, could have done the job of the five-year review at considerably lower cost to the taxpayer and, I might say, I think with different conclusions.
The same argument could be made for the now under way review of the Transportation Safety Board Act being conducted only three years after the act was passed. The transport committee helped create the new board through its work in reviewing the original act and they could be charged with the task of seeing how well that act is working.
In any event what we have before us today is a small step for the transport committee and for parliamentary reform in so far as it affects the committee, but it is one that we are happy to see.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I was not sure it was necessary to engage in debate on this bill but perhaps in response to the remarks made by the member for Winnipeg Transcona I would like to affirm the fact that the committee in considering this legislation, Bill C-83 as well as Bill C-97, operated on a very co-operative and non-partisan basis. Amendments proposed by all three parties were accepted in the course of the discussions concerning the bill. I think on all sides our feeling was that the effort of the transport committee in reviewing this legislation improved its quality.
It was a demonstration of the fact that when presented with the task, in this case the revision of the private international law concerning carriage of goods by sea, this place can work effectively together and can contribute added value to the legislative process.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise in this House to speak on Bill C-83.
This act respecting the transportation of goods by water which was referred to the transport committee has brought to light an issue that ought to be pointed out in
this debate at report stage. Through the transport committee, we could, without prejudice to efficiency, with members who are interested in transportation, allow this committee to get more involved in terms of recommendations and encourage government to pay attention to these recommendations.
For one thing, the transport committee could very well do the work that independent commissions are set up for. Independent commissions are created right and left to make recommendations to government, and then these recommendations are implemented, be it in transportation or other areas. What if, to save money in these recessionary times, government decided to pay more attention-which I think it did indeed in this bill-to the input from the transport committee? Then, the legislative committees could recommend that such and such amendment or item be examined at the transport committee level. This way, instead of spending thousands of dollars on independent commissions, the government could use the money to let parliamentarians-because there would not just be members of Parliament involved-play a much more interesting part in this process.
Members of Parliament, especially those with no direct connection to cabinet, regularly complain about not being involved in the decision-making process. And this is true of members on both side of this House. This is a fine example of them actually playing an active part in developing recommendations. The same should be done at the standing committee level to develop recommendations that would be taken into account by government and save the cost of independent commissions-we are talking about millions of dollars here-which end up duplicating the recommendations from the standing committee and then, in many instances, the recommendations are shelved for years.
A major point to bear in mind while debating this bill, as the NDP spokesperson pointed out, is the renewal of some legislation after five years. That colleague was saying that, instead of relying on an independent commission to renew the act for five years, the Committee on Transport could, during its regular work, make that recommendation and thus avoid duplication. God knows there is a lot of duplication here in the House of Commons, as well as in provincial legislatures, which is very unfortunate. It is necessary in times of economic
April 2, 1993

Government Orders
crisis to reduce gouvernment spending and that seems tacts with the people, their contacts with groups involved very important to me.	in transportation or, for that matter, in other areas.
We say in this bill that we must review transport safety every three years. Well, all the boards that are being set up could be monitored by the Committee on Transport instead of independent commissions hired by contract to submit recommendations.
I have an example in my riding of a lady, Mrs. Chaloux, whose husband unfortunately died at sea. She had to wait a year and a half before she got the safety report from the government.
It was during a meeting that I arranged for her and which took place on March 4 in Montreal that the board in question agreed to give her the safety report. Her husband has been dead for two years and she still does not know why he died. And how was that ship allowed to sail considering the state of its safety equipment? Several people died, and in that area of the Lower St. Lawrence, several accidents happened.
The boards that are appointed and which make recommendations to us every three years are often not as close to the day-to-day reality of things that are happening in the transportation area than are members of Parliament, who have the feeling on their side, who sit on the Committee on Transport and are involved in it. It is an example that we must follow in the future business of the House and the committees. It seems to me that on the democratic road that will guide us for the years to come, there should be an incentive, even a commitment from the government to take into account the recommendations from the standing committees, such as the one on transport, and to reduce considerably the number of independent commissions and contracts that are awarded to them which often look like patronage to reward some friends of the party or to give a few contracts to lobbyists who are a little too annoying.
In that sense we are wasting the Canadian or Quebecer taxpayers' money by disregarding the role of members, their recommendations, their observations, their con-
Moreover, by involving members we would realize substantial savings. I repeat that this is duplication since members already do that work on the transport committee which makes recommendations so there is no point striking an independent commission to confirm the same thing. This belittles the role of hon. members. Conversely it is gratifying to be able to act, to be the focal point for the demands of our regions, and this is a role members want to play, especially those we call backbenchers. Committee members would feel that they are doing something useful. They would feel part of the democratic process of government. Moreover, this would save money and we know how badly the government wants to control spending.
The committee which worked on this is a good example of what I am saying. It came up with interesting recommendations. As mentioned earlier, the government spokesperson underlined the fact that we came up with some sort of consensus following transport committee hearings. Thanks to the efforts of all political parties involved, the committee was able to agree on recommendations.
I am glad, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, to say that we are going to give our support to this bill which results from a real democratic reflection and involvement of all political parties. As was said earlier about the Hamburg rule, we had a greater involvement of members in committee, an enhanced role for the transport committee, a fact which in the future might pave the way for other recommendations and a similar role for other committees. I thank the hon. member for Longueuil, the transport critic, for allowing me to say a few words on this subject. Normally he would be the one to address the House on such important matters. The hon. member for Laval is asking: "Why not today?" He very kindly let me speak first, being the House leader, but I assume he will have his own comments to add as well, considering a public statement he made recently about Montreal's two airports.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
Our critic also sat on the transport committee, and he was somewhat surprised to hear that Pearson was the only airport designated as national by the Minister of Transport, the others being considered regional airports.
Obviously a review is necessary. Our position is that we are here to defend the interests of Quebec in the House of Commons. The minister decided, for instance, to help Canadian and not Nationair. I think he was right, but he should have refused to help Canadian as well. However, these decisions should have been considered within the context of a comprehensive review of air transportation in Canada and of the entire transportation sector.
We want to defend the interests of Quebec here in the House of Commons in no uncertain terms. We feel that any policies being considered by the minister should include a comprehensive review of air transport and of the entire transportation sector in this country. For instance, he should have refused to help Canadian as he refused to help Nationair, which was the right decision.
Until there is a comprehensive review our critic will have some very interesting things to say and publish very shortly in the party platform the Bloc Quebecois is preparing for the next election campaign regarding the specific role we will play in this House in securing a return on the money we pay to the federal government.
As long as we pay taxes to Ottawa we will have a return on those taxes. This is vital in the transportation sector.
My transport critic pointed out the monumental mistake made by Parliament when it decided on the location of Mirabel airport. The highway link is no longer possible because it would now cost $150,000 to go under the runways.
They should have listened to the Government of Quebec and selected a site for the airport near Saint-Jean, Saint-Hyacinthe or Drummondville. It would have been in Quebec's economic heartland and the province's economic interests would have been well served. This was a monumental mistake.
I am not saying it was the present government's fault. This was done by the previous government but it is clear the present government is perpetuating, not correcting the mistakes made by the previous government. The
same applies to the deficit. The deficit was criticized for years, and now it has become intolerable. In fact, an initial deficit of $200 billion has now more than doubled under the Conservative government.
Basically nothing has changed. Increasingly Quebecers realize that they would be better off managing their own interests, their own money, both in the transportation sector and in other sectors. They would, of course, respect the rights of other Canadians and want to establish economic ties with the rest of Canada. Quebecers would like to see their taxes managed exclusively by the people and their elected representatives in the National Assembly and not by a government next door that redistributes taxes through equalization payments which it can freeze at any time, thus creating an imbalance of $700 or $800 million. This is what happened to Quebec during the past two years. The Quebec government had to take this shortfall and pass it on to the school boards and municipalities because it was not getting enough money from the federal government, equalization payments being frozen.
This is really too bad. We see this happening with equalization payments and we see the same thing in the transport sector. The Minister of Transport has sorely neglected the needs of the Montreal region. This coupled with poor decision making which has affected the transport sector in Quebec, has caused the Montreal region to suffer tremendous economic setbacks during the past ten years.
There is a pressing need for transferring authority in the transport and other sectors to Quebec's elected representatives. Under an economic union, we could have agreements reflecting the interests of the two countries that will soon constitute the territoiy still referred to today as Canada.
In conclusion I hope that hon. members will consider the committee's recommendations and that the report stage of Bill C-83 will be adopted as soon as possible. Very specific recommendations were made and an indepth study was conducted by the committees which considered the bill, including the transport committee. I think the NDP critic did an extremely good job on this committee. His comments and the amendments to the recommendations he suggested impressed most committee members.
April 2, 1993

The Government was very open-minded with that bill. Nevertheless it should be amended. This study on water transportation of goods will have an important impact in terms of safety-I mentioned earlier the case of Mrs. Chaloux-and in terms of better management of water transport without increasing the cost of that mode of transportation. We know that in all departments and agencies costs have a tendency to rise not excessively but too quickly in my view when compared to Canada's revenue in these times of deep economic recession.
I do not know exactly how much time I have left, but I will conclude by saying once again that I hope other members will comment on this bill. I am surprised by the government's brief statement. One can feel it is engaging in the report stage almost reluctantly. I would have preferred a speech with definite substance that would have shown some will on the part of the Tory government to implement this bill as soon as possible and to try to get royal assent from the Senate, also as soon as possible, particularly in the matter of water safety. I am really concerned about that aspect because of my work with the Standing Committee on Transport.
I see the member for Saint-Maurice is in the House. I know how great his interests and his competence are in the area of transport. He was a member of the transport committee where he made many valuable statements and recommendations. I remember for example during conflicts and closures in Montreal, namely at Via Rail and the CN, the member for Saint-Maurice made a strong statement just by referring to some articles in the collective agreement, if I am not mistaken, making rail transport very expensive.
He is well known also for his expertise in the transportation of goods by water. I would be very happy to hear him corroborate what the NDP critic said as well as what the Liberal critic had to say. I would be happy to hear the member for Saint-Maurice, being aware of his expertise and of his talent regarding transportation as well as of the investigative mind he has always applied in this field and for which he was greatly admired by all the members of the transport committee. Actually I think that he was chairman or vice-chairman of this committee at one point.
Government Orders
Such expertise would certainly be very useful to the House today if he would be so kind as to share his point of view on transportation by water with us. As I said his opinion ar.d his sound judgement in this field for which he is well known would be very useful to the House today. I am convinced that he could tell us how vigorously he had to intervene during caucus meetings to press the point that this bill was fair and necessary, especially in terms of transport safety and duplication of services.
He was a member of this committee along with several Conservative members and he did an excellent job. I congratulate him. It is said that we are more inclined to congratulate someone when we know he will not run again, but that is not the case for me. I have always had an excellent relationship with the member for Saint-Maurice in our discussions regarding transportation in the years to come and the future of the Mauricie area. I know how dear these two issues are to him and how dedicated he is to them. It is regardless of whether he runs again or not that I am asking him to intervene today on this issue in order to enrich this debate at the report stage so that when we take a vote on it, at third reading or at report stage, we will have had more in-depth participation from Conservative members. There was just one speech from the government this morning which lasted only a few minutes and I think that this is clearly not enough at report stage to highlight the last day of the final debate on Bill C-83.
I also have mixed feelings regarding the Liberal member's remarks. Somehow I know that he did a very good job in committee and, as always, his work reflected his perception of the way we should go about the democratic process in the House of Commons and particularly in committees. He worked hard to reach a consensus on that important matter and to avoid confrontation. For instance, his arguments on duplication, and particularly on security, gave transparency to the bill and convinced all political parties of the desirability of reaching for unanimity, even the independent members who showed great interest and admiration. I see that my 20 minutes are over.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me to express my opinion and I want to congratulate all the members who sat on the committee.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
I hope this bill will be adopted very quickly because it is amounts of money only to get to the result that transport in the best interest of Canadians and Quebecers.	companies in general end up having deficit after deficit.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to speak especially-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member will allow me I would just like to call the attention of the House on one thing. I have carefully listened to the hon. member for Richelieu who seems to believe, having said so a few times, that we are at the report stage. As no motion for amendment had been reported from the legislative committee, I have first put, a few minutes after 10 a.m., the motion for concurrence in the report to the House, which has been agreed. We are now at third reading. That is why the hon. member for Richelieu had 20 minutes. If we had been at report stage he would have had only 10 minutes, as he well knows since he is well aware of the procedure.
His 20 minutes at third reading are up. Questions and comments. Would the hon. member for Longueuil please tell the Chair if he is standing for questions and comments or for debate. I need to know in order to time
his speech.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions and make some comments on the very good speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu- It is very good because it is a substantive speech.
We have three or four different modes of transport, whether it is by water, by air or by rail, and I have always deplored the fact that there are several governments involved in that area, whether municipal, provincial or federal, and so little common interest between the different governments or even within the federal department.
The big problem we see lies in a blatant lack of dialogue. Often, for example, water transport is supported to the detriment of rail transport or to the detriment of air transport and as a result governments spend money to promote air transport while subsidizing rail or water transports which compete between themselves. Governments spend money to promote one to the detriment of the other and then subsidize the other to the detriment of the first one. This becomes a kind of vicious circle wherein governments spend staggering
As we have seen the air and rail transport industries are faced with huge deficits mainly because of a lack of co-operation between the various levels of government.
When I was a government member, the member for Roberval, the then Minister of Transport, decided to cut down VTA's funding. I asked him if he had consulted with the public transit authorities in Montreal to see if some of the lines could be used for urban transit in the Montreal area. He said that matter did not come within his responsibility and that his only concern was with VIA. Since urban transit was an area of provincial jurisdiction it was not his problem.
When a minister shows very little interest in co-operating with other levels of government we have to realize that it is going to cost a bundle. That explains the present deficit which is $10 billion over the government's forecast for 1992.
That is absolutely unacceptable and that is why I have decided to take part in this debate today. The situation in the transportation industry is a real mess.
I would like to know if the hon. member for Richelieu agrees with me that there is a total lack of co-operation between the various transportation modes in Canada.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Manicouagan seems quite interested by the nice comment just made by the hon. member for Longueuil, so much so in fact that I take his smile as applause. He does not want to disturb this House, even though this could be rather easily done, given the small number of members who seem to take an interest in this very important debate.
I want to thank the hon. member for Longueuil who, by pointing out what goes on at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, as well as with the different commissions, raised precisely the issue which I wanted to bring up, namely the duplication and the indescribable mess in the field of transport because of the number of offices.
This bill deals with the transportation of goods by sea.
I mentioned earlier the case where we had to wait for two years to get the results of an inquiry in the death of three or four people. This is unbelievable. The situation
April 2, 1993

is such because of the complexity of the administration of the different offices of the Department of Transport.
The situation is the same in the railroad sector. We discovered that a field where wheat had been sowed for 33 years still belonged, at least in part, to CN. It took 33 years before finally deciding to sell a strip of land the length of the House of Commons to the farmer who had been cultivating it for 33 years. This is an example of the mess to which the hon. member for Longueuil referred.
In my constituency there is a railway which they have just decided to abandon. The bridges linking the two regions of my riding fell 20 years ago and had never been repaired. Twenty years went by before deciding to abandon a line which was not used by any train. It took two and a half years to make the decision. The decision was made that long ago, but it will take another year before the land is transferred to owners along the railway. You can imagine the mess.
On the other hand, if the transport committee, as I said earlier, could make recommendations if not decisions which would be binding for the minister, it could ensure the review of each case of nonchalance by the offices and the various bodies which manage the transportation sector in Canada and particularly the transportation of goods by water. In the latter we know the demands made by the security officers regarding safety.
We are downgrading their services, considering them as insignificant safety officers on the same level as much lower officials. These officers have met every member of the House in the past month. The debate on it here has been incredible; they almost want to make ship inspection completely routine. That is an officer would go on the boat with a short questionnaire in which he would ask, for example, if they have a certain kind of pump or such and such a system. He would check off the appropriate box just as if you were being questioned for health insurance and are asked if you ever had a certain disease. You say no. The report is put in a drawer and that is the end of it. At the present time safety inspectors get on board and do the checks based on their training and knowledge about safety. They can do that and thanks to them we have not had a major accident in the river but a great danger is approaching. Safety conditions are deteri-
Govemment Orders
orating badly on Canadian vessels plying the waters of Quebec and Canada. In that respect, the member for Longueuil is quite right to talk about duplication; everyone is looking after his own interest and preventing Canadians and Quebecers from getting a guarantee of total safety.
This bill is an improvement but it could be much better. If we had a more in-depth review and if the transport committee had more power, goods would be shipped much more safely by water and other modes of transport. The member for Longueuil pointed that out when he mentioned the different levels of government involved in transportation.
This means that decisions are harder and harder to make and bureaucracy is even more cumbersome and the fragmentation of transport management means that after a disaster or after a situation is analysed, everything is turned over not to the transport committee which could act quickly, but to independent commissions that are paid millions of dollars and produce reports which are shelved as are the reports of the transport committee. Then an incident happens and another commission is charged with summarizing the old recommendations and making new ones so that it takes two or three years to come up with concrete solutions. This makes transport management more difficult. Transportation has a very big impact on Canadians and is extremely important to Quebec's economic development, especially because of the seaway. We saw that this winter when the Coast Guard made a doubtful decision about ice booms and the seaway was blocked for months. Madam Speaker, I see you are indicating that I have a minute left. I shall comply with your order immediately. I was saying that ships were directed to other ports, thus reducing business in our ports. My 10 minutes are now up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for transport I am pleased to rise today to speak on transport, and more specifically on marine transport.
I know that this bill is designed to improve the transportation of goods by water, to facilitate the berthing of our ships in small harbours, et cetera. I support this bill, but what concerns me most is the fact that once

Government Orders
again the government paid particular attention to transportation by water.
I am not convinced that the government took the necessary time to analyze the negative impact which the improvements made regarding transportation by water could have on the railroad industry.
As we are well aware, the CN chairman once again came to Ottawa this week. He appeared before the transport committee and he confirmed once again there would be an additional lay off of more than 1,000 employees at the CN.
We, members of the Bloc Quebecois, met the CP president a few months ago and he told us that the big problem for the railroad industry is the fact that shipping by sea is partly subsidized. So is transport by surface, since roads are built by governments, whereas railroad companies must build their railroads themselves. The costs incurred by railway companies are enormous, given the fact that they are in direct competition with the road transportation sector for which the roads are paid and insured by governments. This means that the railway companies are at a total disadvantage and this becomes totally unfair.
This is what I meant to say earlier. There is no consultation between the various transportation sectors in Canada and in Quebec. There is absolutely no consultation. Consequently governments subsidize some forms of transport to the detriment of others, which generates unfair competition and forces governments to pay and pay all the time. Transportation companies complain about this unfairness. Consequently the government decides to subsidize this transport sector, whether it is the rail, the marine or the air industry. This is a vicious circle in the sense that the government ends up paying all the time.
This is an obvious problem of bad management, and this is why I want to take this opportunity today to deal with the transport sector because this lack of consultation is totally unacceptable. I do not understand why people who are supposedly intelligent, educated and used to working in a industrialized country which is said to be number one in the world, cannot grasp this.
I also cannot understand why there are two airports in Montreal which are not operating successfully. I cannot understand why the government does not react. Also I never understood why, when Mirabel was built, the airport was north of the runways, while the population lives south of those runways. This is beyond me. I asked that question on several occasions to the transport committee in past years. As you know, Madam Speaker, this is my ninth year here as a member of Parliament, and I have had several opportunities to ask questions to the transport committee. I did ask why Mirabel airport was built north of the runways, while the population is located south of those runways. I never got much of an answer until about six months ago when experts provided one. I do not know if it is because I now sit with the opposition that I got an answer. I was told that when Mirabel was built it was first to serve the interests of Ottawa and Montreal. Autoroute 50 between Ottawa and Mirabel was supposed to be built, as well as autoroute 13 between Mirabel and Montreal, but the airport was built north of the runways to first serve Ottawa.
That is scandalous. Today highway 13 has still not been completed because it would cost $150 million to go under the runways, with the air terminal building located north of them.
That is completely unacceptable. I cannot understand it. I am an ordinary individual who does not know much. I am not an expert on transportation or economics but some things in life are just plain logical. This situation is beyond me.
I come back to my argument that transport should be managed by the Government of Quebec in the first place. As the old saying goes, you are never as well served as when you serve yourself. The day we are served by our Quebec government we will not put an airport in Mirabel to serve Ottawa instead of Montreal. That is what happened and I have proof. Experts finally admitted to me that Mirabel was built to serve Ottawa first.
I can tell you that Montrealers have had enough of the rivalry between these two airports. While traffic at Pearson Airport is growing, our Montreal airports are barely holding their own. According to the experts this
April 2, 1993

mess with two airports in Montreal costs the Quebec economy about $5 to $6 billion.
This leads me to say again that this lack of co-ordination among the modes of transport costs citizens and taxpayers huge amounts, exorbitantly high amounts for an outdated transportation system.
It is imperative that the federal, Quebec and municipal governments get together and agree on a comprehensive plan so that our marine, air, rail and truck transport can be profitable.
We know that transportation is one of the most important industries in Quebec, but the way it is managed in general is scandalous. I cannot understand how intelligent people can be that stupid.
With transportation everything is interrelated. People and goods have to be moved. Passengers travel by train, bus or car, by rail or by road. Encouraging transportation by road, for example, hurts the railway; encouraging transportation by rail hurts the bus lines.
We recently heard the Minister of Transport announce that he is restoring Via Rail service between Montreal and Quebec City.
That is very nice and the minister can boast that VIA Rail is running again between Quebec City and Montreal; it looks good to say such things. He has just announced another subsidy, but when the minister made that announcement he forgot to say that he was subsidizing everyone who travels on VIA Rail. I do not remember the exact amount, but I think it costs the government about $130 per passenger.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he can resume his speech when we return to Government Orders.
It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Chrysler Canada Ltd. for its recent decision to upgrade its Windsor minivan plant at a total cost of some $600 million. This action speaks volumes about the attractiveness of Canada as an outstanding location for auto sector investment.
This is but one of many new capital investments in Canada announced in the past year by the big three. These investments total over $3.6 billion in value, including $1 billion at the new Ford engine plant in Windsor and $1 billion at its Oakville minivan plant, among others.
These investment announcements clearly indicate that we can compete. Canadian workers are among the world's most productive, second only to the United States and fully six and a half times more productive than their Mexican counterparts.
Ontario is close to major markets in the northeastern United States. Inflation here is lower than in most of the industrialized world and the cost of capital is becoming increasingly competitive. Our infrastructure and the quality of our labour force are vastly superior, particularly in comparison to Mexico.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, Canada's Prime Minister is off to sit on the knee of his former political masters, George Bush and Ronald Reagan, next week in California and Texas. True to form, he will mouth a major foreign policy speech while he is there.
Is it not interesting that our Prime Minister never feels the need to make such a speech in Canada? Could it be because he wants lots of applause for his efforts and realizes that his ideas are repugnant to most of his countrymen, or is it because he will clear the speech with Ron and George first to make sure it is acceptable to their Republican cohorts?

April 2, 1993
Canada needs a made at home foreign policy, not one dictated by American political has-beens whose policies have been firmly rejected by the American people.
Surely Canadians deserve to hear from their Prime Minister here in this House about what our foreign policy should be, not read about it on news wires from south of the border. Is it any wonder that Canadians feel this government has sold them out to American interests at every turn?
The Prime Minister should stay at home, call an election and face the punishment of the people that he has so richly earned.


CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Madam Speaker, according to one survey, Canada innovated again by establishing the centres of excellence three years ago.
Indeed, 15 centres of excellence across Canada have had a major impact on research and development, which are essential tools for the future of our country. With a $ 240 million budget, these centres have stopped the brain drain which used to happen in the past because of a lack of funds and resources.
Better still, these centres have attracted back to Canada Canadian researchers who were working abroad. That was a good move on the part of our government. We made that effort. It was bold at the beginning but what a nice success.
We must continue to do so; the future of our young people depends on it.


AIR QUALITY
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, sick building syndrome is very real. The Judy LaMarsh Building in Chatham, Ontario, is the regional headquarters for National Health and Welfare. Labour Canada officials closed the building last week and sent its 235 employees home.
Renovations to the sealed building have created problems. Air quality tests found the levels of organic compounds to be up to eight times higher than the acceptable standards. One woman was sent to a hospital
by ambulance with chemical bums to her throat. Fainting and irritated eyes were common.
We must find a cure for these sick buildings. Chatham is just one example. The World Health Organization says 20 per cent of all office buildings and two million workers could be affected. Fumes and lack of proper ventilation are two reasons.
After hearing of the Chatham incident my office has received calls from people in Ottawa and Toronto who have suffered the same situation.
I will be presenting a private member's bill regarding air quality in buildings. We must take action on this issue. It is not just a trendy issue but a serious health issue.


NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, on the occasion of National Wildlife Week I wish to extend an invitation to Canadians to take part in the week's activities and to team up with Canada's environmental citizens.
This week provides many opportunities for Canadians to acquire knowledge and get involved in community actions that can help wildlife throughout the year.
The government has recently instituted a number of programs under Canada's green plan to help address the problems confronting wildlife, its populations and its habitat.
An important wildlife legislative initiative recently received royal assent and regulations are now being developed to bring it into force.
While we need to remain vigilant about how our special species and spaces are cared for, much is being done to improve the health of Canadian ecosystems. National Wildlife Week is another opportunity for Canadians to get involved.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity- Spadina):: Madam Speaker, in El Salvador the convicted killers of the six Jesuit priests have been set free by an amnesty ordered by the Arena
April 2, 1993

Party government and President Cristiani. President Cristiani, Defence Minister Ponce and the armed forces have repudiated the peace accords they signed with the FMLN and United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Ghali in which they agreed to remove military officers guilty of gross human rights violations.
Death squads continue to assassinate former members of the FMLN which did honour its peace accord pledge to disarm and disband.
In Guatemala President Serrano publicly accuses journalists, NGOs and church leaders of being subversive. Last Saturday death squads sent death threats to 24 of these leaders who are helping Guatemalan refugees to return peacefully from Mexico.
Canada's government actively and generously supported United Nations mediation in both countries. Now I call on our government to ask the UN Security Council to protect the peoples of El Salvador and Guatemala from the brutality of their rulers.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Canadian banks are finally realizing the importance of co-operating in assisting small businesses. Over the past few weeks a number of banks have announced that they will actively promote the Small Businesses Loans Act and the improvement loans.
In a statement on small business the Royal Bank said its target is at least to double the number of SBLA loans it makes to this very important sector. The Royal Bank believes small business is crucial to economic recovery.
The Bank of Montreal recently said that it will continue to hold down the interest costs on all floating rate interest loans offered under the SBLA. At least until April 1, 1994 the interest rate charged on SBLA loans will be held at the Bank of Montreal's prime rate. That is 1.75 per cent below the ceiling for these loans.
Scotiabank also announced that it will offer loans under the new SBLA at prime. The offer will extend to both new and existing SBLA customers and will take effect as of April 1.
It is good to see this kind of legislation and the reaction to it.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beiyl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, the report of the UN truth commission on El Salvador linked 95 per cent of the crimes against humanity during the 12-year civil war to the army. Important recommendations of the commission, such as the removal of the justices of the supreme court and the purging of the 40 military officers named, must be implemented.
The Catholic Church, one of the main negotiators for peace in El Salvador, has paid the supreme price in the civil war with the murder of Archbishop Romero, four American nuns and six Jesuit priests.
Defence Minister General Emilio Ponce and two dozen of his military officers have been directly linked to these murders. Yet within hours of the truth commission's report President Cristiani moved to grant amnesty to all those named, including the release from jail of two of those guilty of murdering the priests.
Canada must press for implementation of the outstanding recommendations of both the truth and ad hoc commissions. Canada must express to President Cristiani, to the UN and all related agencies our absolute outrage with President Cristiani's actions.
The recommendations of the truth commission are obligatory. Every avenue must be explored to prosecute the Salvadoran military officers for atrocities committed during this war.


THE ST. LAWRENCE ACTION PLAN
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, today, the Minister of the Environment, also speaking for his colleagues the health and fisheries ministers, announced that the federal government will invest $100 million in the implementation of phase II of the St. Lawrence action plan.
The first phase of the plan produced splendid results. According to a study by Cogesult, from 1988 to 1993 the

April 2, 1993
St. Lawrence action plan resulted in the creation or preservation of 2,500 jobs a year and generated economic spin-offs of approximately $1.4 billion.
Furthermore, thanks to the plan it was possible to reduce by 74 per cent the discharge of toxic waste in the St. Lawrence by 50 industries considered as having priority, to preserve 5,000 hectares of wildlife habitat along the St. Lawrence, to create a marine park in the Saguenay and to implement survival plans for six endangered species including the beluga.
The secret of the success of phase I resides in the active participation of environmentalist groups, of-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but your time is up.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, the results are in. Voters in two Ontario by-elections have said no to the NDP and its policies.
As support for the NDP continues to decline its tactics of desperation are becoming more and more evident in the House of Commons. Its unwarranted attack on the Liberal Party over the NAFTA vote merely highlights this desperation.
Liberals have said no to this deal but unlike the NDP, which wants to build a wall around Canada, Liberals believe that properly negotiated trade deals can only help Canada's economy and prosperity.
The Ontario by-election is a statement that Canadians will not put up with an 18th century government approach any longer. The Dark Ages are gone. Ontarians have been stung once by the NDP and yesterday's results show they refused to be stung again.


PALLISER PARTICLE BOARD PLANT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, in a recent report to my constituents I asked people in the east end of Transcona who live around the Palliser particle board plant to convey to me information about
how the plant was affecting their lives, because it has become a controversial issue in my riding. People complained about odour, aggravated health problems, asthma, not being able to be outside in the summer, and a host of other problems.
This is a problem that is not just under provincial jurisdiction but also under federal jurisdiction because this plant received money from the western diversification fund.
I have written to the minister in charge of the western diversification fund because there are rumours of expansion of this plant. I asked that no more money in the form of loans or anything else be extended to the Palliser particle board plant or to Palliser, period, until such time as this problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbourhood.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon -Souris):: Madam Speaker, although one might not know it here in Ottawa today spring has arrived.
As a child growing up on the farm in Saskatchewan I looked forward each year to the renewal that spring represented: to the return of the geese from the south, to the birth of the new calves, and to the warming of the soil which meant that the new crop could soon be seeded.
Spring to prairie farmers represents in a real sense the beginning of the new year, and with it comes the eternal optimism for which farmers have been famous for so many years.
As prairie farmers are extremely dependent first on the weather and then on the Canadian Wheat Board's ability to sell their crops to overseas customers, today's soon to be made announcement of the renewal of grain sales to Russia is welcome news.
Although some will invariably criticize the details of today's announcement, prairie grain farmers will be delighted by the prospects of an increased demand for last year's crop. Today's announcement is as welcome as spring itself.
April 2, 1993


TAXATION
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon, April 1, government saw fit, as of necessity, not to submit the richest families of this country to the 21-year rule. It has exempted them from having to pay the income tax accrued on their trusts over the past 21 years.
This government is allowing them to keep accumulating wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor of this country. What happened in the House yesterday is absolutely appalling. The day will come when someone will have to answer for such an act of social injustice.


BEST EVER WINTER PROGRAM
Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to inform the House that the Government of Canada has renewed today its support to the "Best Ever" Winter Program.
The program will receive $31.2 million over a period of five years starting in 1993-94.
The "Best Ever" Winter Program was introduced in 1983 by the Government of Canada (Fitness and Amateur Sports) in preparation for the 1988 Olympic Winter Games in Calgary. If the excellent performance of Canadian athletes at the last Olympic Winter Games is any indication the program has certainly reached its goals since it was introduced. It has also promoted participation in winter sports and the development of a sound administrative structure to develop sports programs.
With the Lillehammer Olympic games scheduled for less than a year from now, the renewal of this important program reflects this government's ongoing commitment to Canadian athletes and for winter sports.


TAXATION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, Windsor retirees and others have been discriminated against in the tax treatment they have received. This issue goes back to 1980 and 1981 when Chrysler workers received shares from the company in return for wage and benefit concessions.
After negotiations in 1985 it was agreed they could cash these shares, but Revenue Canada treated this as income rather than seeing the growth in share values as capital gains.
Under the leadership of the local union president, Larry Bauer, this case went to court. The union won in the end. All active employees who had signed notices of objection received their taxes back plus interest, but over 1,000 retirees and others who had not been able to sign notices received back only their taxes paid. They received no interest.
The Minister of National Revenue has a way to correct this discriminatory treatment under the government's tax fairness package. I strongly urge action.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up.


SOMALIA
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, last month two very important conferences affecting the future of Somalia took place in Ethiopia: a national UN conference of reconstruction and a reconciliation conference of Somali leaders.
I want to say as one who participated in both conferences that I think these were important events for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of a country about which many Canadians have agonized.
In particular I want to point out the exemplary record and contribution of our Canadian Armed Forces through the airlift that has operated since last year from Nairobi that has flown literally thousands of tonnes to various famine affected people in Somalia. More recently since

April 2, 1993
Oral Questions
December over 1,000 of our troops have served particularly in the Belet Huen area in the central western area of Somalia where they have not only provided peace but have begun to re-establish a civilian police force, have helped to re-establish a school and are assisting in the reconstruction of the country which will be important for the future of those people.
I know all members will want to pay very real honour to our Canadian Armed Forces who work under such difficult circumstances and make an outstanding contribution.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister or whoever is speaking for the government today.
I think we are all distressed by reports of the incident in Somalia where four Canadian soldiers are being held in connection with the death of a Somali man. I want to express as well the deep concern that we have about the way in which the matter has been handled and the number of unanswered questions that are still outstanding without any response.
Why did it take so long for the investigation to get under way and for a public accounting on the matter? Why has there been no effort by the minister of defence to present the facts to Parliament? When can we expect the minister of defence to give a full accounting of what has taken place and the situation in which our soldiers are now expected to serve in Somalia?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, under the military legal system it is the responsibility of the commanding officer to immediately begin an investigation into any incident that arises. That occurred immediately.
After a couple of days of local investigation, the commanding officer felt he needed expert assistance from Ottawa. It took a couple of days to get the
passports, inoculations and so on for the experts from Ottawa to proceed to Somalia to carry on the investigation.
There was no delay. The investigation commenced immediately and is ongoing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
The problem is about three weeks ago four Canadians were involved in the suspicious death of a Somali. Why did it take so long for the investigation to get under way and why did the Minister of National Defence not state the facts in this case?
I ask the government to report to the House as soon as possible on the circumstances of that tragic incident.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as I indicated there was no delay. The investigation commenced immediately. However in the military justice system as in the civilian justice system it is not common practice or the accepted practice, for good and valid reasons which I am sure the hon. member understands, for the investigating officers to conduct, if you will, press conferences on the aspects of the investigation.
There is an investigation taking place. It is confidential, as are all investigations. It would be no more appropriate for the Minister of National Defence to stand in the House and give details than it would be for the Solicitor General to stand in the House and give details on civilian investigations by the RCMP.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure the hon. minister quite understands the implications of what is taking place.
We have close to 5,000 troops involved in 18 complicated, difficult, risky missions around the world. As the minister will remember we have raised questions many times about the lack of any comprehensive approach in our peacekeeping operations, problems of equipment, training and preparation. Instead we have contradictory,
April 2, 1993

piecemeal statements. The Minister of National Defence said this week that we are going to pull the troops out of Bosnia if there is fighting, which there has been for the last two years.
Is it not time for the sake of our troops, families and Canadians that there be a regular system of reporting and accountability on peacekeeping missions so that we know exactly what mandate, what commitment and what circumstances our troops are involved in and to ensure that members of Parliament and the public will not have to learn from the media about tragic incidents such as took place in Somalia but learn, as should be the case, from the minister responsible who should be doing her job?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has two very different subjects confused and he is trying to bring them together. They do not deserve to be brought together.
The question of an alleged criminal act is being investigated quite properly using the well established procedures that have been in place for decades, in fact since this country began.
I think the hon. member would understand that for justice to be done it is necessary for the investigating officers and the authorities to conduct that investigation without the case being prejudiced by comments made in the House.
On the question of our peacekeeping role, surely there is no mystery to the hon. member or anybody else about Canada's willingness and readiness to participate in UN sanctioned peacekeeping roles. The hon. member made a statement that the Minister of National Defence said that if there is fighting we are going to leave Bosnia and there has been fighting for the last year. That is nonsense. She said no such thing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, she did.


Harvie Andre: No, no. I am sorry. Would the hon. member listen for a moment. She said if our troops are under attack. It is part of the UNPROFOR mandate that if UNPROFOR troops are attacked they will withdraw because our troops are there in Bosnia to try to provide humanitarian aid to the Bosnians. They are not there on a peacekeeping mission. They are there with the UNPROFOR to provide humanitarian aid. If they are
Oral Questions
attacked, they will pull out along with the other UN troops there.
That is what the Minister of National Defence said, not what the hon. member alleged.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, Canadians and members of Parliament were shocked and disappointed to learn of this incident involving the death of a Somali and four Canadian peacekeepers through the media three weeks after the event.
I want to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. As a previous Associate Minister of National Defence he would be aware that the commanding officer is required to send a significant incident report to the Chief of the Defence Staff.
When was the Minister of National Defence briefed on this issue and when does she plan to inform the House? If she was not briefed, why was she not briefed?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member as a former military person would well understand that in the military as in civilian life individuals who may be suspected of having committed a crime are entitled to the normal safety measures, are entitled to be presumed innocent and so on.
In order for investigations to be conducted in a fair manner it is necessary that they be done outside the glare of publicity and done in confidence. That is what is happening.
The Minister of National Defence continues to fulfil her responsibilities as she always has. The question of what her officials have said to her and when they said it, as the hon. member will know, is really not a matter for disclosure on the floor of the House of Commons.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, the point here is that members of Parliament and Canadians found out through the media.
When did the minister expect that members of Parliament and Canadians should find out? If it was not through the media how were we to find out? It is a significant event. I remind the minister that we have a size and scope of peacekeeping operations unprecedented in Canadian history. We have 4,800 Canadian peacekeepers involved in 18 different locations around the

April 2, 1993
Oral Questions
world. We have 10 per cent of the world peacekeeping operations under way.
Canadians and members of Parliament do not expect, neither should they deserve, to be informed of these incidents in peacekeeping through the media many days and weeks after they have occurred.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will appoint a full-time Minister of National Defence who will show leadership in the conduct of these operations and who will implement immediately a formalized regular series of briefings on these operations to the Parliament of Canada.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I guess this last question indicates the real interest of the opposition. They are not concerned about justice for the soldiers involved but rather are interested in trying to discredit the Minister of National Defence.
The Minister of National Defence is fulfilling her responsibility in an outstanding manner as she always does with all of her responsibilities. As the hon. member and as all hon. members would know, the appropriate time for comment on an investigation is only after the investigation is complete.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government spokesperson on international trade.
A remarkable speech was made last Wednesday by Mr. Susumu Eto, president of the Mitsubishi Company of Canada. He pointed out that Canada had received direct investment from Japan of about $1.4 billion a year in 1989, up from $700 million a year in 1988. Since signing the free trade agreement that investment has now dropped off to $300 million a year and is rapidly diminishing.
My question to the minister is: in examining Mr. Eto's statement one finds that they have now decided to direct their investment capital to Mexico for lower wages and productivity that is equal in Canada. Is this not proof out of the words of a leading Japanese businessman that
Mexico will be the attraction after we sign the NAFTA because of low wages and equal productivity?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member rises in this House and makes the same points day in and day out. He overlooks one fundamental fact, that is that 85 per cent of our imports now from Mexico are tariff-free.
There are almost no tariffs to speak of on the other remaining 15 per cent. If Mexico was going to put us out of business it could have done it ten years ago, five years ago, or last year, not because of the NAFTA. He always forgets this.
What he is raising are questions of our net direct investment in Canada.
I am very happy to tell the House that before the free trade agreement in 1988 we had a $2.5 billion deficit in net direct investment in Canada. More Canadians were investing more outside Canada than in our own country.
In 1992 we had a $5.3 billion surplus. There has been a swing of over $7 billion since the free trade agreement.


David Barrett: course, Madam Speaker, I predicted that response from the minister so I did not read the rest of my question until I got that response.
The rest of Mr. Eto's statement is as follows: "When Japanese investment rushed into Canada in the late 1980s there was a general optimism that the free trade agreement would bring about real free trade across the border".
He goes on to say: "This illusion burst when it was proven that one-sided protectionist action taken by the United States basically changed the precondition of business activities in Canada". Mr. Eto is saying that it is the free trade agreement that has caused them to move to Mexico because of U.S. protectionism. He then goes on to list the goods protected.
I ask how does the minister explain to Mr. Eto, please do not go away, please do not go to Mexico, we will stand up against their export enhancement program that subsidizes wheat, we will take them on in all these other
April 2, 1993

areas. He does not believe it and neither do other foreign investors.
What is he going to do about it? We are losing jobs because of that stupid agreement.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I sometimes think the Japanese disillusionment recently with Canada may be because Premier Rae had just visited Japan.
I do not think the Japanese are disillusioned with Canada at all. In fact if we look at the automotive sector in particular, Canada buys 9 per cent of the big three autos that are produced in the world. We produce 18 per cent of them.
We have had a reconfirmation of Chrysler's $900 million investment in Windsor just two weeks ago. A $2 billion expansion is planned in the port of Oakville.
The North American automotive sector has been very healthy in Canada. We have been producing far more than we consume. The hon. member's party has always argued for the auto pact. We are keeping the auto pact intact and doing very well under this section of our trade with the Unite States.
Japanese investment has increased in North America on both sides of the border.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, the spokesperson for the government on international trade matters today has decided not to answer the question but to go into bafflegab.
The specific question I asked was: How does the government explain after Mr. Eto's statements that their investment up to 1989 which was $1.6 billion has now dropped up to $300 million?
Not me, not the government, but Mr. Eto is saying that they will now move the bulk of their investment to Mexico. They will produce for the United States market out of Mexico with low wages and high production. What is he going to do to protect Canadian investment and Canadian workers rather than shilling for the United States in this agreement?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, it is very important we watch who the hon.
Oral Questions
member is quoting. He is quoting an official from MITT; he is not quoting the chairman of Toyota or the chairman of Honda or the chairman of Nissan. These Japanese companies have very different plans from what he is saying.
What he also omitted to tell the House was that labour rates are only 15 per cent of the cost of producing an automobile. Why would they move to Mexico in order to take comparative advantage on 15 per cent of the cost of building an automobile? The reason why Canada is competitive is that we are competitive across the whole spectrum of automotive goods.


GREAT LAKES
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of the Environment in the absence of the minister.
Yesterday three major environmental groups, Pollution Probe, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Great Lakes United, wrote the federal Minister of the Environment and his Ontario NDP counterpart to say they are "bitterly disappointed" by the inaction of the federal and Ontario governments on Great Lakes pollution. They said an agreement on Great Lakes water quality expired two years ago and the two governments still have not signed a new agreement.
.(1135)
I ask the minister, will the government negotiate a new agreement immediately and stop putting at risk the well-being of the millions of people in our Great Lakes region?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform the hon. member and the House that the agreement between Canada and Ontario is continuing as if it was in effect. All the present programs are continuing and funded.
I would like to assure the House that the Government of Canada is ready to return to the negotiating table with the Government of Ontario as soon as the latter is prepared to do so.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the three major environmental groups wrote that they are suspending relations with the federal Minister of the

April 2, 1993
Oral Questions
Environment and his Ontario counterpart to protest their inactivity in dealing with Great Lakes pollution.
They say the recently proposed U.S. guidelines on discharge of dangerous toxic chemicals in the United States will put these U.S. standards ahead of Canada's.
Why are the minister and the government not moving immediately to bring Canadian standards at least up to the new U.S. levels to reverse the degradation of the Great Lakes? Why will the minister and this Conservative government not stop their stalling?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to remind the House that we have a $125 million, five-year Great Lakes action plan program in place and it is continuing.
Second, we certainly welcome the decision of the federal government in the United States to work in co-operation with those states which surround the Great Lakes. We believe it is important for them to approach this in a uniform and consistent manner. We welcome the fact that they are doing what Canada and Ontario have been doing for some time.
Third, I would like to disagree with my hon. friend when he suggests on the advice of others that American standards are necessarily more stringent than those of Canada and of Ontario. That is not our opinion.


NATIONAIR
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Today some 4,000 Nationair passengers are stranded all over the place. Canada's three largest airlines are drowning in red ink.
What does the government intend to do to help solve the problems of this ailing industry for Canadian travellers? Please do not tell us you are going to recalibrate the regulatory framework because that does not get the people off the ground in airports all over the world.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate what has happened to passengers who have been stranded.
We will find that most of the passengers are from Ontario and Quebec where there are programs in place through the travel agencies and the provincial governments to offer aid to these passengers.
The tour operators are working to get these people to their destinations, either back to Canada or to the destinations to which they were scheduled. We will be following very closely the work that the tour operators are doing to assist Canadians to complete their travel plans.


Don Boudria: Very well, but for a year now members of this House have been asking the government to come up with a new policy on transport or should I say a policy since, as of now, there is none. We hear nothing but trite remarks from this government.
Today Canadians, and particularly those who are stranded in airports, want to know what the government intends doing. How long will these people keep going on and off grounded planes before this government wakes up and does something to save our airline industry?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, for the last year or more, as the hon. member knows, there have been problems in the airline industry around the world, not just in Canada. There has been a downturn in the airline industries and in the tourist industry across the world.
For the last year our Canadian companies have been working very hard, especially the employees at Canadian Airlines who have done so much to help put their company back on the rails. They are working hard. Hearings are going on at the present time, as the hon. member knows, to try and come up with solutions in the private sector for the airline industry in Canada.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of immigration.
April 2, 1993

On TUesday at 8 a.m. Canadian immigration in Vancouver will deport two unaccompanied children to the Punjab even though they have been legally adopted by a Canadian citizen in a Canadian court.
Their natural parents and the children have received repeated threats of extortion, kidnapping and even death in the Punjab. Now the natural parents cannot even be found because they are believed to be in hiding. Surely Canadians have not become so inhumane that they are prepared to see children deported to a dangerous situation where their lives are threatened.
Why does the minister condone the deportation of unaccompanied children who are the adopted children of a Canadian citizen to a situation where their lives are threatened and where their families cannot be located?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I do not.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the minister is not aware of this situation or has not been briefed on it.
Canada is a signatory to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the government boasts of its commitment to the protection and welfare of children. Surely a government that was truly committed to the welfare of children would not return them to a dangerous situation in India where their lives are in jeopardy.
Will the minister in this case stay the deportation order, review the case with his officials and allow the children to stay in Canada with their adoptive parents? They are the adoptive parents as a result of a decision of a Canadian court.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the socialists stand in this House and pretend to Canadians that we have the worst refugee and immigration system in the world when in fact we have the best.
I had a meeting this morning with the official representative in Canada of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Again he applauded Canada's effort in trying to help people who need protection abroad. He was commenting generally on the immigration program we have, which is the best in the world.
Oral Questions
When I hear representations like the one this morning which portrays our immigration programs as terrible, this is not borne out by the facts. Canadians can be proud of their immigration program. It is the best in the world.


OZONE DEPLETION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare my question is directed to the Acting Deputy Prime Minister.
This spring ozone depletion over Canada is worse than ever before, resulting in an increase in exposure to harmful ultraviolet radiation. We need to be concerned about kids and adults alike as we go into spring and summer.
Why is the government not warning the public of the specific health effects of being exposed to the sun this spring, such as skin cancer, eye cataracts and a weakened immune system?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, it was either a week or two weeks ago that the Minister of the Environment made some public pronouncements with regard to the ozone layer and the dangerous effects that the sun could have on the skin of all individuals. Specifically he mentioned children and people with fair skin.
There is no doubt that anyone going out in the sun will need protection. I think the responsibility is on the individual because the minister has made the public well aware of the steps they should take.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, public pronouncements by the minister do not solve the problem. That is the reason we are raising it in the House.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, ozone depletion poses a threat to human health and also to crops and natural resources.
Why has the government not launched an intensive campaign to inform Canadians, not just by way of individual ministerial statements on the steps, that they

April 2, 1993
Oral Questions
should take care both to protect their health and prevent further depletion of the ozone layer?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, first of all I would remind the hon. member that when the Minister of the Environment spoke publicly about this one year ago there were critics on the other side who accused him of scare mongering. Today they come back and ask why he is not doing more.
He was one of the first individuals to raise this issue with Canadians and to warn them they must take precautionary measures.
Second, we put in place a system which provides Canadians with information daily as to the level of UV rays throughout all of Canada.
Third, the budgetary provisions for UV protection have indeed risen by some 25 per cent during the course of the last two years.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the minister of health.
For over four months, the Official Opposition has repeatedly asked this government to order a full-scale public inquiry into the contamination of more than 1,000 Canadians with AIDS-infected blood, nearly half of whom are now dead and the others ill. The minister has always found excuses in the answer that the government would wait for the report of the parliamentary committee.
Now that the subcommittee has concluded its hearings and even its chair from the government side has acknowledged that a public inquiry is needed, would the minister now order a full-scale public inquiry without delay? If not, why not?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt about it that Canadians want to be guaranteed a very safe blood supply.
Indeed, the member for Delta who chairs the subcommittee looking into the tainted blood issue has publicly
stated that perhaps looking at the Canadian blood agency that looks after the safety of our blood supply would be recommended.
I have to tell my colleague, who is a member of this committee, that while the committee has heard from many witnesses, the report has not even been formed, nor has it been tabled. I know the minister of health is waiting for that and he certainly will respond when it is tabled here in the House.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, when the safety of our blood system is of concern, time is of the essence. We have to assure Canadians without further delay. Half of the victims have died and many more continue to suffer. Compensation for these innocent people ran out yesterday and the government has been dragging its feet.
I want to ask the minister, will there be further compensation? Will there be a full-scale, independent, public inquiry ordered today?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the committee has finished hearing its witnesses and it will be meeting over the next few weeks to draw up its conclusions and recommendations. We all hope that the report will be tabled in the House as soon as possible and I know the minister will react to that as soon as he can.
Also, on the area of compensation which has been a major concern to haemophiliacs, the federal government did provide some compensation. I suggest that the hon. member direct his questions to the province on that specific issue.


WYETH-AYERST
Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Science today.
This week the Wyeth-Ayerst operations in Canada announced a net loss of 130 jobs as it shut down its Windsor operations. This same conglomerate had received close to $4.1 million to expand in Montreal with the last payment being made in 1990.
Is it not obvious to the minister that the Windsor shutdown has been caused by the federal government giving this $4 million to create the extra production
April 2, 1993

capacity at Montreal? What will the government do to correct this mistake?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, are we to say that the provincial government's help to Chrysler in Windsor of $30 million and the federal government's help to Chrysler in Windsor of $10 million approximately in training three weeks ago is going to put automotive workers in other parts of Ontario out of work? That is the same logic.
What has happened here is that our pharmaceutical industry is becoming extremely competitive thanks to Bill C-22 and thanks to the respect we are showing for the protection of intellectual property.
What is happening is there is a consolidation of resources to make it more competitive. I regret, too, that the Windsor plant had to close. However, there have been offers to a significant number of employees there to join the Montreal operation and also to join operations elsewhere. The bottom line is that this company is becoming increasingly competitive. As a result, it will be able to hire people in the future and add wealth to the country.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I cannot let the minister squirm away from the fact that in March 1990 the last cheque for $761,000 was given to one sister company in Montreal and in March 1993 the other sister plant in Windsor is shut down. Despite all the brand-name companies' promises of expanded jobs, 130 jobs have been lost.
Why did the government not place any conditions for over-all job growth in getting this grant? Will the government now demand that this grant be returned since it has cost jobs rather than created them?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I have just been informed that the federal government did not give a grant.
I will certainly confirm this for my hon. friend opposite. If the government did not give a grant it cannot put in place any kind of conditions which the hon. member wants the House to request of the government.
Oral Questions
I have to tell him that he should want Canada to be competitive in this area. He should want those Windsor employees to work for a competitive company. A number of them will have opportunities under the new operation.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Louise Feltham: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister for Science and Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
Today The Gazette quoted John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who said that the Small Businesses Loans Act was to give the banks a bigger slice and government a bigger slice.
What about the entrepreneurs? What do they receive under the SBLA?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for her very important question.
I do not know whether I have ever heard John Bulloch congratulate any government for any program it has ever done. On this one he did admit that it is a great improvement over the previous Small Businesses Loans Act.
We have increased the fee to the banks but it turns out that most of the banks are not going to take the fee. They are so competitive now. There has been a flood of announcements recently. The banks are saying that they are going to have lending rates discounts; they are going to waive the commission and so on. Therefore banks are enticed into using the program even without the commission.
For the small business people it is very important to remember that we have raised the guarantee to 90 per cent from 85 per cent. They can now cover 100 per cent of the asset with their loan.
Even more important, and this is a discipline on the banks and the lending institutions, under the new bill a banker cannot ask for more than 25 per cent personal security against the loan. This frees up the personal security and collateral to be used for working capital

April 2, 1993
Oral Questions
which is what small businesses have been asking the government to do over the last two years.
This bill should not be called the Small Businesses Loans Act; it should be called the super-duper loans act.


WESTRAY COAL MINE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I too have a question for the minister of state for small businesses.
Now that the Prime Minister on behalf of the entire cabinet is spinning a phoney line that cabinet has made all documents available on the Westray mine disaster, I want to ask the minister if he is going to stand in his place today at twelve o'clock during tabling of documents and make available to Parliament, as well as to the inquiry, the 18 pages of the censored document entitled "Federal Funding of the Westray Coal Mine". I would ask the minister if he is prepared to do that today and, if not, why not?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, this government has been unprecedently open with the commission.
The Liberal government almost never co-operated with provincial commissions of inquiry into anything. We are very open because we want to get to the bottom of why the miners died.
I have to remind the hon. member that this whole issue at the federal level is just about a loan guarantee. The whole regulation of safety is a provincial jurisdiction. What we have done to date is to table 7,500 pages of documentation with the commission. I hope the hon. member heard me yesterday when I announced that thousands of more pages have been offered to the commission. It is about financing. It is about the technical aspects of the project. I think he will find in those documents the information he requires.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the minister several months ago indicated to the House and to the people of Canada that all the documents would then be made available to the
inquiry. We found out yesterday and today that they have not been. We have an 18-page censored document which the minister refuses to table in this House.
In view of the fact that Parliament has not received this 18-page censored document, in view of the fact that the judicial inquiry has not received this document, and in view of the fact that the families of the deceased miners have not received the document entitled "Federal Funding of the Westray Coal Mine", will the minister now stand in his place and say: "Yes, I will table the document in Parliament" and, if not, why not?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows with respect to all the documents that we have tabled to date and will be tabling today or Monday, whenever the commission is ready to accept them, I have offered to send them today or Monday. They are almost all about the financial aspects behind the Westray decision.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Is this one in it?


Lloyd Axworthy: Is this one in it?


Thomas Hockin: This particular document, if it is a cabinet confidence, would not be. But I do not know if this particular document is a cabinet confidence or not. I have not seen it. If it is the communication of one minister with another minister it would not be; if it is officials giving advice to ministers it would not be because these have been cabinet confidences for decades. No government in the parliamentary system operates by making documents like that public.
In fact all those issues are essentially what will be covered in the documentation the commission has already and what it will be receiving today or Monday.


SENIORS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for seniors, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday the minister announced a five-year funding program for seniors. The government has never lived up to its commitment to older Canadians. When the gov-
April 2, 1993

Oral Questions
emment announced a similar program five years ago it spent a little over half of what was promised.
I ask the minister why seniors should believe the government this time.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, about 17 per cent of the federal government's budget goes toward seniors, whether it is through transfer payments to the provinces or to the individuals.
Yesterday the minister responsible for seniors did announce that $170 million more would go into the Horizons programs which assist seniors in communities especially in remote areas, as well as into the independence venture program.
No doubt we all have to face the reality that our population is aging. The minister has announced this new program to strive to gain more independence for our senior citizens.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Acting Minister of Finance.
Canadians have been told to expect a budget within the next few weeks. Will the minister guarantee that this seniors program will not be cut as has happened in previous budgets? Will the minister provide older Canadians with that guarantee?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should wait until the budget is given in the House by the Minister of Finance.
I can tell the hon. member, and I think senior citizens throughout Canada understand, that governments at all levels, whether they be federal, provincial or municipal, have funding problems. To assure that the programs we have are funded and stay in place we have to tackle deficit problems. Seniors understand that. The hon. member may not, but seniors do.


TRANSPORTATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the apparent intention of the government to change the Crow rate and to end the payment of the Crow benefit to the railways and begin paying this benefit in one way or another to the producers. This is something that the Conservative Party has had in mind for a long time, ever since the Liberals changed the Crow rate.
I would like to ask whoever is speaking for the government today on this issue why, when it knows the trouble that the railways in this country are already in with some 10,000 people designated to be eliminated from the CNR, for instance, over the next three to five years, it would proceed with this further change in policy, a policy change that is bound to be devastating to an already devastated rail industry and something that will definitely hurt the people of Winnipeg Transcona, the Transcona shops and other places.
Why would the government do this? Why would it be so cruel to an industry already in trouble?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, this whole program that is being looked at, at the present time, is not being looked at in isolation by only looking at it from the farmers' point of view. The railways certainly have been consulted and are looking at what is being done and what is best for them in their particular areas.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the people in my riding who work for the railway remember only too well the promises that were made to them at the time when the Crow rate was changed by the Liberals and how this was supposed to be a great benefit to the railways. They know now that it has not turned out that way.
I want to ask the minister who answered for the government: Is the government looking at all the implications of this not just in terms of railway jobs and also of the environment? One of the commitments that this government made in response to the Brundtland commission was that all policy changes would be environmentally assessed.
What environmental benefit could there possibly be in moving all the grain by truck rather than rail, which will be the outcome of this possible change?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making an assumption that grain will move by truck. He forgets that we have a seaway which is very environmentally sound that moves a lot of grain in this country as well. The environmental impact of the trucking-

April 2, 1993
Routine Proceedings


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: There's no seaway in Saskatchewan.


Shirley Martin: The environmental impact of trucks and trains. There is no decision-


An hon. member:: Maybe we should be looking at some of the rivers.


Shirley Martin: Maybe they should be looking at some of the rivers for shipping also.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to the report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture entitled Culture and Communications: The Ties that Bind.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



LIAISON COMMITTEE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the liaison committee regarding committee effectiveness.
I simply want to say that this has been a very important exercise conducted after some four years of the committee's existence. With the additional assistance of the
member for Winnipeg Transcona, I think we have made a useful contribution not only to Parliament but to future parliaments.
I hope all members will very carefully consider the recommendations of the committee.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the three following reports of the Standing Committee on House Management.
The 82nd report deals with the membership list of the legislative committee on Bill C-118. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
The 83rd report deals with the radio and TV broadcasting of committee hearings.
Finally, the 84th report deals with the membership list of the special joint committee on Bill C-116. Pursuant to the order passed by the House of Commons on March 30 1993, this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Shirley Martin: for leave to introduce Bill C-121, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mrs. Martin moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
April 2, 1993

Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present 34 petitions duly certified and containing 18,199 signatures of citizens from Burlington, Hamilton, Ancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek and many other locations in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
The petitioners support Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy in her efforts to have the importation of killer cards stopped from entering Canada. They applaud the efforts of the Minister of National Revenue and his statement in support of this action.
Your petitioners request Parliament to amend the law prohibiting the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions, most of them from east Kootenay, wherein the petitioners express concerns about the North American free trade agreement. They feel it is going to lose more Canadian jobs. If implemented, there will be further restrictions placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, conserve Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit and advance needed social programs.
The petitioners call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present petitions bearing 7,045 signatures asking Parliament and the government to take all necessary steps to ban the importation into Canada of the serial killer board game.
Routine Proceedings
These petitions are in addition to 14,222 signatures that I tabled on February 19 and 10,180 that I tabled on March 12, 1993, for a grand total of 31,447 signatures asking for this ban.
I wish to thank all Canadians who gave me their assistance in this project. I invite anyone who has not yet signed such petitions to do so at the earliest opportunity.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have an additional petition calling upon Parliament to take all means necessary to ensure that the rights of grandparents are recognized, enabling them to see the children of their separated or divorced children.
I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of several people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and elsewhere who have asked me to table it on their behalf.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. They both deal with Canadian old age security pensions.
Today hundreds of thousands of Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line and over 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty. The 37-cent increase in old age security pensions in April 1992 is inadequate to meet the many needs of Canadian seniors.
The federal government has a primary responsibility to ensure the adequacy of seniors' pensions. These people have more than carried their share of the load over the years as producing, contributing Canadians. Now it is our turn to see they are not below the poverty line in their golden years but have some degree of dignity as they live out their lives.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present nine petitions, most signed by the constituents of the riding of my colleague, the member for Kootenay East, with a smattering of peti-

April 2, 1993
Routine Proceedings
tioners from Kootenay West-Revelstoke and other points throughout British Columbia.
The petition expresses the concern that the proposed North American free trade agreement has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada and that this agreement will cause Canadians to lose more good jobs.
It further points out that if implemented the North American free trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, conserve Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit, and advance needed social programs.
The petitioners call upon the government and this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present petitions from several hundred signatories, mostly from places like Kimberley, Grassmere, Fernie, and Cranbrook, British Columbia.
The petitioners express considerable concern about the North American free trade agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. They call upon this House to reject the North American free trade agreement and terminate the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I too have the honour to present a number of petitions. The first series of petitions has to do with the North American free trade agreement.
The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. They are also calling for a general election because they believe the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has harmed the country.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I would also like to present a petition signed mostly
by residents of my own riding having to do with the state of health care and other federal cost shared programs.
The petitioners call for, among other things, the reaffirmation of a commitment to a comprehensive national health care program jointly financed by the provinces and territories. They call for the withdrawal of Bill C-91 which gives brand name drugs a 20-year market monopoly. They call for reaffirmation of a commitment to the guarantees of the Canada Health Act, et cetera.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I submit a further petition signed by people who are concerned about the number of Canadian youth who belong to the middle and lower income families and are drawn out of school at an early age due to their present financial difficulties.
This petition goes on to call for the reformation of the income tax law to allow middle and lower income parents to claim their children as dependants if they are in full-time attendance in school, regardless of age, and allow parents to claim tuition fees that the students have incurred.
It calls for the elimination of the GST on student books and school supplies, promotion of subsidies at the post-secondary level by enhancing the quality of education through expansion of faculty and staff, promotion of price control on text books and vital school supplies, promotion of job training programs for future graduates, promotion of job creation and the implementation of assistance programs to help graduates, and provision of incentives for youth to improve themselves through better education and training by making it feasible for students to achieve their education.
It also calls for lenience by the Secretary of State toward students whose student loans are due and cannot afford to repay them because they are still taking courses and cannot find employment which would allow them to earn enough money to pay back their loans.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my final petition calls on the government to promote more subsidized day care centres to assist average Canadian workers with child care expenses.
April 2, 1993

It asks the government to reform the rules regarding the eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits of employees who quit their jobs or are fired because of misconduct.
It calls for the facilitation of government job strategies that will put welfare recipients and the unemployed back into the work force.
It asks the government to promote in-home jobs for mothers on social assistance or who are unemployed to make it feasible for them to work while they take care of their children.
It asks for the employment of more public servants to have a better quality of service and monitor any anomalies more closely. It asks for the implementation of strict regulation of abuse of power or misconduct on the part of public servants and employers.
It also asks that the preparation of future budget legislation be conducted through public awareness and participation in the matter.
*
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 406, 475 and 487.


Mr. Boudria: Was a Government of Canada aircraft used to transport the Prime Minister and/or members of his family to or from the United States during the month of September 1992 and, if so, (a) what was the date, destination and purpose of each flight, (b) what was the cost of using the plane, (c) what were the other associated costs, (d) what type of planes were used, (e) who were the passengers in each case?


Charles A. Langlois: In response to the hon. member's question, I am informed by the Department of National Defense, the Prime Minister and Privy Council Office that a DND aircraft was used to transport
Routine Proceedings
the Prime Minister to the United States on one occasion during September 1992, as follows:
(a)	On September 11, 1992, Ottawa to Hartford; on September 12, 1992, Hartford to Boston; and on September 13, 1992, Boston to Ottawa. The purpose of each flight is deemed to be a private matter. See part (d).
(b)	The cost of using the plane was $11,721.
(c)	Other associated costs for the U.S. trip in September 1992, including one advance trip in early September for a tour staff person, are as follows:

Jeff Clarke	$3,148.48
Susan Ellacott 701.49

Guy Legros	$2,047.72
Ted Prusakowski 1,438.41


[Stage Direction]
(d)	A Canadian Forces CC-144 Challenger was used, as per RCMP directive that whether on private or government business the Prime Minister must travel on secure DND aircraft.
(e)	The passengers in each case were the right hon. Brian Mulroney, Mrs. Mulroney, Ms. Ellacott, Ms. Gammad, and RCMP Inspectors Pavey and McSweeney.
Mrs. Gaffney: With respect to payments of landing fees to Transport Canada, (a) are there any airlines currently behind and, if so, which ones (b) what are the amounts owed by each airline (c) was there any measures taken by the government to recoup the money and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: In response to the hon. member's question, the information requested in parts (a) and (b) cannot be made public as it contains commercial confidential information.
With respect to part (c), to collect the accounts, Transport Canada has been following collection procedures which include sending statement of accounts and collection letters, contacting clients through telephone calls and personal visits by senior managers of the department, in consultation with the minister as appropriate.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders


Mr. Angus: Does the government have employees in (a) Thunder Bay (b) riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan (c) riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon (d) riding of Kenora-Rainy River (e) riding of Cochrane-Superior and, if so, in each case, (i) how many and what is their primary place of employment (ii) are any positions designated as bilingual and, if so, how many and what are their classifications (iii) how many vacancies have occurred in both unilingual and bilingual positions and how many of those have been filled?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: In response to the hon. member's question, the government has 748 Public Service employees in the census metropolitan area of Thunder Bay which includes the ridings of Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Thunder Bay-Nipigon. Of these 748 occupied positions, 27 are bilingual positions. Of these, one is in the scientific and professional categoiy, 13 in administrative and foreign service, one in technical, 11 in administrative support and one in the operational category. There are 721 employees in unilingual positions. Employees are mainly located in the cities of Thunder Bay and Neebing.
There are 377 employees in the riding of Kenora- Rainy River: nine are in bilingual positions, two of which are in the scientific and professional category, four in administrative and foreign service and three in administrative support. There are 368 employees in unilingual positions. Employees are mainly located in Sioux Lookout, Kenora and Fort Frances.
There are 199 employees in the riding of Cochrane-Superior, 21 of whom are in bilingual positions, three in the scientific and professional, eight in administrative support, three in technical and in seven administrative support. There are 178 employees in unilingual positions. The majority of the employees are located in Hearst, Kapuskasing, and in the census subdivision of Cochrane, unorganized north part.
In the 1992 Public Service recruitment in Ontario excluding Toronto and the national capital region, of 1,425 new recruits, 1,328 or 93 per cent were appointed to unilingual positions and 97 were appointed to bilingual positions.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, for your information, we were considering Bill C-83. I now hear the Clerk at the Table say that we are going to consider Bill C-114. The previous speaker was not able to complete his speech on Bill C-83. Why are we proceeding right away to consider Bill C-114 even though we have not finished with Bills C-83 and C-97?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is the government's prerogative to call bills as it sees fit. Veiy often, when the debate resumes after Question Period, another bill is put on the Orders of the Day.
When the House returns to Bill C-83, the hon. member for Longueuil will of course have the time available to him if he is in the House then. But frankly, those are our rules and they have not changed, at least not since I have been here, which is surely as long as the hon. member for Richelieu.
Let us proceed then with Bill C-114.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are 27 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Motions Nos. 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23 and 26, standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill,
April 2, 1993

are identical to Motions Nos. 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15,17, 20, 24 and 27, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. After consultation, the motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill will not be selected.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 3 and 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 3 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 3 will require a vote on Motion No. 4.

Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, is identical to Motion No. 4 and will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 8 and 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motion No. 11, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 13 and 15, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motion No. 17, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, will be debated and voted on separately.

An amendment veiy similar to Motion No. 18, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, was defeated in committee, but after consultation the Chair has judged it to be of a significance which
Government Orders
warrants further consideration. Therefore Motion No. 18 will be debated and will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 20, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, is identical to Motion No. 18 and will not be selected.
Motion No. 21, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, goes beyond the scope of Bill C-114 since it introduces a new concept. The Chair must therefore rule it out of order, according to citation 698(1) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne.
Motion No. 25, also standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, since it would amend an act that is not even mentioned in the bill, is clearly out of order, as the sixth edition of Beauchesne says in citation 698(8)(a).
Furthermore, similar amendments to Motions Nos. 22 and 25 were declared inadmissible in committee. Motions Nos. 24 and 27, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, are identical to Motions Nos. 22 and 25 and are also inadmissible. They will not be selected.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-114 be amended in clause 14 by striking out lines 18 and 19 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"one thousand electors who are members of the party and who combined are residents of at least fifty of the electoral districts,".
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to give the exact meaning of this motion.
The concern here is that in the bill as it is 100 people can form a party and they can all be from one community. The change that we are suggesting and promoting is that 1,000 people from 50 different ridings be required to form a legitimate party. That would reduce the possibil-

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
ity of a large number of parties attempting to establish themselves.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that we are prepared to support the amendment that is moved by the hon. member.
We were happy with the bill as it stands. The amendment makes some sense, however, since registration as a party is a significant act. We are quite prepared to support the position he puts forward that 1,000 electors ought to sign the party's application for registration. The geographical distribution makes some sense. We are happy to support the amendment.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I must say that my whole purpose today at report stage, as I unfortunately was not here during the debate on second reading, is to focus some attention on the plight and problems of Independent members.
This is obviously for registered parties. I congratulate the Lortie commission. I know the committee of parliamentarians has worked hard on producing this phase of the electoral reform. I was just informed by the government House leader that the second phase, which definitely has some more areas of very real critical interest, may be coming and perhaps will be a priority once we come back from the Easter break. It is really the reverse side of this amendment. I do not really have any problem with this amendment because it concerns registered parties.
I have a real problem with several sections in the present bill that are silent about the status of Independent members. The fundamental one is the inability of Independent members to give tax receipts. Members of a registered party, be they Conservative, Liberal or NDP, can and that is understandable. However members of the Green Party, the Rhinoceros Party or parties that had 50 candidates in the last election can get a receipt.
Sitting members in this House who have stated they are Independents and are going to run in the next election are not able to get a receipt before the writ is issued. This puts that Independent candidate in a very unfavourable situation against candidates who are members of registered parties.
I understand the need for registered parties. I belonged to a registered party for years. For certain reasons, which we will not repeat here, I am no longer a member of a registered party but am quite happy to be here as an Independent.
The only two negatives to that situation are getting recognized by the Chair, but I will leave that aside, and with regard to elections Independents cannot give a tax receipt as their competitors can. That puts Independents in an unfair disadvantage.
The government House leader just told me this is going to be corrected in phase two. I have been following this debate with interest. I have correspondence with the government House leader going back to 1991 on this problem, which he recognizes and the Lortie commission recognized.
I give full credit to the Lortie commission. I presented a brief before the Lortie commission and its chairman, Pierre Lortie, an eminent Canadian. He and the interesting group on his commission produced an $18 million to $20 million report that produced a wealth of changes. I am sorry that we are not going to change many more things.
I know the wish of the government and the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated to the committee that he wants this phase passed so that forward planning can be done and implemented in time for the next election. We all know that is going to come some time between now and the early fall, September or October at the latest. We are hoping to use the referendum list. Surely the government would not call an election and not utilize the referendum list that cost $125 million to produce.
We know there is going to be an election. I do not want to impede the work of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, who has taken over from that other great Canadian, Jean-Marc Hamel, who came into this scene as the Chief Electoral Officer almost at the time I did some 25 years ago.
I do find it difficult being co-operative this afternoon when I know the government and the committee have looked after the problems of lunatics and have looked after the problems of prisoners voting in jails, perhaps not very well, but they have not looked after the problem I have raised.
April 2, 1993

Government Orders
I wish I could get some assurance from the government House leader and that might change my obstinance at the moment because I understand the reason and I do not want to be difficult. Someone could say that people who are Independents must be lunatics. I suppose that might be the answer of my colleague, the government House leader. I said someone might say that. J'aifait une blague, une petite blague.
I would like some assurance on this question because I have some problems with extending the vote to lunatics. This problem affecting Independents has been well known by the government House leader for three years. It was described in the Lortie commission which provided a remedy and in the draft bill set up a draft wording that could be used.
I am very disappointed that the committee did not recommend and the government House leader in the introduction of Bill C-114 has not dealt with the problem in this phase so that an Independent member could start to issue receipts just like some of the people he will be running against who are issuing them today.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record what I said to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants privately. It is the intention of the government to proceed with phase two of electoral reform.
The reason for this is that the committee, in looking at this electoral reform in the Lortie report, concluded that because it was such a big mouthful it would be expeditious to proceed with those things that impose on the Chief Electoral Officer a large administrative burden such as these special ballots.
We decided to do that in one phase and we had thought we would have it through the House by now. The second phase would deal with the whole question of financing, limits, eligible expenses and the question of the private member's ability to write tax receipts.
I am told and assured, and I would be very disappointed if it was not there and I am sure it is there, that the report of the committee will include the amendments to the act to make it possible for private members to bring forward the bill.
If the hon. member wants further assurances why this would be something the government would be most interested in, he well knows that the existing limits and rules pertaining to fund raising are grossly inadequate. All of us are under pressure, so to speak, from our parties to amend the act in that regard. Therefore it is very much a government priority.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, I was listening to the leader of the government talk about pressures from the three political parties represented in this House to amend the Canada Elections Act. We in the Bloc Quebecois, and of course the independent members of this House, should also be included in there.
We must debate amendments but, as the leader of the ruling party said earlier, we would have liked to deal with the whole issue of amending the elections act. We are dealing with the first phase today, when elections are to be called by next October at the latest. Between now and then we will not have the time to look at phase two which deals with political party financing.
This amendment makes it totally impossible for an independent candidate to run except under very specific circumstances. I think that is totally unfair. It is unfair from a democratic point of view in the sense that only pre-registered parties seem to be recognized. Bear in mind that there are always people in an election who want to use a platform to promote their own views.
Obviously a ruling party can with legislation like that limit debate. As a matter of fact this government has done it and the fact was recognized again through parliamentary procedure. Time allocation can be used now pretty well as government pleases. Debate can even be stalled by the presentation of motions. Just about anything goes now.
In our opinion the amendment put forward by my colleague is perfectly justifiable. However it is restrictive, and that concerns us greatly. It is impossible to deal with this specific amendment in isolation from the bill as a whole, a bill which is being tabled in stages in spite of the fact that the Official Opposition had demanded, at the time this first phase was tabled, that it be provided

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
with the complete picture not only the parts that suited the government first and the opposition second.
On the other hand, not all the amendments before us today come from the Official Opposition. There are also some from the New Democratic Party. Had we been invited to discuss the matter-which was virtually settled right there and then-with the traditional and recognized parties represented in this House we could have made an important contribution.
In that context I do not believe we can agree to pass in a great rush amendments to such an important bill for democracy but at the same time this bill must take into account the significant issue of political party financing.
In this connection, we all know that big multinational companies routinely make contributions to the traditional parties and that these contributions can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Last night on TV, we saw the multinationals that contributed to the yes committee fund for the referendum held last October. The same thing could happen again in the next election because we will not have dealt with phase two. There will be restrictions, however, on independent candidates who will not be able to seek funding and give tax receipts because there is no provision in the legislation. A party must field at least 50 candidates to be officially recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer. As a result, the democratic principle of this bill is being truncated. It is really too bad just before the Easter holidays when members will go back to their ridings to do the job that we have to do. We are being told today that if it does not pass now the Canada Elections Act will not be amended in time for the next election, which is practically a threat.
However, if we do accept these amendments, if we do accept this phase of electoral reform, we are accepting changes that suit the traditional parties in a House that some people see as a private club. I think that is unfortunate and undemocratic.
In my own case if I decided to run as an independent in the next election campaign, I would not be able to give tax receipts to people who would like to contribute to my
campaign fund. This introduces a bias in our democratic system. The traditional parties are recognized. They can accept any amount they wish. They can give tax receipts to people and companies but an independent candidate would not be able to do that.
It is unfortunate and, as I see it, practically an insult to our democratic system that we do not have all the amendments to the Canada Elections Act but only those amendments that suit the interests of the government and the Official Opposition. That being the case, we in the Bloc Quebecois are firmly opposed to the passage of Bill C-114 because this legislation totally ignores democratic principles and the democratic rights of potential candidates in the next election campaign.
In fact the amendment moved by the hon. member would be most welcome as part of a bill that would cover all phases. However, we are amending the Canada Elections Act in instalments. The first instalment is very convenient for the government because it minimizes the chances of having independent candidates and submits them to restrictions imposed by this Parliament.
That being the case, we will do our best to explain to this government the importance of these amendments, whether they are adopted today or tomorrow, but of course tomorrow the House will be closed, since we are supposed to adjourn today.
It never fails. At the end of the session we are always pressured to adopt a number of important bills, practically without warning. They want to rush this through and one, two, three, these are the bills you have to pass. We have to accommodate the government and we have to accommodate the Official Opposition. The New Democratic Party has a number of amendments and the Liberal Party has several as well, but when I see this organized attempt to push through a bill I think this contravenes the basic principles of democracy and we will not go along with this.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, I will discuss the amendments tabled today in the report of the electoral reform committee. When this reform got underway with the Lortie commission, people were asked to send briefs and I did submit a rather short one on the financing of political parties.
April 2, 1993

I will admit that I was totally disappointed to see that the issue of financing will not be discussed before the next election campaign. When you look at the way political parties are financed you wonder if we live in a true democracy. In Quebec we made very important changes to the elections act regarding party financing. All companies, multinationals, law firms, engineering firms, et cetera, were prohibited from making contributions so that only a voter could make a gift to a political party.
In Quebec the limit was set at $3,000. I thought it was high but I never understood why.
In my brief to the commission on electoral reform I wrote that in a democracy the financing of political parties was something extremely important and that it is up to the public to ensure that all those who want to run for a seat in this House have an equal chance to do so. No company and no wealthy individual should have the right to make unlimited contributions to help elect a party or a candidate.
Studies have been made on this. A University of New Brunswick professor gathered data for several years. I read his doctoral thesis at that institution. This person had asked me if I could provide information. Indeed, with the help of the Library of Parliament and with questions taken from the Order Paper, I was able to provide the required information.
This information proved extremely important. Each year when people make donations to a political party they get a receipt and they are entitled to a tax credit. The administration of this system represents several million dollars.
This professor's approach, which I found to be very good, is simply that if we believe in a democratic system and if we truly want to make our system equal and fair, we should eliminate all contributions to political parties. It is up to the public, to the community to ensure that those men and women who want to be candidates have funds at their disposal.
This professor demonstrated that to set up such a system would only cost 99 cents per voter. It would only cost 99 cents per voter to ensure that we have the most democratic system, as well as the fairest.
Government Orders
The total amount, which would be around $26 or $27 million, would be distributed to political parties. There would be a very fair system for the splitting of that money. No company, nor any voter, even the wealthiest ones, would be allowed to make a contribution. The state would make sure that anyone who is a candidate gets enough money to campaign. Then lobbyists would not be able to influence politicians. No company, no individual should have the right to influence the decisions of this House. This is not normal. The only way to put an end to it is to make sure that no one-no group, no union, no company, no engineering firm, no law firm-has the right to exert pressure on an individual who is a candidate by telling him: We are going to finance your campaign. We are going to contribute significantly to your election. In a just and equitable system this should be illegal.
This aspect has been totally ignored. I respect the work of the commission and the efforts which were made. There were probably things to be amended but doing nothing with regard to this vital aspect, the financing of political parties, is inexcusable. Several amendments to the bill will be proposed today. We talked about it at length but we never did anything about the real problem, the financing of political parties. In my opinion the way things stand we are open to corruption. That is for sure. Proposing formulas and holding discussions is simply beating around the bush.
To conclude, I believe that with time it will come. It is inescapable. As people become more concerned, more politicized, they realize that it does not make sense to leave financing of political parties to the well-to-do of this country.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to participate in the debate on such a controversial and questionable bill which is a mini reform of the elections act when we were expecting a full reform of the legislation.
I would like to quote what the right hon. Prime Minister had to say, 15 days before the last election, and what made the front page of La Presse. I would like the government House leader to listen instead of talking with his neighbour as he is doing right now. Here is a quote from that article: "Mr. Mulroney wants parties to be financed by the general public". That is a firm

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
commitment he made ten days before the last election, on November 17 to be exact, which was actually only five days before the election. He made that commitment and said to the reporter: "It is important to act now since it would be unfair to change the rules just a few weeks or a month before an election compaign. That is why we will deal with this issue early on during our mandate". Then-mandate is almost over and at the very last minute, contrary to the official commitment made by the Prime Minister five days before an election, they come up with a mini reform which restricts democracy in Canada and, as indirectly, in Quebec.
How can they restrict, with the amendment mentioned earlier, the very first amendment before the House? We are being told that 1,000 voters from at least 50 different districts will have to sign an application and submit it to Elections Canada. An individual who wants to bring together residents from one area to elect a member supporting their regional interests would be disqualified almost automatically. If he lives in Vancouver can he afford to go to 50 ridings and all the way to Ontario to find one person, one qualified voter, to sign the application? Can he afford to go all over the country to gather 1,000 signatures in order to be recognized?
With this amendment what treatment would the independent members sitting next to me get? What treatment would the green party on the environment get? What treatment would the social credit party get, which still exists in some areas of Quebec and western Canada? What treatment would those parties get which, for example, want to promote or oppose free trade, abortion or the right to life? What treatment would those who want to form a political party get?
This amendment would severely restrict these groups and thus would also hinder the democratic process. In fact this amendment only serves the interest of the three main political parties in this House.
This amendment creates a sort of preserve and I cannot accept the fact that no Conservative member from Quebec wants to talk on this issue. After all, these members are aware of the historic legacy left by Rene Levesque who in 1977, after he became prime minister of our province, had as one of his priorities the democratization of political parties through financing by the
people. Only those who have the right to vote have the right to finance political parties in Quebec.
Following this display of courage the right hon. Prime Minister had committed himself, five days before the election, to table a bill in the first few months of his term. Instead he waited until the last minute to introduce a bill which would again protect the interests of those who finance his political party, namely the big multinationals which give $100,000 or $200,000 to his party in an attempt to buy the popular vote and ensure the survival of the party.
As for the other parties, I was surprised and pleased to hear the previous speaker, the member for Gatineau, who discussed the financial aspect of this issue and who would also like to see an in-depth review of this financing which should be the intent of the legislation.
When the government talks about electoral reform it must first discuss financing. It overlooked that aspect during the last referendum by saying the same thing. According to Mr. Justice Michaud the legislation on the financing of the last referendum was anti-democratic. Mr. Justice Michaud said that it was a violation of democracy not to impose a limit to the parties involved in a referendum or an election when it comes to approaching various organizations and collecting money from them.
Mr. Justice Michaud was very clear on this. The government invoked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the reason not to limit the financial involvement of people or corporations. In his decision Mr. Justice Michaud said this: "It is much more harmful to let the multinationals finance at large, as much as they want, the political parties or the yes or no side during the referendum". It is much more dangerous for democracy than to limit those contributions because the "democratic process must not be influenced by money or advertising." This is what Mr. Justice Michaud wrote in the Libman decision: "It must not be influenced by an avalanche of advertising, a slew of commercial messages which could have the effect of jeopardizing the democratic process".
The Liberals and the New Democrats are accomplices of the Conservative Party in this debate by accepting such a minor reform which will nevertheless impose
April 2, 1993

Government Orders
rather serious restrictions, especially for small political parties.
Mr. Vezina who phoned me from Toronto told me: "This reform-"
Someone is knocking at the door, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will therefore excuse me for interrupting him.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed without amendment the following bills: Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint and Bill C-95, an act to continue the Farm Credit Corporation and to repeal certain acts in consequence thereof.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 2nd day of April, 1993, at 12.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smith Deputy Secretary Policy Program and Protocol
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992-Chapter 12
Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint-Chapter 12
Bill C-95, an act to continue the Farm Credit Corporation and to repeal certain acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 14



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on Electoral Reform; and Motion No. 2.
Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, we were still debating Motion No. 2 restricting the right of political parties to be bom, thereby limiting the right to exercise democracy in Canada and in Quebec. It calls for one thousand electors from 50 different electoral districts. It may be warranted in some cases to limit the number of people who would want to register as members of a political party, but I think that such limitation goes completely against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It takes us back once more to this ongoing problem in the history of our democracy, namely the power of the wealthy relative to the rest of the population.
Unavoidably when established parties like the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party get together and agree to limit our right to exercise democracy they are protecting their

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
ivoiy tower at the expense of democracy. In that context I can only oppose such a legislation.
Again the real problem requiring an in-depth revision of the elections act is political party financing. That particular question has been evaded, although the Lortie commission did mention it in its report without being too demanding. The hon. member for Megan tic-Compton-Stanstead did request it in a report submitted to the Lortie commission but it was disregarded. They did not even take into account in that reform the Prime Minister's firm commitment to ensure that the financing would come from the public at large, which means that only those who have the right to vote could contribute. We must fiercely protect that heritage from the days when Rene Levesque was premier of Quebec. I cannot understand that the conservative members of this House do not care enough for this legacy to allow us to vote democratically without being influenced by money.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity this afternoon to speak on Bill C-114 which in no way reflects the promise of the Conservative Party for a thorough reform, particularly in the area of party financing.
I would like to quote the promise of the Prime Minister, just before the election, to bring financing of political parties by the general public. We can find it in La Presse dated November 17, 1988, and I quote: "A bill to force all political parties at the federal level to rely on financing by the general public would be passed at the very beginning of the second mandate of a Conservative government". This was the assurance given by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney during an exclusive interview to the Montreal daily La Presse.
Such a measure would be a logical and fundamental initiative to eradicate a number of potential conflicts of interest. That is what the Prime Minister was saying just before the election of 1988 with a view, naturally, of securing votes in Quebec because he knew that this mode of financing had now existed for a number of years in Quebec. It is now part of Quebec culture.
Being well aware that it was in the Quebec culture he used it just before the election of 1988 in order to win votes.
I continue my quote: "Recognizing without reservations the value of such a measure already in existence in Quebec, Mr. Mulroney said he would legislate quickly an end to contributions by corporate entities, whether companies or unions, to election funds of political parties, and a limitation to contributions by individuals. He said he would put all his weight in the balance to convince reluctant members of his own party before proceeding as quickly as possible with such a legislation.
For the outgoing Prime Minister, such a legislation on financing by the general public would fit his commitment of openness already shown by new and stricter regulations regarding conflicts of interest and an act on registration of lobbyists.
It is precisely his approach to problems of the past which, according to him, convinced Canadian voters of his commitment and of the need to minimize risks by taking the necessary measures to deal with the source of the most common errors and, among those measures, he is greatly relying on the financing of political parties by the people".
This is a formal statement made by a Prime Minister who seemed credible at the time and who got my trust. I belonged then to his party and he was then my leader. I believed in this Prime Minister and his statements, such as the one I just mentioned to you.
Moreover, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who was at the time his Quebec lieutenant, believed as well in the Prime Minister and in his statements on financing by individuals. He firmly believed in that. Indeed, he was one of the few in his riding of Lac-Saint-Jean to adopt, as an example, the financing by individuals for the 1988 election.
Another member from the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, was the one, and everybody in this House knows it and I know that most Quebecers also know it, who defended financing by the people in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
April 2, 1993

The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead worked very hard so that we could have an honest democracy. It was the statements and the efforts that he made that led the Prime Minister to take that position. We thought then that the Prime Minister was serious.
As usual the Prime Minister in order to cover up his intentions as he did with several other projects or initiatives opposed by Quebecers or Canadians or to improve some sectors of economic or political activities because he wants to wash his hands of the issue, always ends up appointing boards of inquiry which cost millions of dollars to the Crown and to the taxpayers. It costs millions and millions of dollars. Besides the Prime Minister to gain time said that he wanted to do it at the very beginning of his next mandate. But to wash his hands of the matter he simply appointed a commission which was called the Lortie commission. This Lortie commission cost a few million dollars.
It made many recommendations, particularly one on financing by the general public as the Prime Minister had asked it to do. It did not have any choice because the Prime Minister had publicly requested that. It being the case inevitably, Mr. Lortie, who was the chairman of this commission, had to comply with that request. Now we have Bill C-114, but unfortunately the part which seemed to have priority for the Prime Minister is not in it. It was completely left aside and here we are trying to deal with a few small amendments, though important indeed, which do not solve the basic problem which is the financing of political parties.
The referendum is not that far behind us. It was held last fall, in October. The Canada Elections Act was used to establish the rules for that October 1992 referendum. Just last night, on CBC if I am not mistaken, expenses for that referendum were made public. We could see that some of the big corporations and major banks in the yes camp, most of them English speaking, contributed up to $100,000 to the yes fund and we know that those corporations receive massive federal grants. I wonder if they were in any way pressed to make those contribu-
Govemment Orders
tions. The Royal Bank gave $100,000. It was the first one to try and scare Quebecers during the referendum.
We must settle the matter of political party financing by the general public so that democracy can be free of the influence of big corporations financed by the government. The Prime Minister said so in 1988.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, so many things have been said on this amendment that I would like to have unanimous consent to speak to it once again.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please
say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 35 to 39 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor
"pealed."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 38 and 39 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
"correctional institution as a result of a conviction and has been sentenced to five or more years in a correctional institution;".
He said: Madam Speaker, these two motions are really alternative motions. I have brought these amendments to this bill to allow the House the opportunity to express its views on whether or not inmates should be granted the right to vote.
As we no doubt are aware under the current law prisoners are denied the right to vote in the written part of section 51 of the Canada Elections Act. The words of the act that are relevant are:
The following persons are not qualified to vote at an election and
shall not vote at an election:
(e) Every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution for the commission of any offence.
There is a blanket ban under the current law on any inmate exercising the right to vote. That section of the Canada Elections Act was declared null and void by the courts under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter guarantees every citizen the right to vote and that right was taken away by this section of the Canada Elections Act. The courts concluded that imprisonment alone was not sufficient justification for striking down the right to vote and accordingly it struck down the section of the Canada Elections Act thereby restoring the right to vote to inmates in institutions.
During the referendum campaign that was just concluded, the right to vote was extended to inmates. In fact there was no civil insurrection or great problem because inmates exercised their franchise during the referendum
campaign.
Inmates in institutions were able to vote only in the place where they actually resided, that is where their families reside or from where they had been sentenced. Residence in the institution in and of itself did not constitute residence for the purpose of determining where an inmate voted. Although there is a very large prison population, for example in Kingston and the Islands, only something like 119 inmates registered to vote in Kingston and the Islands.
In addition, inmates must apply to register. Many did not. Something like one-third of the inmates in Canada chose to register in the referendum. While it could be expected that more might register in the case of a general election, under the rules that were proposed they would vote only in the place where they live and not in the prison where they are residing at the time of their imprisonment.
The government established the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing which made a recommendation in respect of inmates voting. It recommended a double-barrelled test. It recommended that those serving a life sentence with a minimum of 10 or more years to be served not be allowed to vote, but all other inmates be granted the right to vote. The committee which was studying the report, of which I was a member, concluded that test was too broad or unsatisfactory in one way or another and came up with a slightly more detailed proposal which I will not go into. The government, when it received the committee report, rejected out of hand all the committee's recommendations. It came up with a proposal in Bill C-114 which denied the right to vote to every person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more.
That disenfranchises every single inmate in a federal institution in Canada since in order to be sentenced to a federal prison inmates have to receive a sentence of two years or more. All other offenders who receive a lesser sentence spend their time in a provincial jail.
In the circumstances I feel this is harsh and unfair. Therefore I have proposed two amendments which were read to the House. The first would extend the right to vote to all inmates; the second would extend it to all inmates serving a sentence of five years or less. If they got five years or more then they would have no right to vote.
The five-year rule is designed to appeal to perhaps a wider segment of members in the House than the blanket lifting of the restriction would otherwise do. I suspect the first one might get defeated on a vote in the House; the second I would hope the government would see fit to support. Clearly if it does not, the motion is going to go down too.
I want to say something about my reason for proposing these amendments. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is paramount in our legal structure and which creates certain rights for all citizens, does give the right to all citizens to vote. By sentencing a person to prison it is not the intent of the judge in imposing the sentence or indeed of the criminal law under which the sentence is rendered, to take away from that inmate his or her right of citizenship. Clearly it is a kind of punishment. That is why an inmate is sentenced to prison. It is not because the prisoner or accused person is being stripped of his or her citizenship.
If inmates in prisons are citizens and if we accept that our charter is the highest law in our country, then surely it follows that inmates in prison who are citizens ought to have the right to vote just as everyone else does. It does
April 2, 1993

not aid in the punishment that the person not have a right to vote.
I guess I would have to issue a challenge to the government to say how it is that by sentencing someone to prison we punish the person further by taking away the right to vote. It is a right that is a free right given in a democratic society. It is freely given in our society. While it may satisfy some innate sense of justice in some of us to think that prisoners ought to be deprived of the right to vote, it serves no useful purpose either in punishing the inmate or in the rehabilitation of the inmate, which after all is part of the aim of the imprisonment process.
We sentence inmates to a jail term in the hope that at the conclusion of the sentence they will be able to come out and establish themselves in a normal and law abiding way in the community. We do not sentence them to prison with the idea that when they come out they will be committing more crimes and sent back. That is not the aim. Sometimes it happens, I agree, but it is not the aim.
Surely if that is not the aim we ought to be careful to ensure that the steps taken in respect of a prisoner in terms of denial of rights and denial of responsibilities ought to be commensurate with the sentence. While it is easy to say that a sentence of two years or more justifies certain action, like being placed in a federal penitentiary, does it really help the case to then say in addition they are not going to be allowed to vote? Frankly I expect most inmates could not care less, but as a democratic society based on the rule of law, which has as its guiding principle the notion that every citizen has the right to vote, surely we should be thinking very hard before we deprive certain citizens of that right.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the right is restored in a reasonable and sensible way and not in a way that allows mass voting of inmates in the places in which they are resident; that is in prisons. The voting will take place in prisons, but the votes will be cast in the constituency in which the inmate resided or in which his family resides at the time the vote is to be cast. I think that is a fair way of doing it.
Government Orders
I should point out that the system I have suggested in Motion No. 3, whereby all inmates would have the right to vote, is one that is followed in Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and Israel. In our own country in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, inmates in institutions have the right to vote. Some of the provinces have gone far beyond what the government is proposing in Bill C-114.
I urge the government to consider adopting either Motion No. 3 or Motion No. 4 in amendment to this bill in order to widen the franchise and give the right to vote where it has been taken away, in my view unnecessarily and possibly unfairly.
[Translation\


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands raises a very important point. We want to try and liberalize the electoral base. In other words we want everyone to be able to vote. If rehabilitation of offenders is so important, why do we deprive them of the fundamental right to vote for the candidate of their choice in their respective ridings?
When I look at phase one of the bill I get the impression it is a diversion: a few goodies here and there, a few improvements. Meanwhile there is a tendency to overlook the principle involved, which is the citizen's right to elect his or her representative. Financing is another point. Yes, this is relevant. Will I have the right to go to a prison or penitentiary and ask to canvas an inmate? He has the right to vote so he has the right to be canvassed. Will I be able to hold a public meeting in the penitentiary or prison? In fact, during the referendum campaign in 19801 personally went with the yes group to the prison in Hull to meet inmates who had the right to vote. We wanted to explain what the referendum was all about. In society today rehabilitation is part of a very desirable process. It means not cutting them off completely from the rest of the community just because they have committed an offence and have to serve a sentence. That is what we are doing here. Yesterday during Question Period there was a reference to increasing the per diem or allowance for inmates. There is something

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
inconsistent in all this. It does not make sense and it is totally unacceptable.
Incidentally, and we will discuss this later on, someone in California who has been living outside the country for number of years will be allowed to vote and an inmate who is in rehabilitation and will be released after serving his sentence will not have that right. There is something wrong here. I think we should go back to committee and examine this bill more thoroughly because we are creating a bias against a small, probably the most vulnerable sector of society. This is going to be quantified, it seems. Is it two years? If it is less than two years they will be able to vote. If they are sentenced to two years or more, if they are in the penitentiary and they have to serve more than ten years, they will not have the right to vote. If parole is granted and the inmate's sentence is reduced accordingly the inmate may be allowed to vote. A fellow inmate whose parole has not been approved will not be able to vote.
Madam Speaker, I know in your capacity as the Speaker you cannot endorse what I am saying because your role in this House is impartial and to listen to those of us who want to give this bill its full significance as a tool to truly renew and substantially improve the elections act.
When you start quantifying, prescribing distances and a given number of years- Take the case of someone who has been sentenced and is serving time in the penitentiary in Montreal or Kingston but under normal circumstances would have been voting in the electoral district of Hull-Aylmer. I guess that person will have to pre-register in order to be able to exercise that right.
How will that vote be posted? Will it be the same for Canadians residing outside of the country such as members of the Armed Forces who have the right to vote because they are serving outside the country under orders? At present when you are away on a trip you can register up to one week before the election date to be able to vote.
In the case of prisoners, it is quite a big clause, although a high percentage of them are so disappointed with governments that they will probably be the first ones to ignore them come an election. But that is beside
the point. What we must bear in mind is that the right to vote is a democratic right that cannot be violated if we are truly seeking to extend it to all Canadian men and women.
In that respect, the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands is an improvement, an improvement that the government does not seem to want to take into consideration. Had the government agreed to take it under consideration in committee, it would simply have been incorporated. A change would have been made. A reciprocal agreement would have intervened between political formations and we would know that it is acceptable.
Instead, we will not even get to vote on this today. It will be agreed to on division because several of our colleagues are already back in their ridings. Some left last night, others this morning. There are only a few members left in this House to pass this major piece of legislation.
I cannot consent to that.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported with amendments by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
Specifically I would like to indicate at the outset that I support Motions No. 3 and No. 4 moved by my Liberal colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I would like to say that indeed it is a source of pride that we are going through this process of electoral reform of democracy.
I would like to quote from the report by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. It says: "The Canada Elections Act and other legislation encompass fundamental democratic rights, the obligations and duties of election officers and officials and the basic rules of electoral competition and access to elected office. Legislation affecting this matter goes to the very heart of the democratic process".
I would like to repeat and underscore that it goes to the very heart of the democratic process. Parliamentary initiatives such as reforming electoral democracy,
April 2, 1993

chaired by Mr. Lortie, are laudable and can be a source of pride for all of us.
Allow me at this juncture to share another source of pride from my constituency of Winnipeg North. Recently I was reading one of the community newspapers. There was a tribute given by the Filipino Canadian community in my city to two young women, Angela Jill Guingcangco and Ma-Anne Dioniso, who played the leading roles of young Cosette and young Eponine last year in Les Miserables. These young women are sources of pride. I would like to explain how this is related to debate on the motion before us.
I do not want to boast but today I cannot help myself. At the end of May the new Princess of Wales Theatre in Toronto will open its curtain to the $12 million production of Miss Saigon. Stepping onto the stage in the lead role is Ma-Anne Dioniso, one of my constituents.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member will allow me, I wonder what this has to do with Motions Nos. 3 and 4, even though I am quite enthused with the Canadian production of Miss Saigon. I am really wondering what this has to do with allowing people in penal institutions to vote or not.
The hon. member may want to explain. Maybe the Speaker lacks the knowledge of the voting procedure in show business, but after 30 years I doubt it. Please explain what this has to do with Motions Nos. 3 or 4.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I will get to that. I hope the Speaker will not begrudge me the chance to make the connection. I will do that at the end, if you will bear with me.
Ma-Anne is the pride of the Filipino community of Winnipeg and the toast of the city. Over 1,000 women auditioned for parts in Miss Saigon. This lady captured the title role, impressing Mirvish Productions with her powerful voice, dynamism and talent. The rising star was discovered in a talent contest hosted by President Tbny Carta of CKJS-Radio. Since then there has been no stopping her.
1 urge all members of Parliament to have some patience and to see the pride of Winnipeg who will be doing eight shows a week for the next two years in Toronto. Then I hope they will make a Canadian tour
Government Orders
and bring her back home to Winnipeg to the people who love her so dearly.
Madam Speaker, I can see you are a little bit upset. Perhaps you cannot wait-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am not upset. I am trying so very hard to understand who in that illustrious cast is or could be in a penal institution and henceforth allowed or not allowed to vote in the next election. This is not being upset. It is just trying to make sense of it all, even though the hon. member stayed on his feet while I was on mine.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, it never entered into my imagination that a woman like this, of great talents, would ever go to a penal institution. It never did.
Yes, I understand and I understand members on the government side. I will read from this summary of government achievements. It covers 1984-93 and is from the Library of Parliament.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Get with it, Rey. Today we are living in 1993 and we are talking about penal institutions.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, do we not have the freedom of speech to connect at the end?
I do not want to test the patience of the House. I will just indicate that I support the two motions and I defer to the Chair.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I just want to state we will support the extension of Motion No. 4 to five years.
We believe a charter challenge of two years would probably be upheld, but a challenge against the five years would be less likely.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I heard the explanation of the two amendments by my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands. I find myself in a predicament here because that member has been one of the leading workers and members on this committee. Of course the Lortie commission also made certain recommendations. The bill we have does not quite conform to either the Lortie commission or what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has set out in his amendments.
I agree with the member for Hull-Aylmer who spoke earlier and had some discussion with the government

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
House leader. This is the electoral reform bill that affects all members and actually affects all people who are going to vote. It is really a fairly important piece of legislation.
I understand, in part, many of the problems a House leader has. I was in opposition for many years and frankly found Friday afternoons pretty enjoyable. A rainbow of bills came before the House. The then government House leader, whoever he may have been, found that with few members around it was easier to get legislation through. I guess that is one of the reasons we are debating this very important bill. The fact that the Easter break is almost upon us results in even fewer members here on a Friday afternoon.
I certainly believe some of these matters should get a vote in the House so members can put their votes where they say their ideologies or mouths are in terms of the rights of prisoners.
Perhaps this gets into this very new world. I do not have the knowledge of my hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands. I understand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and used to be a practising lawyer, but as I read through the Lortie commission report and heard my friend from Kingston and the Islands today on the amendments, I found myself more in agreement with the way the government has presented these provisions in the bill.
Frankly some of my difficulty is the fact that when a person commits a crime and is sentenced to one of our institutions I think certain rights are suspended. The right to vote is there as long as the person has not committed an injury to the state, but it is in a state of suspension and the person is isolated, interned, incarcerated.
Some people such as Clifford Olson-and I do not think we are talking about him today because there are time limits involved in this amendment-have committed heinous crimes. I just cannot get excited about such people losing their rights to vote for the period they are incarcerated. If there is an election there are all the problems of organizing polls and giving those people the right to vote. I think all Canadians should know that if people commit crimes they are going to have to face certain consequences, and one of the consequences is that they are going to be in jail and will not have the right to vote.
I think the government bill and these sections are a happy compromise between the Lortie commission and certainly what my friend for Kingston and the Islands would like, but I can understand from whence he is coming.
I am glad to see the government House leader in the House. I do not want to be difficult and I am glad that hopefully there will be a chance for members to vote, at least at third reading, so this matter will receive the imprint of members. My colleague in the Bloc Quebe-cois, the member for Richelieu, spoke earlier today. While his remarks might not have been quite relevant, they were certainly a little more relevant than Miss Saigon from Winnipeg, with all due respect to the hard working member from Winnipeg who is one of the more conscientious members of this House.
There are some very large issues here. Apart from the rights of prisoners and the rights of society, I think this is the perfect illustration where we need a balance. I think the government has struck a happier balance in this bill in terms of what society believes than the Lortie commission and the amendments of my hon. friend.
This brings me back to what I said earlier. I frankly cannot accept the fact that the government bill is moving on prisoners, lunatics and those in hospitals and has not done anything about the rights of Independent members of this House of Commons like myself and others to my left who have declared for a certain party. There is no doubt that in an election they will have more than 50 candidates and therefore will automatically qualify to be a registered party. Of course, in an election we are all in the same boat. Once the writ is issued we can issue receipts.
I find it really difficult. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can so that we can cover all these other areas and extend rights or modify rights to different classes, yet the committee and/or bill does not reflect any redress of what I have been writing to the government House leader about for the last three years.
I know the government House leader was being frank and objective earlier, but I have checked with some people in the lobby about the draft committee report in the second phase. It does address part of the problem of Independents in the sense that any surplus moneys left over will go back to that Independent candidate through
April 2, 1993

the Receiver General and not just go back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
This is a technical matter that does not excite too many people, but it is just another area of discrimination against Independent members and members of registered parties. My point is not so much that. I am glad there is a little movement there, but I have seen nothing in the draft report about Independent candidates and especially members of Parliament. I understand the problem about Independents at large. Independents could sprout like mushrooms from coast to to coast, and then what kind of control or accountability would they have?
It is a very simple amendment that takes care in principle of the problem of an Independent member sitting in this House who wants to be put in the same position as the member for Kent who can give a tax receipt for a donation from a good citizen. I am all for it. I voted for the bill many years ago but I cannot because I am an Independent.
The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, an honourable Canadian, is going to oversee all the operations when the writ is issued. All it takes is a little amendment to put the Independent member of Parliament in the same position as other members. I am not talking about putative Independents who may or may not arise from the territory east or west, but people in this House are under some obligation to have accountability so the Chief Electoral Officer can be in the same position with that Independent member who has declared to be an Independent as he is going to be once the writ is issued.
This is why I find it very difficult. Of course that leads me to the larger issue which is really not relevant to this amendment. The Lortie commission is fine. I said earlier that I have the highest respect for the way Mr. Lortie conducted that commission. He was kind enough to invite me to appear at one symposium and I gave a brief before it.
The difficulty with the Lortie commission, and this is one of the great ironies about the debate, is that it understandably helped crystallize even stronger party organization, party rule, party discipline and the whole structure of parties. We all know political parties are rather fundamental.
As other members have said, it is sort of ironic that the Lortie commission is centred on that and yet the public at large has never been more dissatisfied with parties, be
Government Orders
they Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Rhinoceros, Green or Bloc Quebecois.
The public has a very real problem with parties. Yet the commission helps to bring parties together. It is ironic that the core of parties I believe is getting smaller and smaller. The uncommitted block of voters is becoming larger and larger.
We come back to the prisoners. I cannot get too excited about extending too many rights to people who have insulted the society that is supposed to give them the right. I like the government bill better than I like the amendments of my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands.


John Henry Reimer: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few things on these motions that talk about the right to vote for those in federal penal institutions.
The member for Kingston and the Islands who has proposed the amendments has taken us through some of the history of what the Supreme Court did to section 51 of the present elections act. He also reviewed what the electoral commission recommended, that those with a prison term of more than 10 years would be denied the right to vote.
This bill recommends two years. That means that everyone in a federal penal institution would lose the right to vote. The motion tries to strike a balance, half way between what this bill is recommending and the 10 years. Therefore, put it at five years.
I would like to say something about the arguments that the member used. He used primarily two arguments. The member stressed the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that all citizens have the right to vote. That is correct.
The member went on to say that people imprisoned in a federal institution do not lose their citizenship. That is correct. However, they do lose other rights that are in the charter. They lose the obvious right to mobility which is in the charter. They cannot move around. They cannot take up residence. They have to stay in that prison. Therefore, they have lost that right.
They also lose the right to freedom or liberty which all the rest of the citizens of Canada have. That person is deprived of the right to liberty and is now locked up for a

Government Orders
period of time in prison. Therefore they lose other rights.
The member is saying that since they do not lose their citizenship, why are we taking away the right to vote? He is ignoring the fact that they lose the right to mobility, to liberty and other things.
The second reason why prisoners should have the right to vote is that some provinces give people in provincial penal institutions the right to vote. Some other countries do as well.
Some other countries do some weird and wonderful things. Just because they do them does not mean we have to copy them. In fact I am glad we do not copy everything that all other countries do. Therefore, that is not a good argument.
Some provinces do some things. I am glad that we do not copy everything that the socialist republic of Ontario is doing. The same is true for Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Just because some provinces do some things does not mean we should do them.
I fail to see what the arguments are. I would submit that when a person commits a crime, is convicted and is then sentenced into a federal penal institution, which means more than two years, they should lose their right to vote. Common sense would dictate that.
Is it not common sense to say: Now you have lost the normal democratic rights of liberty, mobility and freedom to vote. Until you have served that time and are out of prison, you lose those rights. One of those privileges is the right to vote.
The argument in favour of what the government is saying as to why everyone in a federal penal institution should lose their right to vote is simple common sense. They chose to act against society. They now suffer the consequences which means denial of freedom. One of the aspects of denial of freedom, to move around and be at liberty is they have lost the right to vote.
Simple common sense tells us they have lost the privileges of free, responsible citizens for a fixed period of time. One of those privileges is the right to vote. Therefore I am glad to support what the government is saying, that a person in a federal penal institution should
not have the right to vote. I think that simple common sense tells us that is the right way to go.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motions Nos. 3 and 4. First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for proposing these amendments. He seems to be more in touch with reality than the Conservative member who spoke to these amendments.
The Conservative member said that a person who commits a crime and is sentenced to a prison term of more than two years should lose all his or her democratic rights, including the right to vote. He must be very unhappy to sit on the Conservative side since several of his colleagues may soon lose that right.
Let us talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does it limit the right of a person to vote because of something that he or she may have done at some point in his or her life? For example, an inmate in an isolated moment of violence may have committed a crime. An inmate at some point in his life when he was young-we know that some leadership candidates admit to smoking drugs in their early years-Had they been caught then they would have been liable to a three-year jail sentence. In 1970, some people were sentenced to three years in prison just for possession of marijuana. Today those leadership hopefuls say that what they did is insignificant, that it belongs to the past and that it is not serious, and I admit that it is not serious, but it was considered serious then. Some people went to jail for that in those days. What would have happened if those candidates to the leadership of the Conservative Party had been caught and sentenced to three years in jail? They would have lost their right to vote during that period.
These leadership candidates would have lost their right to vote because they would have been sentenced or imprisoned. That is common sense.
The charter of rights is not there to pass judgment on people. It is there to protect their historic rights to live in a democratic society and to assert even more their rights to live in a democracy. To live in democracy one has to be able to elect members of Parliament by voting for the candidate of his or her choice. That is what democracy is all about, to be able to cast a vote every four or five years
April 2, 1993

at the municipal, provincial or federal levels. The inmates who are longing to get back to live as everybody else, out of prison, would not have the right to vote during that period of reflection imposed to them inside the walls, during that period of repentance asked of them. For the most part, since 90 per cent do not commit subsequent offences after coming out of prison they recognize their mistake. When they are sentenced they already feel the pain of being separated from their family, their friends and their children. And those people, in prison, would not have the right to think about the political future of their country by losing their right to vote? What a mistake. Even though they are in prison, they still have the right to think of their children, to feel love for their wife or husband and to aspire to a better future for them.
And how can they provide such a better future? Often, by changing the government and being able to vote, even for another candidate. I argue not for their privileges in prison but for respecting them as intelligent people who have done wrong but that does not prevent them from desiring what is good for their families, their regions and their communities.
In that regard I think it is even frivolous to have such a debate. Would we dare to sit in judgement of those who have done wrong? Who among us can cast the first stone? No one can cast the first stone. It is said that a guilty verdict is found for only about 10 per cent of crimes. They go to prison but the others still vote anyway. Those people who pay for their crime by being deprived of their freedom would no longer have the right to vote in a democratic election. There is something wrong with that.
I do not understand the Conservative Party's attitude and the silence in this debate of Quebecers in the Conservative Party, like the member for Gaspe, for example. He is a man of great insight. He was awarded the Order of Canada, is a psychologist, a thoughtful man, who could so well understand what the prisoners feel when they are in jail. I am sure that he feels like telling them how much he hopes that they get the right to vote, but is he being held back by the party? That right to vote
Government Orders
should never be trampled on, as the Conservative member who spoke before me says or as his party says.
There is something wrong in the kind of vision in this proposed reform, which is continually limiting democracy, democratic activity, the formation of political parties as in Motion No. 2 just now, and the ability of independents to run, since their fees would be increased. It would limit prisoners' rights as though they were perpetual outcasts from society and did not deserve consideration because they had made a mistake. What sort of government do we have? What vision do we have? This government is lost when it comes to the economy and it has been completely rejected by the people on the Constitution.
Today it presents us with its new vision of electoral reform which is behind the times. It is not forward-looking but a setback, a major setback. Five days before the election the Prime Minister said that the important thing in the reform is the financing of political parties. What is he presenting instead? The government presents mini reforms, minor amendments to limit prisoners' right to vote, to limit the existence of political parties, to limit the ability of independents to speak out. The effect would be to keep only three privileged parties in the House, three parties which have plotted together on the reforms, which plotted during the referendum and which are now plotting to have a mini reform instead of a real reform of the elections act. This party's vision is to protect the privileged. That is it. They want to protect the privileged and to keep some people who have something against the system and have a different vision from theirs from voting.
A government which is closed to democracy is doomed, condemned to a resounding defeat which it will deserve, of course. However, I feel sorry for my friend, the minister, who is pointing his finger at me. I would never dare take the floor from him and I would appreciate it if he acted the same way toward me. The hon. member for Gaspe is looking at me and is covered with shame because we are depriving our prisoners of the right to vote, because we would like to take away their right to vote if they have been sentenced to more than two years in prison. Certainly with his great psychologist talents, the hon. member for Gaspe must have comforted several Conservative members who are presently scared of spending more than two years in prison for

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
their actions. Of course, he will be very useful to his party in that respect. After the defeat, with the pensions they will receive, they will also be able to reflect on their sins and feel sorry for not having taken part-


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


Louis Plamondon: Are my 10 minutes already expired, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The 10 minutes that were allowed are expired.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), that the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Fewer than 15 members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been adopted.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for the amendment he moved to this most undemocratic bill, a bill that limits the freedom of speech, particularly for prisoners.
It is completely unacceptable to deprive of the right to vote inmates who have been sentenced to more than two years in prison. Taking this right away from a group of citizens reflects an excessive conservatism or liberalism. The main freedom we can have in a country such as ours is the opportunity to decide every four to five years how our country is to be run and how we are going to secure a better quality of life.
Obviously punishment has already been meted out to prisoners but they will be free again some day. They have to keep exercising their rights since most of them will not
be in prison for the rest of their life. They need their freedom of speech because when they come out of prison they will have to live in a society that will have changed. Without the right to vote they may not want to be part of a society which has changed so much.
It seems to me that someone should have the right to vote even if he was sentenced to more than two years in prison because, and I say it again, it is strictly what society wants, the right to express oneself and to change some rules in a country where we advocate the well-being of people.
There is another reason I agree with the proposal. One day that prisoner will get out of prison. I know it because I have a halfway house in my riding. A prisoner who gets out of prison can go to that house in order to re-leam how to live in society. A prisoner who spent 10, 15 or 20 years in prison is totally out of touch with the reality of life when he gets out.
The hon. member for Gaspe, who is a psychologist, should understand very well the difficulties of a prisoner who enters that new life, after spending 10 or 15 years in prison.
In Longueuil, we have a halfway house. Once in a while an ex-prisoner comes and tells me how difficult it is to be back in the real world, how difficult it is to deal with financial institutions, to learn about all the changes in society. Nowadays a generation is only five years. It used to be 10 or 15 years. To call it a new generation there has to be enough changes and now it happens after five years. Our society is changing so fast that if one is away for five years reintegration is difficult. That is the reason why rehabilitation of former inmates is so difficult even after just five years.
I say that inmates should have the right to vote because such a right would keep them in contact with society, would keep them interested. They can then listen to what is going on outside, especially in politics. They can feel that they are still somehow part of society. The day they come out may be sooner than they expected, thanks to our parole system. Rehabilitation might be faster.
April 2, 1993

I think that is a very good reason to support this proposal giving inmates the right to vote.
There is no doubt that if you consider that uncaringly, without a broad perspective, the way the Conservative member did a moment ago-and he is a real Conservative, very shortsighted-then you think that the inmate has been sentenced and must be punished. I agree that he has to be punished if he committed a crime or if he is a threat to society. At the same time we have to recognize that the inmate has the right to remain in touch with society. Otherwise, the day he comes out he will be lost and if he cannot find an answer to his problems in this society he will become a repeat offender.
The other important point is that this person will probably be caught committing a subsequent offence because he will find no other way of adapting to that society. We all know what the costs of prisoner rehabilitation are for government. It is very expensive, but it is also socially disturbing because these people have difficulty fitting in and they risk, as I mentioned before, going astray again and being sent back to prison.
In such a case, you know what the costs are. I was told it costs approximately $60,000 a year to keep an inmate in prison. Therefore, think about the cost of a second offender, the transition cost for someone who gave up on society. You must take into account the fact that this amendment, which gives a prisoner the right to vote, will also allow that individual, on the one hand, to keep in touch with society, to stay interested in what is going on, and on the other hand, to exercise his freedom of speech. For example if human rights are threatened inside the prison he will have the opportunity to express himself freely on that matter if he has the right to vote. That is why I feel it is important that this amendment be passed for all the reasons I just mentioned.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 3. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 3 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 4. A negative
Government Orders
vote on Motion No. 3 will require a vote on Motion No. 4.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Louis Plamondon: I rise on a point of order. There is no quorum.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question had been started to be put. There is no quorum call at this time.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 3 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 4.


Louis Plamondon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to point out that we do not have quorum.
The bells having rung, and the count having been taken:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There being enough members in the House we now have quorum.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 4 negatived.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 27
and 28 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"by the person on a temporary basis, unless that person has no"
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately
after line 40 at page 17 the following:
(4) The provisions of section 59 of the Act shall not apply for interpreting this section."
He said: Madam Speaker, in both Motions Nos. 8 and 10 the attempt is to accommodate the large number of people in some cities who are homeless and consequently do not have a residence and who still should have the right to vote. Motion No. 10 would eliminate the 10-day requirement.
They are both intended to increase the opportunity of people in the situation of being homeless to vote.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 8.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some bon. members: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 8 negatived.


Louis Plamondon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I acknowledge that you have the right to say I did not rise when I should have; you are the Speaker. I would like to let you know, in case I do not rise fast enough because I have not heard the French translation when the motion is proposed in English, that I intend to speak on all the other points, should such a misunderstanding occur again.
I acknowledge and accept your decision, Madam Speaker, even though it seems rather strict to me. As far as all the other points are concerned, I inform you now that I intend to speak on each and every amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the member for Richelieu. To make things easier for him, I could perhaps tell him that when we say debate in English it means debat in French. The words debate and debat are quite similar, are they not? And if nobody rises, then we keep on going.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 10 negatived.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out line 1 at
page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Paragraphs 77(l)(c) and (d) of the said act are".
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment to the act is to change section 77. Under section 77 as it is now there are certain persons who are declared to be ineligible to be candidates in a general election. The act provides
April 2, 1993

that: "Every person who is a member of a legislature of a province during the time he is such a member is disqualified from being a candidate at an election".
The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing recommended that this restriction be done away with. The committee of the House that was appointed by the House to study this issue unanimously recommended that this prohibition be done away with. Yet the government decided to put the jackboots to the committee report, pretended that the committee had not reported this recommendation, and struck that provision out of the bill.
The purpose of this amendment is to put it back into the bill and allow members of provincial legislatures to run for public office, for this House of Commons. They will have to resign their seats if they are elected to the House but they would be eligible to be candidates for this House and retain their seats until elected, just as a mayor of a municipality is, a counsellor or alderperson on a municipal council is, and the reeve of a township is. All these people are entitled to run for Parliament and retain their offices until elected, but members of the provincial legislature are not allowed to do so.
The commission and the committee agreed that this was an anomaly in the law. The purpose of this amendment is to remove that anomaly. That is a brief explanation. I think the amendment makes sense. If it were not so close to an election I think even the government would agree that it makes sense. However I suspect that given the unpopularity of the government there are no members of provincial legislatures who want to run for federal office for it. Therefore the government figures it might as well cut them all out because anybody with any sense who is in a provincial legislature would not run as a Tory candidate but would be running as a Liberal candidate or as a candidate of some other party, most likely as a Liberal.
That is the reason that the government did not agree with this amendment. It is perfectly clear to me, and I am sure it is clear to the hon. member who is making such a noise from her seat because if it was not she would be silent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, this time I find myself in complete agreement with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I
Government Orders
would only add that these people, while they may not run as candidates, are still going to have a vote under this act. No matter what the polls are or what the party standings are it is not going to really do much to change the results, assuming the candidate votes for himself or herself.
It would be interesting to have an explanation from the government side as to why it did not follow the Lortie commission and/or the committee report on something that seems on the face of it to be so sensible. That is what I would hope we might have in the sense that this place is supposed to be a Parliament, a place in which we are supposed to debate. It would be a very interesting to find out why the government did not follow those two recommendations.
The explanation by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands makes very good sense. I think we should support it and get on with further amendments.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: I thank you Madam Speaker for recognizing me so rapidly and with so much kindness in the eyes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is true that the hon. member put on his glasses but I am touched and delighted that he could see generosity in my eyes from such a distance. I will recognize him without delay. The hon. member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: This is too much. I thank you, Madam Speaker. You are making me ill at ease. However, Madam Speaker, you are right; what I was referring to is more the nod of your head than the approval you expressed with your eyes.
I would like to speak on that amendment. The member for Saint-Maurice wants me to open my arms and preach but you know how much I prefer substance to gesture.
This amendment is similar to the others; again, it limits the opportunity to become a candidate. I am surprised that an electoral reform, which was described as the most important measure, because five days before the election, the prime minister said that electoral reform will be our most important measure and we will

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
implement it at the very beginning of our mandate. We are now at the end of that mandate and they are presenting minimal reform, a small reform with a leitmotiv: restrict the voting rights, the number of candidates and the number of political parties. They are afraid to lose and they want to pass legislation in order to buy votes. But not to worry; the people of Canada cannot be bought and will send them all packing.


Guy Ricard: Are you shooting a video, Louis?


Louis Plamondon: This is so undignified for a government member to prevent an opposition member from speaking his mind. Again it shows how their behaviour in the House is a perfect reflection of the behaviour behind this reform. This reform limits the number of parties by requiring a minimum deposit of $1,000; it limits the rights of prisoners to vote; it limits the possibilities for any member of a provincial assembly to become a candidate. Why all these restrictions? Why not let democracy prevail? Because you do not live by it, you do not understand what it is and you want to stay in office. Those are the reasons you are hiding from us.
And you Quebec Tories should be ashamed of yourselves; you should follow in the steps of great democrats like Rene Levesque who did reform political parties, who did implement an electoral reform based on grass roots financing, who did it by giving the right to vote to everyone in Quebec, even allowing those who were away during an election to vote. That is what you are doing wrong. You should stand up today and defend that way of thinking, the Quebec way. That is why the Bloc Quebe-cois is so essential, because you are not doing your job. We had to form a political party and come here to defend Quebec's higher interests. And those interests are telling me I should say yes, the prisoners should have the right to vote; they are telling me I should say no one can limit the number of political parties nor limit or control democracy with money, as Justice Michaud said in his decision on the Libman case, nor limit the right for members of other assemblies to become candidates. By refusing our colleague's amendment you are trying to keep men and women from becoming candidates for a political party because you are afraid and that is a totally undemocratic gesture.
Let's take an example. There are, in certain provinces like Ontario and Quebec, members of the provincial assembly. They play a role as important as that of the federal members of Parliament. But in smaller provinces, Prince Edward Island for example, where there are 32 MLAs for a territory and a population the size of my riding, evidently the four federal members have much more visibility.
Of course, they have much more visibility. And we should let those people who sit in a provincial legislature be candidates in a federal election without having to resign. Thus, the mayors of Sorel or Nicolet or Becan-court should not have to resign if they wanted to be candidates in your ridings. It is the same thing.
But no. Again, the government takes away the rights of these citizens who are members of a provincial legislature by keeping them from being candidates. That is why the amendment of the Liberal member is fair, honest and right. It is a good suggestion. We must rise above partisanship and not behave like the member for Saint-Maurice, the member for Laval, the minister opposite from Quebec, and the member for Lotbiniere, who feel like prisoners of their party and are yesmen until the leadership race, until the election, and who will commit mass suicide when the election comes.
It is tragic to see such a lack of responsibility a lack of support for the sacred interests of Quebec when we talk about the constitution, about education, about job training. When we talk about election renewal we see them totally withdraw from the debate. It is intolerable. It is surprising, very surprising.
You were elected on a wave of Quebec nationalism. You were elected, remember, thanks to the famous speech in Sept-fles. That speech was one that won over the nationalists. Which speech will you have to explain your silence today? Which speech will you have? You will have none nor will you have any vote. That is why you will be sent packing.
You betrayed as much as the former Liberal members who used to be called the 74 wimps. Remember in those days the 74 wimps of Quebec, between 1981 and 1985, who repatriated the Constitution without the approval of Quebec. They were all sent home and you will too because you too decided to serve the interests of your
April 2, 1993

party before serving those of your country. That is what awaits you.
In that sense the amendment which is moved could only serve Quebec's interests, and you keep silent.
The people who are king and master and whose democratic prerogative and freedom to vote you try today to restrain by all kinds of means will prevail. They will not be influenced by your money or by the conditions you want to impose to stop the democratic process.
They will not be influenced just as they were not during the last referendum when you, members from Quebec, tried to force Quebecers to accept an immoral and antidemocratic deal which went completely against Quebec's needs and against the mandate they gave you when they elected you.
Why do you not speak up today? Why do you not rise in the House to say you do not serve a party any more? You serve your homeland, Quebec. You want to turn toward the future with Quebec. You want democracy to express itself throughout Quebec and you will not allow it to be curtailed as they try to do with this bill which is a band-aid reform instead of being a real one which deals with real problems.
The real problem is the financing of political parties and you are hiding behind the multinational companies and the big financiers who in turn are hanging on to your coat-tails to obtain privileges.
Instead of serving the community's interests you prefer to serve the wealthy minorities and because of that attitude at the next election we from the Bloc Quebecois will not fail to remind you what you did.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue exactly in the same vein as my hon. friend


An hon. member:: No, do not say the same thing. At least speak English.


Nic Leblanc: No, I will not speak English because the vast majority of Quebecers do not speak English and I want them to understand me well.


An hon. member:: I am not sure of that.


Nic Leblanc: Too often we have heard French-speaking members from Quebec speak English here in the House of Commons when they did not want
Government Orders
Quebecers to understand what they were saying. So, dear colleagues from Quebec, allow me to express myself in French since 95 per cent of Quebecers speak French and some 60 per cent of Quebecers do not even speak English. I am going to speak French to make sure they really understand that this Tory government is anti-democratic.
This is an anti-democratic government who, with this bill, is once again determined to prevent a mayor or a member of the National Assembly to become a member of Parliament. We have very competent mayors and MPP's in Quebec who want to be candidates in the federal election and they will be prevented from doing it if this bill is passed because-


Guy Ricard: Are you talking about candidates?


Nic Leblanc: Yes, candidates.


Guy Ricard: So we are not talking about members of Parliament.


Nic Leblanc: I do not know if the hon. member for Laval-West has seen it, but under this bill a member of the National Assembly of Quebec or a mayor cannot run in a federal election.
Right now a mayor or a member of the National Assembly does have the right to run for a seat in Ottawa. They will have to quit their jobs however if they are elected. There is quite a distinction to be made. They now have the privilege to enter the race while carrying on their duties as mayor or MPP in Quebec or any other province and keeping the salaries and the perks they enjoy.
They have the means and the flexibility to do both at the same time. Under this bill, as soon as they decide to run in a federal election, they will have to quit their jobs. One has to wonder what gives us the right to place these conditions on them even before they win. Running in an election requires enough sacrifices as it is.
Politicians who have been members of the National Assembly of Quebec for some years are probably the best persons to represent Quebecers here in Ottawa. Because of their previous experience they understand the interests of Quebec, like the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, who was a cabinet minister in Quebec. The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer would not have

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
been able to run without quitting his job first. Can you imagine the impact this will have, Mr. Speaker?
What is also disappointing in this bill is the fact that the prime minister had promised a complete reform of the legislation on party financing. In November 17, 1988, he said: "I will undertake a full reform, especially of party financing". He said that conflicts of interests could occur under the present legislation. However, the bill being introduced by the government does not take into consideration this crucial part of the electoral reform bill.
I do not understand why the Liberal Party and the NDP seem ready to support this bill with no cry of division. They do propose some amendments but without really opposing the bill. The Liberal Party and the NDP look like they are ready to let the big corporations and unions finance their own party, which goes against everything democracy stands for.
In the last referendum we saw big corporations like the Royal Bank donate $100,000 to the Yes fund. The Association des societes de recherches sur les medicaments, a major research company, contributed $241,000 to the Yes fund. This is supposed to be democratic. All kinds of subliminal messages were broadcast on TV to scare Quebecers about what would happen if Quebec separates. The referendum, and especially the Yes group, was financed by the big corporations and today, the House is considering some parliamentary reform measures-a mini reform, as the hon. member said- which completely ignore what should be the basis of this reform. This is totally unacceptable.
That is why today, we in the Bloc Quebecois are taking so much time. Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec must be familiar with the Quebec principle of individual financing. In other words, only individuals who have the right to vote also have the right to contribute to political parties. I think that makes sense. This is the only way to ensure that a country is democratic and that it is not influenced either by financial interests or the big unions. I think that is the way it should be but members who we can assume are here to defend the interests of Quebec have completely forgotten what Quebecers want.
We had the Belanger-Campeau commission, the most important exercise in Quebec's history. The commission whose membership reflected all segments of Quebec society asked the people of Quebec and the government and members representing them here in Ottawa and in Quebec City for 22 or 23 real powers, otherwise Quebec would have to go for sovereignty. That is in the report of a commission with members from every walk of life in Quebec. The report says that if we do not have those necessary powers we will have to be sovereign. Otherwise we cannot develop our full potential. What did Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec here in Ottawa do? They went against the will of Quebecers. Today they claim they still legitimately represent Quebecers in Ottawa.
Federalist members who still claim to be their legitimate representatives here in Ottawa are deceiving the people of Quebec. They have betrayed Quebecers. They want to betray them again by asking for the right to represent them here in Ottawa while they worked against them during the last referendum campaign. That is intolerable. Today I want to ask Quebecers to remember their motto: Je me souviens. I hope they will remember that the Conservative and Liberal members of this House worked against the wishes of the people, against what they asked them to do through the Belanger-Campeau Commission.
Once again I hope that here in Ottawa there will be an end to adopting unfair and undemocratic measures which undermine the interests of Quebecers.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We cannot go on with this debate because there is no quorum.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would humbly maintain that for a member to call a point of order he must have been here and therefore must be one of the twenty that is counted if there is a quorum.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clark (Brandon -Souris)):: There is quorum. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clark (Brandon -Souris)):: The question is on Motion No. 11.
April 2, 1993

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clark (Brandon -Souris)):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clark (Brandon -Souris)):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clark (Brandon -Souris)):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 11 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: The House will appreciate this is a new and very grave responsibility.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 11 to 18 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
(j) the amount of $500.00 must be deposited with the returning officer at the same time as the nomination paper and the deposit shall be returned to the candidate on satisfaction of the conditions set out in paragraph 84(3)(a);
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 6 to 14 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
section 219(2), the deposit shall be [Translation]


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised because usually someone who moves an amendment takes a few minutes at the beginning of the discussion to explain the reasons why he presented such an amendment. We are dealing with Motion No. 13, I think, which mentions a $500 amount to be deposited with the returning officer at the same time as the nomination paper. The debate is taking place in the same context as before, that is the limitation of the democratic process which Canadians and Quebecers will have to
Government Orders
decide upon in the next election. It is utterly unacceptable for the government to demand not $250 but $1,000 from someone who is running. Let's say a party, the Green Party for example, decided to use an election campaign to make the people aware of environmental issues, to raise the awareness of the different candidates during a debate, not necessarily to win the election.
I am surprised Conservative members are chatting in the House instead of listening to speeches that could inspire them and help them better understand the situation.
I was saying that if the Green Party decided to present a candidate in all 75 Quebec ridings for instance, it will have to spend $75,000 to present 75 candidates. The intent of the Green Party is not to have its candidates elected but simply to raise the public awareness on environmental issues during the electoral campaign. The same rationale could apply to an organization dedicated to preserving the agricultural way of life of certain areas. You could have a pro-agriculture party which would not necessarily wish to send representatives to Parliament but, as we say in Quebec, to put farm problems on the map during the election.
The Conservative Party which forms the government says: It is risky, so let's set some limits. Let's limit political parties. Let's limit interventions because the less that is said the better our chances of winning will be since we have no economic vision, no constitutional vision, no agricultural vision. We just let the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks decide what our economic policy will be; we just let them raise interest rates. That is the government's economic vision. In terms of the electoral reform, it is the same thing. It is exactly the same-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clark (Brandon -Souris)):: It
being three o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

April 2, 1993
Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That in the opinion of this House, the government should make the Declaration and Plan of Action of the World Summit for Children, held at the United Nations on the 29th and 30th of September, 1990, an integral part of Canadian international co-operation policy;
That the government should consider fully implementing the major global commitments agreed to by the 71 heads of state and government attending the summit, including domestic and international co-operation strategies for child survival and development;
That the government should consider making available adequate financial resources for these purposes, including a contribution to the additional resources required from donor countries based on Canada's historical 5 per cent share of global foreign aid;
That multinational institutions be directed to focus their efforts on the implementation of summit promises;
That the minister responsible for the summit follow-up be invited to report to Parliament once a year on the implementation of the World Summit for Children Plan of Action and the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the extent that the application of the plan and convention, at the national, regional and international levels, requires action or a contribution on the part of Canada; and
That parliamentarians around the world be invited to ensure that each country provide its fair share of the additional resources required to see that the promises of the World Summit for Children become reality.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you and others may have noticed, Motion No. 616 is almost identical to one that was passed in this House in mid-December 1991. It had the support of all parties in the House.
The fact that these are almost the same is not a coincidence. This motion was presented to the House on November 7, 1991 in an attempt to push the government into some action on the commitments that Canada had made at the World Summit for Children.
More than one year earlier in September 1990, this House passed a motion such as the one we are debating today after waiting the year. Now two and one half years after the world summit, because this government has not
fulfilled its commitment, we are again pushing the government for action.
The 1990 summit for children was the largest gathering of world leaders in history at the time. Prime ministers, presidents and kings promised two billion children a revolution. The Prime Minister was the summit's co-chairman and he invited children everywhere to "listen carefully to what we say and in coming years hold us to our commitments".
I am here today to remind the government that it has not yet fulfilled those commitments. The commitment that Canada and the 58 other countries represented at the summit made was that children would have first call on their government's resources.
Now, two and a half years later, the Prime Minister's noble words and global commitment to reduce child death and malnutrition, to reduce the number of women dying during pregnancy and to make life for all children of the world easier now ring hollow. These words have had little impact on the real world of children today.
In fact, if we are to judge Canada's efforts by the dwindling dollars spent on humanitarian aid Canada has been backing away from those commitments made over and over by this government.
The children of Canada, the children of the world, have found that you cannot depend upon this government to keep its word. Promises cannot be eaten or turned into health care.
By December 1991, 71 countries had agreed to a plan of action in a convention on the rights of the child. Canada joined that group and again committed itself to a massive move to improve the life of children.
This subject of care of children can be dealt with in two parts: domestically for the children here in Canada who have not done particularly well, and internationally for the children of the rest of the world. Canada's record is not great at either level.
I want to spend my short time dealing with the international situation. Many of my colleagues have taken other opportunities to document Canada's lack of commitment to our own children. I want to deal with our
April 2, 1993

commitment to alleviating poverty and reducing the deaths of children from malnutrition and disease all over the world.
In 1992, UNICEF estimated that 40,000 children die every day from infection and malnutrition. That amounts to about 14 million children per year who die because of disease and malnutrition.
I do not want to leave the impression that Canada has not been generous or compassionate. Among the nations of the world Canada has always been among the first to provide emergency food and disaster relief when it has been asked for. Canada also has been and continues to be generous in its donations to multinational organizations such as UNICEF, the children's fund, to UNDP, the development program, and UNIFEM, the UNDP women's program, and to other multinational organizations.
My concern is that we seem to be backing away from our commitment to children, away from the alleviation of poverty in the poorest countries of the world and from the real commitment we made when we signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child in December 1991.
We are backing away from the commitments we made when we accepted sharing our future as the policy base for Canadian aid. That policy was to a great extent a product of three different parliamentary committees in this House.
Proof that Canada is backing away from its commitments is best indicated by the following facts. Canada's aid as a percentage of gross national product is now lower than it has been since the early 1980s. It has fallen so low that the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, has expressed alarm and regret that Canada's aid has significantly declined.
Children are the most affected because the weakest are the first to suffer and die when aid is withdrawn from Third World countries. This government has reduced its ODA expenditures by $4.5 billion since it came to power.
Third, this government is in the process of a further 10 per cent reduction. These reductions were started in the 1992-93 year and are carried into the 1993-94 estimates.
Private Members' Business
These cuts are expected to amount to about $650 million over two years.
Fourth, in addition to the funding cuts, this government has developed plans to redirect ODA funds away from the Third World especially from the least developed countries which most need long term assistance.
Instead, the government wants to use ODA funds for trade development activities in the former Soviet bloc and elsewhere. Canadian aid to the Soviet bloc is essential, but it should not be done at the expense of ODA to poorer countries. It would be much more logical to look for those funds in our defence budget or from the private sector which will profit from it in the long run.
This government, as part of its funding cuts, is reducing the assistance channelled through non-government organizations. In 1993-94 these cuts run as high as 12 per cent for some NGOs. The average across the board is about 10 per cent we are told.
Many of these funds are matching grants to NGOs which are the agencies through which tens of thousands of Canadians become directly involved in international development.
The NGOs work as partners with the local groups in developing countries. Together they work to improve basic health care, education, nutrition, farming techniques, small business operations and a host of other enterprises.
NGOs are experienced, efficient and accountable. Women and children will suffer most from this reduction to the non-government organizations.
Sixth, the government has announced that it is abruptly ending Canada's bilateral assistance programs in east Africa and the Horn of Africa. Countries like Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda and Sudan are some of the countries which most need development and where children are suffering and dying in the largest numbers. This is part of CIDA's reduction of aid.
Seventh, the United Nations report on development has pointed out that less than 10 per cent of Canada's aid is humanitarian. Less than 10 per cent of our aid is directed toward human priorities such as clean water, basic health care, primary education and family planning.

April 2, 1993
Private Members' Business
This works out to less than $300 million out of $2.7 billion being spent on ODA actually reaching the poorest people. The poorest people are supposed to be the main target of Canadian assistance. That is what we said when we adopted Sharing Our Future.
Eighth, Canada has supported generously the international financial institutions, but it has done it without demanding from those institutions any conditions which would ensure that the projects supported by the World Bank and its regional partners would be people friendly. As a result, many World Bank projects have increased devastation and malnutrition among those affected or displaced by the many projects which the World Bank seems to favour.
Instead, these offices along with industrial countries have increased Third World debt to the point where that debt is the greatest single deterrent to progress and development in many countries. It is ironic that those loans which were supposed to be such a great help have turned out to be the greatest deterrents to development.
To Canada's credit, we have unilaterally forgiven much of our direct debt to the least developed countries in the Francophonie and the Commonwealth.
The New Democratic Party of Canada believes that the basis of all aid of all kinds should lead to the empowerment of the people of recipient countries and should lead to their self-sufficiency and independence.
Canada and all donor countries should avoid the tendency to exploit aid as internal economic development tools. Aid can be mutually beneficial without being exploitive of the recipient. Official Development Assistance is the key to giving the world's children a hopeful chance for a full life.
The New Democratic Party of Canada would immediately move to increase the effectiveness and quality of Canada's official development assistance. First, we would conduct a thorough review of ODA policy. We would ask Canadians in all walks of life, recipient countries and other donor countries to be part of a review. We would call on the considerable expertise of the NGO community and the United Nations agencies to contribute to the new policy. Farm groups, small businesses and co-ops would also be involved.
I do not suppose we would greatly change the aims of our future but we would spend a lot of time making sure that we could fulfil those aims. NGOs and other political groups have also called for such a review and rededication of Canada's aid.
Second, the New Democratic Party of Canada would immediately move to improve the quality and quantity of Canadian aid that goes into humanitarian priorities such as clean water, sanitation, nutrition, education and family planning. Those are the projects which affect women and children the most. Such a move could be made without increasing Canada's deficit.
This shift to humanitarian priorities would be best implemented by increasing our utilization of NGOs, non-government organizations. As indicated earlier, the NGOs are the most effective and efficient providers of this kind of aid since their projects are usually working directly with people and partners to help them develop their skills and ability to provide for themselves as far as possible.
This is probably the ultimate manifestation of the statement: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life". In the Third World statistics show that women provide 85 per cent of sustenance. We can make this shift to better quality without increasing the Canadian deficit.
Third, the New Democratic Party has always supported the movement of the level of ODA to the United Nations level of 1 per cent of Gross National Product. This government has reduced the level of Canada's contribution to below .4 per cent of GNP. With this year's cuts and future dilution by making the international assistance envelope cover non-ODA countries, it is likely to drop to .3 per cent of ODA. This neglect and undermining of Canada's position is going to make it exceedingly difficult for any future government to regain this lost ground in view of Canada's national debt. New Democrats would move to turn the trend around immediately in an attempt to reach the UN target as soon as possible.
Fourth, the New Democratic Party would review Canada's contribution to IFIs, the international financial institutions, and make our continuing involvement with those institutions dependent and conditional upon policy changes which would make the World Bank institutions

April 2, 1993
much more sensitive to the humanitarian impact of any project on ordinary people.
Five, democracy means involving people. The New Democratic Party would aim its aid at the empowerment of people. The first step in this process would be the establishment of an advisory board for CIDA. Such a board would include representations from the recipient countries that would take part, and would take part in the general review of Canada's ODA policy. Such a board may extend its personnel to have smaller boards within regions in which CIDA now operates. Such a board would call heavily upon the development community in Canada: the NGOs, the business community, academia and the churches.
Aid to poor countries has been motivated in the past, as Betty Plewes of the CCIC, the Canadian Council of International Co-operation, stated: one part altruism-humanitarianism and four parts geo-political self-interest in the context of the cold war. As Betty points out, aid will probably go on being motivated by many intangibles.
Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, author of the UN development report, told a parliamentary committee last year that 95 per cent of the children born were born in Third World countries and 5 per cent were bom in industrialized countries, which is the western countries including the Soviet bloc.
Dr. Mahbub ul Haq went on to say: "The threat to you Canadians will come not from ideological differences but from poverty. Industrialized countries are a shrinking minority of the world's population. You 5 per cent of the world's people will have to deal with the 95 per cent in developing countries. You can stop poor people at your borders but you cannot stop poverty from spreading in the form of drugs, pollution and terrorism".
We committed ourselves and Canada's resources to the children of Canada and the world. We cannot separate the welfare of the world from that of Canada. Doing all we can to make the children of the world healthy, productive and content would be a good start to a better world.
Canada's efforts to alleviate poverty among children of the world is slipping. We need to recognize that and do
Private Members' Business
something about it. We need to improve the quality of our aid. We need to utilize the best people to develop that humanitarian aid. In other words, we need to work at making the children of the world citizens who can produce and benefit and be part of a good world tomorrow.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the proposed motion before us today for a number of reasons.
First, it is one step toward eradicating child poverty not only here in Canada but elsewhere around the world. Every one of us has a responsibility and a role to play. If we look at the future of Canada we cannot help but say: "If we cannot take care of our children today, how can we take care of the future of Canada tomorrow?" Children are the future of this country.
It is quite alarming that child poverty has hit an all-time high in Canada. During the 1980s we had approximately 984,000 living below the poverty line. In 1990, 10 years later, the number of people living below the poverty line is in excess of 1.1 million, which is about a 17 per cent increase over the past 10 years.
If we examine all the government policies over the past 10 years, and especially regarding child poverty, we can say in all fairness that we have failed on that front.
When we talk about child poverty we talk about poverty in general. A child is poor because he comes from a poor family. Poverty hits the single mothers hardest. According to Statistics Canada, 80 per cent of poor mothers have no high school diploma, and because they live below the poverty line their children are poor.
A lot of people believe that poor people normally do not work. That is totally unfair and untrue because according to statistics two-thirds of all poor in Canada whether they are poor families or a single parent are actually working poor.
According to 1990 statistics provided by Statistics Canada, 27 per cent of poor families work full time and another 40 per cent work part time. Only one-third of those poor families do not work at all because of lack of opportunities, because of disabilities or because of other considerations. That applies also to single people. More than 67 per cent of people under the age of 25 are also working poor and only about 27 per cent of those youth are not working.

April 2, 1993
Private Members' Business
Child poverty is an issue that concerns us all because poverty has a direct impact on the health of the nation. The reason why I say that is that if you look at children who live below the poverty line you will find that 40 to 50 per cent of those children were most likely born with low birth weight, with permanent growth retardation or restriction. There is a correlation between the health of the child and the quality of nutrition that he or she is receiving.
Also, when we talk about children who are poor, you will find that they are twice as likely to die before their first birthday. They experience a 50 per cent higher death rate than the average child. They are more than twice as likely to suffer long-term disabilities and other health problems. That is when we talk about poverty in general in Canadian society.
Child poverty is worse in our society when it comes to aboriginal people. If you look at the statistics going back to 1984, there was twice the number of youth or infant mortality among aboriginal people than in the average population of Canada. Furthermore, the aboriginal suicide rate in the age bracket 15 to 19 is almost seven times the rate of other children in the rest of Canada.
There is a direct correlation between poverty and what it has to do with the over-all health of the nation and what it has to do with the over-all future of the nation. A lot has been said about this issue.
Canada signed the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child in 1990. The government is to be commended on that because it was a positive step forward that everyone has to recognize. We, on the Liberal side, are proud of the fact that Canada was one of the signators of that convention. Like anything else in life, however, unless you put laws into action and unless you take action, all of these words and promises will remain as promises.
Actions speak louder than words. So far, unfortunately, we have not seen a progressive action plan being put in place to deal with child poverty. As a matter of fact, we only have to look to the past to see that if this House unanimously adopted a motion by the year 2000 we would eradicate child poverty, but as I have indicated to you from Statistics Canada information child poverty over the past 10 years has been increasing, not decreasing.
There are things we must look at. We must develop legislation which expresses a positive minimum standard of care rather than negative prohibitions on parental behaviour. We must develop strategies to ensure that children taken into care receive the services they need and do not suffer from government neglect. We must look at ways to address this whole question in a cohesive manner rather than just dealing with it on an ad hoc basis.
Our party has come forward with a number of recommendations. I would like to cite a few of them that came as a result of the collective work of our critic for health and welfare from Winnipeg and our spokesperson on child poverty who is also from Winnipeg. They have recommended eight different steps that the government can take in order to deal with child poverty.
First the federal government should immediately participate with provincial and territorial governments through boards of education and in conjunction with community volunteers to provide nutritionally balanced breakfast, lunch and snack programs in schools throughout Canada. We know this will not solve the problem in the long term, but at least it is one first step that the government should look at.
Also the Liberal Party recommends that the government redesign the tax system to make it more equitable, to help families cope with the added expenses of raising children and simplifying the federal child benefits system. Everything boils down to income and expenses. The Liberal Parly has moved forward to recommend that the government immediately announce its intentions to have accelerated job creation programs for students to be put in place for summertime employment.
These are some of the recommendations. I can see we are pretty well running out of time. It is Friday afternoon and I do not want to monopolize the time of my other colleagues who want to speak on this issue. However I am grateful to say that the House of Commons has unanimously adopted the resolution I introduced on behalf of my party recognizing November 20 as child day in Canada.
I will read that for the record. It says that throughout Canada each and every year November 20, being the day in the year 1989 when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted in the United Nations General Assembly, shall be known as the National Day of the Child.
April 2, 1993

This day was designated in order to allow Canadians from coast to coast on an annual basis to celebrate the potential of children, to celebrate what childhood is all about. At the same time, that day will give us a chance to assess how far we have come as a society in dealing with child poverty and what we have done as a society in order to attack the poverty that faces children.
I know there is not one single action any government can take that will solve all of the problems, but every single step could help. We have a responsibility at every level, from the school board level, municipal level and provincial level to the federal government level, to collectively set up an action plan that will help us deal with the question of today and the question of tomorrow.
To that extent I want to put on the record that we support the motion proposed by our colleague.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak in support of Motion No. 616, introduced by our colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt. I thank him for his initiative.
In December 1991 the Liberal Party introduced a minority report on child poverty entitled "A Child Investment Strategy". It was introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre and myself as the health critic for the Official Opposition.
My colleague from Ottawa Centre has already alluded to some of the recommendations. I thought I would just remind the House that in the report we indicated that:
We believe that the committee's report should have called for a child investment strategy that would have marked the beginning of a 10-year campaign against all child poverty in Canada. Even within that context, the committee neglected such obvious problems as education and training -perhaps the most solid investment we can make in our children.
Then we went on to note that the Subcommittee on Poverty failed to inform the House of Commons of the extent to which federal government policies since 1984 have directly and dramatically increased poverty in every region and city throughout Canada.
In contrast to the recommendation of that committee which only urges provincial and territorial governments
Private Members' Business
to promote nutritionally balanced breakfast, lunch and snack programs in schools throughout Canada, the Liberal Party felt that we should immediately participate with those governments in implementing those nutritionally balanced breakfast, lunch and snack programs for schools throughout Canada.
I should also add that I published an article in The Medical Post about giving nutritional supplements to pregnant women who are poor. If we spent about $155 million on these pregnant women throughout the country we would have a return of about $350 million in savings by preventing 6,000 babies from being bom underweight.
We have had a long commitment to alleviating the plight of our children, to the development of our children. In that Liberal minority report of December 1991 we also indicated to Parliament and Canadians our party's commitment to full employment.
I was just reading a summary of achievements by this government from 1984 to 1993, which was published in February of this year. I would like to quote from the section on this government's contribution to world peace and development. It says:
Canada has an enviable international reputation as a responsible nation dedicated to the ideals embodied in the United Nations Charter. Canada has vigorously pursued the cause of international peace and development over the last eight years with a host of initiatives and programs.
While we applaud those initiatives that help the poor children in the world we have noted that the amount of aid to those developing countries has diminished.
I would like to submit that it is in the best interests of Canadians to help children in developing countries become strong, healthy and productive citizens, as we do for our own children and youth in Canada. Then those children in the developing countries will move the economies in their countries, and thus those countries would require imports from Canada thereby helping our economic development. Also, and this is very important, we will restore human dignity to all children of the world.

April 2, 1993
Private Members' Business
On that note I would like to reaffirm my support for the principles embodied in this motion. I reaffirm:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should make the declaration and plan of action of the World Summit for Children, held at the United Nations on the 29th and 30th of September, 1990, an integral part of Canadian international co-operation policy;
That the government should consider fully implementing the major global commitments agreed to by the 71 heads of state and government attending the summit, including domestic and international co-operation strategies for child survival and development;
That the government should consider making available adequate financial resources for these purposes, including a contribution to the additional resources required from donor countries based on Canada's historical 5 per cent of global foreign aid;
That multinational institutions be directed to focus their efforts on the implementation of summit promises;
That the minister responsible for the summit follow-up be invited to report to Parliament once a year on the implementation of the World Summit for Children plan of action and the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the extent that the application of the plan and convention, at the national, regional and international levels, requires action or a contribution on the part of Canada; and
That parliamentarians around the world be invited to ensure that each country provides its fair share of the additional resources required to see that the promises of the World Summit for Children become a reality.
I would like to leave this debate with one very important principle as we commit ourselves to these declarations by my hon. colleague from Saskatoon- Humboldt, which I support very strongly. It is the so-called first principle.
When the financial resources of Canada are plentiful let us think of our children and youth first. When the resources of the country are scarce the children and youth should suffer last.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to take part in this debate on motion M-616 presented by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humbolt. As we know, I was vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs in 1986-87 and I had the pleasure of working with other members of this House on an in-depth study regarding assistance to developing countries. I can tell you that I am well aware of what is going on, particularly with regard to African countries.
I had the pleasure of visiting several projects managed by Canada in co-operation with non-governmental organizations and I understand why Canada is reluctant to get involved in the issue of children's rights. I understand in a sense, but in another sense I do not. I understand because Canada's debt is enormous and theoretically we cannot afford to increase our financial aid to developing countries. But there are other ways to help those countries, and I find it sad because if I remember well it was our Prime Minister who chaired the World Summit for Children and it is that same Prime Minister who is now taking so much time to respond. He should give leadership and Canada should give leadership and fulfil the promises that have been made.
It is really unfortunate because today other countries are watching Canada that who was then a leader explaining to other countries what they should do in order to protect the rights of the child. That same Prime Minister does not do a thing. I wonder how Canada is now perceived after we made such a great fuss about the World Summit for Children and worked so hard to make it happen.
Let me tell again about those countries I had the opportunity to visit and about projects in those countries, most particularly in Africa. I did not get the chance to travel to other countries to see our assistance projects. In Africa we visited Tanzania, Senegal, Cameroon, Niger and Ethiopia. We made two visits to those developing countries to try and find a better way, to help them.
We realized that 30 years ago when we started to help those developing countries we tended to have a colonial approach. We wanted to help them, but we also wanted to help ourselves. We would undertake projects, always thinking that they would bring benefits to us. That has been the great tragedy. All the time we helped them, we were thinking of ourselves first. Of course, they got some assistance but it was a bad start because when you want to help yourself before you help others you forget the essential part, that is to help a country on the basis of its potential. In developing countries, particularly African countries, we developed great projects that they were unable to manage. A few years later everything was in shambles.
April 2, 1993

Let me list a few if I may. In Tanzania, for example, the Clark government found an outstanding potential for wheat production. Of course, they have some difficulty with wheat in Tanzania, but the then Prime Minister, the member for Yellowhead, accepted to develop a great wheat production project. Being a westerner, he was quite open to that kind of project and he knew very well this kind of development. He also thought that it could eventually help people in western Canada because they could sell equipment, for example. To make a long story short, we developed a great wheat production project in Tanzania, and I have to admit it was a success from the point of view of productivity and the volume of production. We developed that project much like we do in western Canada, with big farms, big tractors and big combines. We built garages to maintain this machinery and trained people to repair those tractors and combines. Everything was fine. This means there might be a hundred people working for this big project which pays quite a bit. What we forgot is that we could have gone with small NGOs or collaborative projects, which would have cost a lot less and would have employed more people. Thousands of people could have worked to produce about the same result. They would have learned to grow things. They would have acquired the know-how from our people. They would have had an opportunity to earn their living in an honourable way. They would have learned to cultivate. By doing it for them did we really help them? This is the question one must ask. Yes, we probably helped them, but not in the long term.
A few years later when this project was running smoothly Prime Minister Trudeau visited Tanzania. He went to Dar es Salaam and told them: "You are producing a lot of wheat, my friends. Dar es Salaam is a city of about two million people. It seems you are lacking a bakery". What did Mr. Trudeau do? He said we are going to build a bakery. And he built the most modern bakery of the time. What happened then? By producing large quantities of bread in that ultra-modem bakery we put all the small bakers out of business, the thousand of bakers who had worked at feeding the people of Dar es Salaam. We took away their jobs. We took away their capacity to earn an honest living.
Government Orders
Even worse, we did not put into place the maintenance infrastructure for this bakery, and the last time I went to Tanzania it was no longer operational. But between the time it started and the time it stopped producing, all the small bakers had closed shop. Did we really help these people? What I am trying to say is that with the same amount of money we could have done a lot more had we decided to genuinely help others instead of helping ourselves under the guise of helping others. This is the thrust of my speech.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on Electoral Reform; and Motions Nos. 13 and 15.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, now that we are back to the amendments to the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-114, I am in the unusual situation I was in when the amendment of my friend from Saskatoon-Humboldt was put.
I agreed with my former colleague who spoke before we got into Private Members' hour. I was looking forward to some explanation for the amendment from the hon. member and whether he intends to participate now in the debate.
This raises some interesting questions again in this very fundamental change in our election laws, which will affect all Canadians and hon. members. This particular amendment, as I understand it, not having had the explanation from the hon. member who moved it, is a change in the government bill that says the deposit will

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
be $1,000. This amendment is a change from the present $200. I gather that $200 has been there for some time. Neither the government clause of $1,000 nor the amendment, as I understand it, conforms to what the Lortie commission reported in the royal commission that is the basis for this phase of election reform. It made no suggestion of a dollar amount.
I certainly have filed the $200 deposit but there is the question of whether $1,000 is too much for democracy. The $500 seems to be a little more equitable for people who may want to run. Under this law we are already changing the number of people who have to sign the papers from 50 to 100, which is most likely a good thing. The nomination papers will have to be signed by 100 electors, however the real question is whether $1,000 is just a little too much.
Perhaps the hon. member's amendment is what he considers to be a compromise between $1,000, $200 and $500 and that may be reasonable. However I did not have an explanation from the member. This is an interesting question, but then we get into this whole other area of $1,000 to be allotted to third parties for advertising.
I gather from what the government House leader said earlier, the issue interests a lot of Canadians, especially Canadians who are not in this Chamber but certainly not the three registered parties in this Chamber, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. As I said, there were hon. members doing the committee report. I read what the Lortie commission said about third party advertising and trying to weigh the question of free speech. It makes sense that members and parties have restrictions on expenses. Yet third parties can come in under the present law as it has been interpreted by the courts and flood the airwaves, newspapers and post office boxes of electors if there is no restriction or limitation on the amount a third party can spend.
I do not know if I want the tax system they have in the States or these political action committees that pervert almost all the laws for election expenses. I think in most cases they are supposed to have a $5,000 limit, so they just create another committee. They can have a multitude of committees to get around their election expense laws which are really pretty horrific in terms of not really
setting any limits. Thank God it has not happened here yet, but money in the United States is almost fundamental. Unless one has millions of dollars do not even think of running for an election. Certainly in the House of Representatives one needs hundreds of thousands of dollars and in the Senate in the United States it is in the millions. I forget one of the figures but I think $2.4 million was the average for Senate races. Some people spend that much in the primaries.
Fortunately we in Canada have not quite been devoured by the need for dollars for a person to participate in our political system. This comes back to the amendment of my hon. friend that $500 sounds more reasonable than the $1,000 that is in the present bill.
We do not have the numbers to put this or so many of the amendments this afternoon to a vote. I think this is a veiy poor reflection on the whole state of Parliament. On a quiet Friday afternoon before a long break we bring in this type of legislation where there is a lot of public interest in some of these areas that affect the people and the body politic out there. Yet we have a perfunctory debate under our rules at this stage in our debate and there are not enough members to actually force a vote on some of the amendments. A lot of this is going to slip by. Members who should be taking an interest are not here and the people really do not know where they stand.
Fortunately, with extended hours today we will perhaps conclude report stage, which we are on now, because we have fairly tight limits on it and I understand that. It helps move bills along as it should.
This is where we get the problem of reform of the rules to help governments move legislation along. Understandably from a government point of view on a quiet afternoon you can get a contentious bill really sliding along. Frankly, if there had not been a few members around here today, I imagine this whole bill on electoral reform might have gone through the report stage and by unanimous consent third reading and the whole thing would be over perhaps without even a cry of division.
There may have been a cry. The member for Kingston and the Islands who has been very active in this whole
April 2, 1993

process of electoral reform and working on the committee says that at least there would be a cry of division.
As far as I am concerned, as long as there is going to be a vote on third reading, some of my interest on some of these amendments pales. I do not really have that much conviction on whether it is right or wrong. As I said, I think the government bill is better than some of the amendments. The problem is that in terms of the multitude of members in this thing, there is not the process to have members vote on something that gets pretty fundamental and to the core, and this is one.
I understand from the newspapers that some parties are concerned, those that can give tax receipts like the Rhinoceros Party and the Green Party. They can give tax receipts because they had 50 candidates in the last election. They are very concerned about this $1,000 deposit. In effect, if they had to put a $1,000 deposit into all the 295 ridings, this would be a very onerous financial burden that they might not be able to meet.
As an Independent, certainly as a Conservative member, even as a Liberal member, and probably even as an NDP member, I would most likely be happy as the devil to say that $1,000 should be the deposit because then you will not have as many so-called fringe candidates. Sitting where I am now as an Independent, I cannot really say they are any more fringe than perhaps some people might say that I am a fringe candidate. Therefore, I come down on the side of my friend's amendment even though he did not explain it.
That is what I really am disturbed about because at least he is here. I really think he owes it to the House to explain what he is trying to do because I may have misinterpreted what he is trying to do.
Again, there is an issue here that the House should divide on at the right time to see where we all stand on it. But I also understand the realities of life at 3.55 on a Friday afternoon with the number of members here and the rules. We most likely will not have a division on this matter, which I think is pretty important.
I hope I have not misinterpreted the member from Saskatoon-Humboldt who moved the motion. I think it is laudable and I would like to support it if I interpreted it correctly.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I thought Motion No. 13 was self-explanatory.
Government Orders
After hearing the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants I recognize that it is. That is the exact reason behind the motion that $1,000 seems a little extreme for some people and $500 is a compromise figure.
However, I want to spend another minute on the second motion, Motion No. 15. It really is much more significant than the change from $1,000 to $500 because it suggests that the total amount is returned when the official agent files the costs after the election.
The present bill suggests that candidates get half of it back when it is filed and half later if they get more than 15 per cent. In other words, if candidates do not get 15 per cent, they lose half of it. Our concern was that the candidates should get it all returned to them when they file their official returns after the election.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu wants to be recognized. The hon. member has already spoken on those motions.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I was speaking on motions 13 and 15 when the Chair interrupted me at 3 o'clock and told me I could use later whatever time I had left. I still had a few minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I agree with the member that he still had a few minutes left. But, when we resumed debate, the hon. member unfortunately had not returned to the House. He therefore gave up his right to speak to the motion.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, once again I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on the bill on electoral reform.
I remember the Prime Minister said that a reform of the electoral process was needed. I had the opportunity to discuss the bill on electoral reform on a few occasions with Pierre Lortie whom I have known for about 20 years because we were both members of the Chambre de Commerce des Jeunes of Montreal at the time.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
Mr. Lortie told me on several occasions that the reform would make the Elections Act more democratic so that people would have a stronger voice in the process. That was the mandate given to his commission.
I find the debate we are involved in a bit absurd since the suggestions, the amendments and the whole bill are in complete contradiction with the commission's mandate whose thrust was to put more democracy into the electoral process to allow individuals to express themselves, with nothing to do with financing by large corporations or unions but to give the ordinary citizens a voice in the process.
Once again it is suggested that the deposit requested from the candidates be raised from $250 to $1,000. This seems to me to be contrary to this kind of freedom of speech we are looking for. I mean that $1,000 is a fair amount of money for some people or even for a young political party. As my colleague said a few minutes ago, many political parties are established with no intention of forming a government. In fact, we, the Bloc Quebecois, do not want to form a government; all we want to do here in Ottawa is to defend Quebec's interests and we want to act freely without the shackles of a Canadian national party which would silence us. We want to be able to speak freely.
We know the meaning of freedom of speech. When the people can speak freely, things begin to change. So, as a political party, we do not want to come to power, we want Quebecers to be able to express themselves freely in Ottawa. We think that power is greater when we can speak freely instead of being caught within the establishment or stuck in a caucus where everything is confidential.
Again, if political parties have to pay $1,000 the small parties will not be able to express themselves since the candidates will often not have the necessary $1,000 deposit that would allow them to run in an election here in Ottawa.
Speaking of freedom of speech, even if I do not like to make comparisons, it reminds me of the day Mr. Gorbachev-who has been in Canada for a few days-allowed his people to speak freely. As you will know, freedom of speech did not exist in the U.S.S.R. When some one would try to speak up, he was thrown in jail. So people were given the right to speak freely.
For a number of years, we have seen the people of the U.S.S.R. express themselves as they wished. In just a few years we have witnessed incredible changes in the U.S.S.R. We saw countries become sovereign-Ukraine, Lithuania, et cetera-simply because the population was allowed to express itself freely. This is what we want to do. We want to be able to express ourselves freely, for Quebec, here in Ottawa, and it is in that sense that I say the higher we make the deposit, the more we run the risk of hindering the democratic process, because the amount becomes too high. We run the risk of not allowing the population to express itself through its representatives. This is important, Madam Speaker. It is very important, even though it may not look like it.
I find it strange. This is a very important debate. There are many amendments to discuss, yet only three members have risen. Those members are from the Bloc Quebecois.
No other member from Quebec, whether Liberal or Conservative, has debated this issue. Yet, they have been here for at least a good ten years or more and they have this democratic culture. They have learned from Rene Levesque and others about financing by individuals, about democracy and about freedom of expression. Yet they remain silent. I do not understand that. I find it very difficult to understand. I see the minister of employment is here. He has not said anything either. How come no Quebecer other than those from the Bloc Quebecois is talking? I simply cannot understand that. After all, these people would be in the best position to discuss this issue. They are in the best position to understand what goes on with electoral reform. In fact, the idea of a reform came from members representing Quebec, including the Prime Minister himself, the member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead, and the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who were the first ones to propose this reform. It is they who in a sense forced the government to set up a commission of inquiry which precisely proposed a more democratic reform.
We have been debating amendments for a few hours and I have yet to see a member from Quebec participate in this debate. I have not seen any member from Quebec rise. Why? Are they ashamed? Are they ashamed to express themselves and say that this does not adequately meet their wishes? I believe, as I said earlier, that they are stuck in their caucus and were told not to discuss
April 2, 1993

this issue. They are avoiding this debate because it would not be very good in Quebec. This is what is going on.
Why is it that all the Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec remain silent? It is because they are not allowed to talk. They do not have the freedom of speech. This is a clear demonstration.
The short speech I just made deals with freedom of expression. I believe that the power of a nation lies in being able to express itself. If people cannot express themselves through their elected representatives in the House of Commons or in the national assembly in Quebec, then these people do not enjoy freedom of speech. Members who are supposed to represent the people do the opposite of what the population wants them to do, as was the case with the Belanger-Campeau commission during the last referendum. Madam Speaker, you might be shocked to hear this but, unfortunately, the members who represent Quebecers in this House do not defend their interests and their needs. They do exactly the opposite of what Quebecers asked them to do during the last referendum.
Why? It is because they cannot express themselves. They are prisoners of the British parliamentary system with its party caucus structure. It is an excellent system but, unfortunately, it does not meet the needs of Quebec, which wants to enjoy freedom of speech here in Ottawa. Those members cannot speak freely because they belong to a national party in which they are forced to keep quiet because they are in a minority every time they dare say something. Since members are ambitious and want to become ministers or parliamentary secretaries they would rather obey their leader than be left out. In other words, they put their personal interests well before those of Quebecers. This demonstrates that Quebecers are not well represented here in Ottawa and their only opportunity in that respect is the Bloc Quebe-cois.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 13 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion 15.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 15 negatived.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 80
(a)	by striking out line 40 at page 51 and substituting the following
therefor:
"Officer to be sufficient for identification but which does not create impossible criteria for many individual Canadians."; and
(b)	by striking out line 32 at page 52 and substituting the following therefor:

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
"Chief Electoral Officer to be sufficient for identification but which does not create impossible criteria for many individual Canadians".
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to relax as much as possible the identification for rural voters. In many rural areas, particularly farm and forest areas and on Indian reserves, people often do not carry identification. In fact in many cases they do not even have identification because it is not of much value to them.
Part of the reason we are supporting this portion of this bill, even if it lacks a number of other things we would have liked to have seen in the bill, is because it opens up the number of people who can vote. It seems adverse to put some technicality in the way of a rural voter who might be well known in the community but is not on the voters' list and cannot vote just because he or she does not have identification. The DRO and everybody else might know who they are and be able to identify them. They still would not be able to vote if they did not have that one piece of identification.
Since the main aim of this phase of election reform is to make it possible for any Canadian citizen who qualifies to vote, it seems rather absurd that we let a little technicality stop one, two, three, ten, twenty or one hundred people from voting just because they cannot fulfil a small requirement such as having on their person when they reach the poll some bit of identification.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, as for Motion No. 17 put forward by the hon. member, it looks like one of those motions-he has a number of them-intended to make it easier for anyone who wants in good faith to exercise the right to vote in an election, to do so. It was also the case when he moved a motion on non-limitation with regard to the number of political parties, by imposing strict basic requirements such as a $1,000 deposit in every electoral district to have someone represent the party. The same thing with the motion on prisoners that we discussed earlier.
In this case the idea is to provide members of certain cultural communities who are not in the habit of carrying on them several i.d. cards which they could produce if need be at the time of an election or at any other time a
convenient means of identification. In that sense, the proposed amendment shows the closed mind and lack of good will this government has once more exhibited. An open-minded approach would be to allow Canadians from certain native communities or local communities where everybody knows everybody, as we were saying earlier, who are coming to vote in good faith not to produce identification. These people could exercise their right as it is exercised as democratically as possible in normal countries. Are we normal? Of course, we are. We have our faults, but we have also had the opportunity to right a few wrongs. I notice the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I could see him support such an approach as a man of the law.
But he remains silent and, more likely than not, he will decline commenting on that. Yet with his talent as a speaker and his expertise as a lawyer he could give a voice to these people in this place and express their wishes as the member representing his riding. I think that there are even native communities in his riding that he is in contact with. There are also communities which would like to hear his advice and see him stand up for them here in this House to get the right to vote without meeting 100 per cent of the requirements of the old Elections Act. The proposals submitted are not geared toward liberalizing the right to vote, but rather limiting it. This is not a precautionary measure, contrary to what we may think.
I do not think that anyone will have anything to say against this, seeing that no one on the other side has requested to speak after me to challenge my position and that of the distinguished member from the New Democratic Party who has eloquently introduced these amendments. This amendment is also in keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nothing in the charter says that we have to carry around five i.d. cards, or a single one as a matter of fact, and to sign an affidavit in order to be allowed to exercise our democratic right to vote.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms leans toward open-mindedness instead. As we hear in court sometimes, it is better to let a dozen guilty people walk than to send one innocent person to prison. Perhaps we should err on the side of open-mindedness sometimes concerning who has the right to vote and who does not, and let one person cheat so dozens and dozens of voters are not
April 2, 1993

refused the right to participate in the democratic process.
We know why the government is once again opposed to it. It is trying to limit the democratic process in Canada because it serves its interests. Fewer ordinary people will vote, but more rich people will vote and the bigger will be their financial contribution. The government will then be in a better position to defend the interests of rich people instead of those of the majority who cannot always present identification cards when they go to the court house, the polling station, the convenience store, etc.
I appreciate very much this idea suggested by the member because it is forward looking. It is very forward looking as far as electoral legislation is concerned because it is based on the degree of tolerance and confidence which Canadians must have towards each other as well as Quebecers, and also Canadians and Quebecers, especially considering what will happen over the next two years, which will certainly result in a new economic agreement between the two countries sharing the same border.
Therefore, it is very important to establish that confidence at the individual level, as it will be important to establish it as a notion later on. This degree of trust begins when we go to the polls and have to chose between different parties, different candidates: the Tory Party that wants to serve the privileged, the Liberal Party that has not found its calling, the New Democratic Party completely out of touch with its obsolete theories; and next to them in Quebec a group of enthusiastic people with a new vision of their nation's future, of their people's future and a new vision of their relations with the rest of Canada.
Voters then have a real choice, and the choice will be easy in Quebec, of course. People will vote massively for the Bloc Quebecois. Why? Because their candidates want to serve the best interests of Quebec in Ottawa, and they want to do it as long as Quebecers will pay taxes, before going back to manage their own affairs. In that sense, to be able to vote for one of the options I mentioned is the most vital act in democratic life.
Again, as my hon. colleague for Longueuil has rightly and eloquently pointed out a few moments ago, it is a pity to see Tory members so absent from the debate. I do not mean absent from the House, it is their right, and
Government Orders
some of them are here today, but I deplore the fact that those present remain silent in such a crucial debate, a debate on electoral reform. Indeed, on November 17, five days before election day, the Prime Minister had formally committed himself to electoral reform, to an in-depth reform in order to make the democratic process more relevant and more easily accessible to disadvantaged people. The amendment put forward is a good example.
Of course, grassroots financing would have been a major reform, the second part of the reform that the House leader was saying will come after the election. When we talked about Motion No. 2 a few moments ago, the hon. member for Gatineau spoke very eloquently on that subject but he has not said a word since. He should speak again about the rights of people who would want to have access to the democratic process. Since he belongs to one of the beautiful minorities that we have in Canada and in Quebec, he would certainly be able to tell us that in some communities it is not customary for people to carry identification papers with them at all times. It would be sad to deprive certain groups of people of their right to vote, which is the ultimate expression of democracy, simply because they are not in the habit of canying identification papers.
The motion of the NDP member is very good and reflects the democratic vision that sustains many members in this House, the vision to improve the conditions in which we exercise our democratic right every four to five years when we elect our representatives. The fact that some people are prevented from exercising that right is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the House leader likes to invoke so often. When he talks about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is always to protect the millionaires who finance his party and not to protect the ordinary people who want to exercise their right to vote in an election. When an election is forthcoming the charter is always used to defend this or that. But when it was a matter of receiving millions, as it was the case during the referendum-$100,000 from the Bank of Montreal, $100,000 from the Royal Bank, $240,000 from the pharmaceutical industry-money was flowing in. They said then in the name of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: My God, we must not stop corporations from donating money, to buy votes or to try to. But Canadians did not buy into that. They said no to the referendum. The same thing

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
will happen with the election if the government restricts the right to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member for Longueuil.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief, but I do want to speak to this amendment. A few moments ago I was talking a lot about freedom of speech but I really think the government is going too far by saying that someone who comes to the polling station without identification will be able to vote, provided he or she is accompanied by a witness, somebody who knows him or her. I find it a bit abusive to give that kind of freedom to people since we know there are dishonest people in any society.
We know that come election time people will try to vote twice or three times, to vote in more than one riding. This of course will not happen in small villages where everybody knows everybody else. Nobody will vote two or three times in those places, but they could go and vote in another riding. To have the right to vote a person just needs to be accompanied by a witness who will attest that it is the person's real name and address. I think it is abusive. This time, I think we are giving too much freedom to voters and we are giving dishonest people a chance to cheat.
In Montreal, for example, where people do not know one another, someone could go to a polling station accompanied by a witness who would confirm his or her identity, and that person would have the right to vote without presenting any piece of identification, without proof, without having been registered on the voters' list. To me, it is really unacceptable, and quite dangerous to allow people to abuse the system.
When something is forbidden and when there are measures in place to prevent abuses we can expect to have a fair and honest society. However if we allow people to cheat very easily, we may very well end up with a society that will become increasingly dishonest. Therefore, I believe that we cannot allow that part of the bill to
pass because it gives to much freedom to voters and will allow dishonest people to abuse the system.
I know that in the Duplessis era in Quebec-and not only in Quebec but all over the industrialized world-people were very enthusiastic when they had an election. It was almost a national sport. People used to talk a lot about it in the villages, in rural areas. I grew up on a farm. My father was mayor for many years and he was involved in elections. I grew up in an environment where people just loved to talk about politics. Sometimes it would lead to heated arguments.
Still today some people have a passion for politics and they could use that freedom to vote in several ridings and in several polling stations because all they need to do is to be accompanied by somebody who will confirm their identity. It seems to me quite unacceptable and that is why I am against this government's proposal. I am even surprised to see such a proposal.
[DOT]	(1630)
I will say once again that I support the NDP member's motion which states that a person must be able to prove his identity, must carry identification in order to be able to exercise his right to vote because it seems to me the least we should require. I agree that things must be done in the most democratic way possible that will ensure the greatest access possible. As I mentioned in all my speeches I want everything to be democratic but we must not allow people to be dishonest or allow dishonest people to take advantage of the system. That is why I strongly support the NDP member's proposal.
I think the present debate is quite abnormal. I would call for a quorum count because there are only two people listening to me here, something I find unacceptable.
[English)


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
[DOT]	(1635 )
And the bells having rung:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We have a quorum. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
April 2, 1993


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 17 negatived.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 112 by striking out line 39
at page 62 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing or opposing, directly or indirectly and during an".
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment is a fairly straightforward one. Under Bill C-114 advertising expenses are not allowed to be incurred by individuals in the course of an election campaign where they directly promote or oppose a particular registered party or a candidate if those advertising expenses exceed $1,000.
Motion No. 18 which I have moved seeks to amend that to prevent such advertising either directly or indirectly. I do not know how these terms will be interpreted by the courts, but the argument put forward by the chairman of our committee on electoral reform, the hon. member for Calgary West, is that direct advertising would be advertising that suggests the public vote or not vote for a candidate or for a party specifically, and that mentions the party or the candidate by name.
It is his view that indirect advertising is all other advertising. My view is that the $1,000 restriction ought to apply to both kinds of advertising during an election campaign where the advertising clearly is encouraging support for or opposition to a particular candidate or
Government Orders
party. There are good reasons for this law. I know there has been some public criticism especially by the National Citizen's Coalition of the proposal that the committee has been forward.
I mentioned this during my speech at second reading of this bill. I think the arguments put forward by the National Citizens' Coalition are fallacious. Its members have failed to recognize the fact, and most of their advertisements fail to recognize the fact, that we do have limits on the spending that is allowed by candidates and by political parties.
Given the fact that we have attempted to create something of a level playing-field where parties are restricted on what they can spend and where candidates are restricted on what they can spend, it seems to me very fair that there should be restrictions on what other persons are able to spend during the same time.
If it were not so, the parties would be able to encourage others to advertise on their behalf and thereby circumvent the restrictions that are applied to themselves. An unscrupulous candidate or an unscrupulous party organization could easily go to other organizations or to individuals and say, "please run ads supporting me or opposing those other people so that I can win my election". If you can do that and thereby get around the restrictions in the Canada Elections Act, then you might as well not have the restrictions in the act. In my view it is very important that we have very comprehensive restrictions in place on what other persons can do to advertise.
I know the National Citizens' Coalition feels it has the divine right to advertise as it sees fit and try to convince Canadians that its point of view is correct. It does, and I uphold its right to advertise. But not during an election campaign if it is going to participate in an attempt to defeat candidates or elect other candidates.
This kind of amendment goes some distance toward doing that. It is far from perfect. It is not the kind of amendment that I would have proposed had I been in the position that the government was in. But the amendment that I have moved at least imposes restrictions a little more forcefully and I urge the House to adopt it.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands brought forward an amendment reflecting equity and fairness. How can government members say that indirect spending does not constitute interference in an election?
We have seen in the 1988 election large multinationals speak out for free trade for Canada. It was obvious to the whole country, because for a whole year the media talked about it, that the governing party was for it and the opposition parties against.
But various companies with vested interests put up huge resources to advertise everywhere, on television, on the radio and in the press, in order to convince Canadians that it was the best option for our country. They will deny having interfered in the election. That is utterly false. The amendment is simply to protect us. I repeat, Madam Speaker, no company or group, not even The National Citizens' Coalition, has the right to interfere in an election to choose members of this House.
Do the rich have the right to put up indirectly thousands and millions of dollars in order to convince the public to vote for a party because they think it knows what is best for the country? That is not right. As long as we want a political system that is truly democratic we must suppress all interference, especially that which can be used through today's media.
It seems simple enough to me. It is very simple, really. We live in a democracy that believes in fairness and justice. But if we persist in saying that some have the right to make their case in an election by putting up huge resources, in the millions of dollars, that is unacceptable. If they want to promote their option let them do it in between elections.
After an election is called, when Canadians have to elect their representatives to this House, nobody should be able to influence the electorate and nobody should avail themselves of the means to get the candidates to decide for one option or another. They should be completely free to choose, without falling prey to the propaganda in the media. We saw that in 1988. Hardly 20 minutes could go by on radio or half an hour on television without some loud advertising spot. The coverage was the same in the newspapers. This was literally brainwashing in favour of one option aimed at protecting the interests of large multinationals, as time has proven.
Even though this amendment is not agreed to today, it is only a matter of time before it becomes law because in the future, people will wonder. They will see that some members in this House who are the people's representatives have supported a measure allowing anybody to spend as much money as they want to influence the outcome of an election. They will wonder what they were thinking when they made that decision. Well, I can tell them that they do not think. They only reflect what the most affluent minority in this country thinks. This measure should have never been put forward. We should have understood that in a democratic country like ours, with our political system, this was fundamental.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I have the highest respect for the mover of this amendment, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who I said earlier is one of the hardest working members in the House and has certainly been very involved in the committee.
However, showing my independent stance, while I have agreed with him on a couple of his amendments and disagreed with him on another one which he moved earlier today and felt more in favour of the government bill on an earlier matter, I can understand what he is trying to do on this one.
My hon. friend for Gatineau said a couple of things in his oration which really stimulated me to rise in debate. It is the very fact that we are in a democracy that this amendment gets into one of the most contentious items in this electoral reform bill. That is the right of third parties, people who are not members of a registered party, not Liberals, Tories, NDPs, Bloc Quebecois, Green, Rhinoceros and not necessarily multinationals, who just happen to be Canadians. They just may not be too happy with any of the parties, people, issues or candidates.
I give full credit to the member for Kingston and the Islands for moving this amendment because I can see he is trying to tighten up what is in the present bill. The present bill has no logic to it in that as long as it is not directly for or against a candidate it can be an open sesame and the money can pour in, the way my friend from Gatineau explained and as happened in the 1988 election. There is no doubt big money was behind the government move for free trade. The newspapers were flooded with supplements and a lot of advertising. That
April 2, 1993

was multinational. Yes, that is an odious thing. It is the interesting red herring to move on something like this.
I just happen to have a very interesting Canadian in my riding who was basically a Liberal from a large family and very uptight on the free trade issue. I am not going to embarrass him by mentioning his name, although I do not think it would matter. He phoned me at the height of the campaign long before the multinationals became involved to try to help the polls for the Tories in the last three weeks. We all know how the polls went up and down like a roller-coaster in that 1988 campaign.
This elderly gentleman is very involved in the apple business, trucks his apples to Boston and has been doing it for years. He said: "Patrick, I am very disturbed. Yes, I used to have a heritage on the Liberal side but I believe in free trade". Quite frankly I had a lot of difficulty when I was a Conservative at that time on the free trade issue. It was the toughest election I ever fought.
I knew what free trade opened up. There was a lot of imprecise language, certainly nothing on subsidies or the question of the dispute settlement mechanism. One turkey producer in Pennsylvania produces more turkeys than all of Canada. It is the same for the vertical integration of some of the chicken farms in Arkansas, to mention a state that has become famous recently, and/or in the deep south. It makes our chicken production pale by comparison.
My farmers were very concerned about free trade, about having an open floodgate. In any event I fought the fight. I supported the party line and I had difficulty. This gentlemen wanted to put an ad in the paper and he put it.
This is why this House is almost irresponsible in debating this issue on a Friday afternoon before the Easter recess when there is only a handful of us here, and other members are doing their thing. We all know we have to get home on the weekends.
Government Orders
This is an issue that should be debated by all members. We know more than the national coalition. I have no love or no hate for the national coalition. Frankly I think it does focus on a lot of interesting issues affecting Canadians.
This is an issue that affects Canadians. They may not want this closed club of parties to say they are not going to be able to spend $1,000 with some friends and put an ad in the local weekly or daily and say that they are either for or against. I know this opens up perils to candidates and to members, because then we might get the single issue candidates. Let us forget about the multinationals. That was free trade, and I agree with my friend from Gatineau. Who knows, it might happen again but we have other issues in Canada.
It could be abortion, pro-life or pro-choice. It could be the gun lobby. There are many different interested Canadians who because of their frustration with the political process and because they think their members are not serving them certainly do not want this Parliament to take away their right to place an ad.
The member for Kingston and the Islands is facing the issue and points a finger not at the duplicity but at the double standard in the bill that the government has brought forward.
It says that there can be a restriction on direct advertising but if it is indirect then it is wide open. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is doing a service in that people either believe in the principle or they do not. I do not happen to believe that we should cut Canadians off from their potential choice.
For my friend from the Gatineau and members here, we are members of Parliament, members of registered parties. We have a few advantages going into an election. There is something called an incumbent advantage, an incumbent benefit. Most of us send out householders. If we do not we are rather crazy. We do that at public expense four times a year. We have free mailing privileges.
We have a lot of privileges long before the campaign begins to help plant little seeds with our constituents, our electorate, that hopefully will sprout into support during a campaign.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
I really was quite surprised-and that is really what got me on my feet today, although I think I was going to speak on the motion anyway. Frankly I wish this House would adjourn, because then the House could come back after Easter when the House is full up with members.
On this basic issue members should stand up and speak and give their views. I respect their views. I know the Lortie commission wrestled with this. We have to wrestle with the rights of free speech and the fact that members and candidates in an election have limits.
How can we have Canadians come in the back door and get around the limit that confronts parties? My answer is that this is democracy. When I heard a colleague in this House say that no one should influence the electorate I was absolutely horrified. I do not think it was intended the way it came out, because that is the whole purpose of an election.
I will have propaganda and I will have subtle propaganda before an election through my householders, my mailings, and through keeping in touch with my riding. That is proper, and it is proper for every member here.
Goodness gracious to them. Kitty bar the door when the writ is issued and Canadians cannot do what they may want to do. The important point is one that the amendment does not address. Frankly, I wish the bill would address it and I think the Lortie commission debated it.
To me it is not the money. Yes, that could be a factor. I could fall by the wayside because of what I am saying here today, giving the potential of single interest groups to get involved in a campaign and still not be involved in a party.
Madam Speaker, you know from your experience the answer is disclosure. I think that is the matter in this proposal by the government for a hybrid restriction of no more than $1,000 for direct advertising against or for a candidate. If it is an issue then it is open season. Disclosure should be in that bill. If there is a supplement in the newspaper or an ad, they have to disclose who the people are who put the money up.
If it is the multinationals-and that has been raised as a bogeyman here; it was real in 1988,1 agree-well then okay. Canadians are not stupid.
Madam Speaker, you sat in the chair during the referendum debate when there were about six or eight of us back here who voted no on the referendum. We know what the Canadians did. We know as of yesterday or the day before, under the Access to Information Act, $7.4 million was spent for the yes side.


An hon. member:: At least.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is just what was admitted. It was all by big corporations.
I must say I have not really exceeded my limit too much today on this lovely afternoon. Madam Speaker, you are telling me I am almost out of time. I very glad the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Gatineau spoke because they got me activated and stimulated.
To me disclosure helps take care of part of the problem. The Canadian people are not stupid. They showed that in the referendum with massive advertising for yes, with the three national parties saying yes, with every political leader in this country in premierships saying yes and with the advertising heavy, the public said no.
That is the lesson I think members in this House should take to heart. They should be against any restrictions on the right of the Canadian people to get involved in their way in election campaigns.
[Translation\


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, this is the worst thing I have ever seen. First of all, that does not coincide at all with the will of the Conservative Party. I will tell you why by quoting what the Prime Minister said on November 17, 1988. The Prime Minister on November 17, 1988, just before the 1988 election, was reported to have said: "An act requiring that all federal political parties rely on financing by the general public will be passed right at the beginning of the second term of the Conservative Party". That commitment was given by the Prime Minister yesterday in Montreal during an exclusive interview with La Presse."
The Prime Minister said that he wanted to promote grassroots financing. What is happening? If I were a Conservative member today I would be ashamed. On top of not proposing financing by the population, the government is allowing big companies and big unions to finance political parties and, moreover, it is allowing third parties to finance or promote political parties. The Prime
April 2, 1993

Minister said: "I want the Canadian people, each and every one, to finance political parties".
We are far from seeing that. Beside not using grassroots financing, the government is allowing third parties to support political parties. This is serious. I did not think the government would go that far. I did not think that it took Canadians and Quebecers for idiots. There is a limit to the contempt it has for people. The government is showing complete contempt for Quebecers, particularly because in Quebec we are used to financing by the population. We are accustomed to having our political parties financed by individual Quebecers and that is working quite well.
During the last referendum, we lived an experience which was rather easy to understand. We as members of the committee for the no in Quebec were financed by the people, by the voters. I can assure you that when people are determined to be heard, they will not hesitate to pull $5, $100, $200, up to $3000 out of their pockets to defend their interests and beliefs.
It is not necessary, far from it, to ask large unions and corporations to finance parties in their own interests. Government represents the people. It represents individuals and not just businesses and industries.


Charles A. Langlois: Do your friends from Longueuil agree with that?


Nic Leblanc: Everybody in Quebec does. The member for Sept-Iles or Manicouagan-


Charles A. Langlois: If you are going to talk about Sept-Iles you had better watch what you say.


Nic Leblanc: Yes. It is a fine city. By the way, I went to Sept-Iles many times. It is very nice, right on the shore of the Saint Lawrence Gulf.
Even people from Manicouagan will vote-


Louis Plamondon: They are getting ready to vote for the Bloc.


Nic Leblanc: -in the majority for the bloc, as the member for Richelieu has just said, according to the latest polls.
It is nevertheless shameful and appalling. Truly appalling. I cannot believe what I am hearing. The Prime Minister, supported by the Conservative MPs, has taken
Government Orders
a position by saying: "At the next election, there will be grassroots financing. People will contribute to the campaign fund. That way the people's interest will be protected". This is not what is happening. As a matter of fact as I have just said it is exactly the opposite.
Similarly I said that during the referendum, which I gave as an example, the people of Quebec made a choice and financed the No Committee at the grassroots level and the results were very good.
In Longueuil, for example, we were able to collect in a relatively short period of time, in the two counties making up my riding, about $50,000 at the grassroots. The highest single contribution came from an important contractor I will not name. That was a personal contribution, not a corporate one. Those are two different things.
Besides, we have seen that the Quebec Chief Electoral Officer had serious doubts as to the acceptability of subliminal publicity proposed by the federal government and financed by large companies, especially English ones. Every minute of every day, there was publicity on television, on the radio, everywhere and, strangely, it was not accounted for in election spending.
How can the Chief Electoral Officer control election spending as long as we allow third parties to promote one party or another or one economic sector instead of another? How can the Chief Electoral Officer control spending during a campaign?
I cannot get over it, especially as a Quebecer, because these things changed in Quebec a long time ago. I cannot believe that Conservative as well as Liberal members from Quebec do not object to such a thing. It baffles me since it all started in Quebec. It is Quebec that asked the Prime Minister for reform. The Prime Minister himself mandated Pierre Lortie and his commission, known as the Lortie commission, to undertake a full review in order to make our election system even more democratic. The province of Quebec started all this. Why are there no Conservative or Liberal members from Quebec here in Ottawa who have the guts and the courage to speak? Have their caucuses really asked them to keep quiet? I think so. How could it be otherwise? They were officially ordered to say nothing about this bill. How could it be otherwise? You cannot possibly believe the opposite, Madam Speaker, because it goes against the

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
mandate the Prime Minister himself gave Pierre Lortie and his commission.
From what I see today I can understand why the country is going bankrupt. We are not logical. We have no over-all project. We always stand for personal or individual interests instead of promoting an over-all project which would allow us to go foreward. That is why the majority of Quebecers decided to withdraw from the Canadian federation. They were sick of this government in Ottawa doing stupid things and putting forward senseless projects relating to transportation, or duplication between federal and provincial departments. The same thing goes for transportation which we discussed yesterday.
Life goes on and the country is faced with a total debt of $500 billion, which is about as much as the gross national product. If you know how to count you know we are going bankrupt.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased, after the independent member from Nova Scotia and the member for Longueuil, to also say a few words on this amendment. Proposed by a Liberal member, the same member who moved a motion earlier.
This amendment is so essential to the smooth functioning of democracy in Canada that I do not understand, as my colleague the member for Longueuil was saying, how we can let it pass. Why is the government rushing this bill through, on a Friday, just before leaving for two weeks for the Easter break? The government tries to slip this by quietly, in complicity with the two other parties. Even if he moved the amendment, the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands who is listening intently to my speech did not ask other members of his party to back it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is not necessary, the amendment is so good.


Louis Plamondon: The Liberal Party is somewhat of an accomplice to the party in office. Why does it do that? Because it does not want a vote. It is scared to vote. Because it is an accomplice it crosses to the other side. It can sit on either side of the House. It is very comfortable
because it is defending the same ideas, the same interests, that is the financial interests of privileged few.
I would like to make a comparison between clause 2 that we examined earlier this afternoon and this motion. When we talked about allowing small parties to have a showing in an election, the government kept them away by requiring a deposit of $1,000 per riding for the right to make their voices heard. That is the case of the Green Party that wanted to work for the environmental cause, of the Social Credit Party and so on. Several political parties are using election campaigns in order to force candidates to take a stand on substantive issues. That is totally contrary to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 more specifically that I will quote.
Article 19 says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers".
By refusing the NDP amendment to clause 2, the government violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations that Canada signed. I think that it is the Green Party's intention to ask the United Nations for a vote condemning this violation of human rights.
That is the government's position regarding the freedom of expression of small political parties. Let us now look at the amendment in terms of that freedom of expression. The amendment would limit the right of corporations to intervene by supporting a political party or, during a campaign, by paying for advertising on behalf of organizations like the coalition for something, or participate in the campaign by using unlimited advertising resources. That amendment was ignored by the government. What was its response? No, no, no. According to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, multinational companies are entitled to freedom of expression.
However, Mr. Justice Michaud in the Lipton case said that failure to limit intervention by third parties not directly involved in an electoral campaign or having private interests to protect would put democracy in serious danger. That is they intervene in the election
April 2, 1993

Government Orders
campaign to boost the chances of a certain party in order to benefit from it later on by obtaining contracts and party favours. That is where the danger lies.
The government ignored the Lortie report which did not go very far. It fails to keep the Prime Minister's commitment of November 17 and the commitments of witnesses like the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead who gave a quite exceptional testimony at the Lortie commission when he asked: "Can the workers of my riding who barely earn $15,000 a year seriously believe that an engineering firm, a large bank or a businessman can pay $50,000 to a political party without hoping for a return on their investment? Can they seriously believe that they have as much weight as those people in the decision-making process?" To ask this question is to answer it.
Why would the big multinational companies and the big consortiums nurture political parties if they did not intend to make them fat in order to have them serve their interests afterwards? In this matter Quebec has been at the forefront by being the first province and the only North American state to table a bill which prohibits any person who does not have the right to vote from financing a political party. This eliminates unions, nonprofit institutions and corporations.
The number of political contributions has increased in Quebec because political parties there have regained the support of individuals who have the right to vote. Those individuals have decided to finance them, to keep them to serve their interests. These parties now serve the interests of individuals and not those of a wealthy minority.
The Prime Minister said he understood that sentiment. On November 17 a front page article my colleague quoted from La Presse said: "Mulroney has committed himself to have the general public finance political parties. Mulroney has committed himself to put an end to all the scandals that befell the Conservative Party during its first four years in power". One of the favoured tools they are looking at is that of grassroots financing, an in depth reform of the financing of political parties. But now no mention is made of that commitment in this proposed reform. Corporations, privileged classes are allowed to take over the Conservative Party and other parties as well so they will be in a position to serve their own interests rather than the public interest.
There is no willingness to even make the change suggested in my hon. friend's amendment, Motion No. 18, whereby the vote could not be influenced directly or indirectly-and there is emphasis on the word indirectly-through major advertising and financial support to political parties partial to wealth. In that sense my colleague was right when he wondered how Quebec members in this House could turn their backs on Quebec's greatest political heritage since one of the most significant political moves world-wide was the Loi sur le financement despartis politiques allowing only voters to contribute to political parties.
This is the heritage of which we have been proud now for over 15 years, since 1977. These members should be here to ponder upon this fact and to encourage other members of their party to do the same. Unfortunately they let themselves be moulded and they fall in like sheep in this federalist line-up, oblivious to the interests of their people, their nation and their Quebec which they are supposed to protect. Fortunately, soon we will see here a group of 50, 60 individuals-men and women- willing to defend Quebec's best interests. Those who will have chosen to forget will be condemned to stay at home and spend the rest of their lives in shame and forsaken by all.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As I prepare to put the
question, I will make a suggestion to the hon. member for Richelieu. He should read citation 459(2) of Beau-chesne carefully. I think he will then admit that the Chair has shown patience which I would call-


An hon. member:: Angelic.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would tend to call it angelic this afternoon and this whole day, in fact. Perhaps when we come to the next motion the member will keep citation 459(2) of Beauchesne in mind.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 18.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 18 negatived.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-114 be amended in Clause 112 by striking out lines 2
and 3 at page 63 and substituting the following therefor:
"tising expenses between the date of the issue of the writ".


Louis Plamondon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are about to debate Motion No. 21, the last item unfortunately. It would be good to have a quorum for it, so that everyone clearly understands the last speeches.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand that the hon. member has realized it is Motion No. 21 on page XIII.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since we have a quorum, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the House for their support and I hope that they will vote for my motion, for my amendment, because that is the question before the House.
I also want to say that it is a pleasure to see the Bloc Quebecois members here on a Friday afternoon, because
they are gone almost every Friday. It is true, Madam Speaker, you-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I demand that you be as severe with him as you were with us. He must not say that any member is away from the House if that person has perfectly valid reasons. We were away for valid reasons.


Mr. Cadieux:: Madam Speaker, it is exceptional, I must admit, that I agree with my hon. colleague, but I must also admit that I agree with my Liberal colleague's remark about the Bloc Quebecois attendance on Friday afternoons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I would like to make the members here in the House aware that, on a proportional basis the Bloc Quebecois has a larger attendance now than the members of the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic Parties put together.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, the members of the bloc are once again showing Canadians that they know nothing about arithmetic.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Obviously I have struck a nerve. That is sad since I really enjoy discussing electoral matters. I spent a lot of time with the Committee on Electoral Reform and I think it is a shame that no one member from the bloc ever showed up to state his position to the committee. Perhaps one could ask to be heard by the committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair could put in a word on this Friday afternoon at 5.25 p.m. The hon. member for Richelieu rises on a point of order. I think everyone knows that he wants to protest against the suggestion that he should have asked to be heard by a committee. But I think that if we all took this debate a little more seriously perhaps we would be able to leave for our ridings sometime around six, seven or eight o'clock.
April 2, 1993

Therefore, I would appreciate it if hon. members from all sides would behave so that we can complete this debate in an orderly fashion that would be more respectful of this institution.
The hon. member for Richelieu insists on being recognized once again.


Louis Plamondon: I will be very brief, Madam Speaker. It is unparliamentary to comment on attendance in the House or in committee. I wanted to say that every time we show up to a committee the three parties gang up together to prevent us from speaking. That is why the bloc is often absent from committee meetings.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order but a point of debate. The hon. member will have all the time he needs for debate in due course.
The hon. minister also rises on a point of order.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, once again, I must agree with my colleague of the Bloc Quebecois. It is totally unparliamentary to refer to attendance in committee, to the extent of course that one is in attendance.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, it is not at all because they are bloc members. They are simply not committee members so they do not have to attend.


Louis Plamondon: You don't want us to attend.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I had hoped they would ask to be heard by the committee because I am very interested in their views.


Louis Plamondon: They did not want us to attend!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, I never said that, and I was on that committee.


Louis Plamondon: The committee said no.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That's news to me. I had no idea you had requested to be heard.
The important thing is that today we can discuss the amendment I presented to the House.

I am surprised that this amendment was not grouped for debate with the other amendment that I moved a few moments ago because basically it does the same thing but in a much more forceful way. What it does is make it an
Government Orders
offence to incur an advertising expense as defined in the act during a writ period. In other words, it would stop any expense. I believe that the amendment really gives some teeth to the proposal with respect to advertising in the government bill.
I want to make it very clear that while this amendment with respect to advertising came out of the committee as a committee report and was supported by all the members of the committee, it was because no other agreement could be arranged that would have included what I have sought to move in the amendments here today. We were not in favour of the very limited restriction contained in this bill. We wanted a fuller restriction. We pressed for a fuller restriction in the committee, but we were unable to agree on one.
I want to make it very clear that we do not think this particular restriction is going to work. We feel that in the course of an election campaign there will be opportunity for wholesale abuse of the advertising provisions that are contained in this act and that will be in place in respect of the political parties. We are very concerned about it and I will be expressing those concerns further on third reading as I did at second reading. I look forward to that debate very much.
That is all I have to say in respect of this amendment. I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1), I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, .1 hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and .25 hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill;
That at the expiry of the time provided in this order any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the report stage and third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor on a point of order.

Government Orders


Louis Plamondon: May I ask the hon. minister to say that again in French, or to repeat slowly? The interpreter could not keep up, and I do not know what he was saying.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Andre, seconded by Mr. Cadieux, moves that there have been discussions among the parties.


An hon. member:: Could you read it in French.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have it in French in front of me-there have been discussions among the parties-and I would not want to insult our translators who are always so very good. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) Mr. Andre moves:
That, in relation to Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, .1 hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and .25 hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That at the expiry of the time provided in this order any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the report stage and third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: Point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Just a minute. I have put a question to the House. I cannot accept points of order once a question has been put. Those are our rules.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, the reason I am rising on a point of order, even though you did read the motion
slowly, is that I heard .1 hour. I am not sure if that is six minutes or what. However, I was more interested in the third reading. How much time does the motion the House just passed provide for?


An hon. member:: 15 minutes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And six minutes. Absolutely incredible. [Translation]


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a slight correction to what you said concerning translators. I have nothing but compliments for the interpreters in the House of Commons. I had no intention of criticizing them. All I said was that the minister spoke so fast I could not keep up with the translation of his statement.
That being said, I find that things are going too fast for the House to understand exactly what is happening. You quote Standing Order 78 which states:
- there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot -
That is the condition to adopt the resolution. Now there is a party called the Bloc Quebecois which never agreed to that. I do not think we can proceed that way. The Bloc is recognized in the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member very well knows that the group represented by his political formation, the Bloc Quebecois, is not officially recognized in the House, and we are not going to change that this afternoon.
Thus, the motion is in order. I have in turn tried to read it a little slower so that it can be translated so as to allow the hon. member to understand it. At this moment the motion is agreed to on division, but agreed to nevertheless. Thus we go on to the first part.
The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I would like to know exactly what the signifiance of this motion having been agreed to is: What happens now? Will we go on with report stage? Do we go on to third reading? I am not quite clear.
April 2, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will finish report stage. We still have six minutes left at report stage. Then there will be concurrence and debate on third reading will last 15 minutes.


Louis Plamondon: Is that all?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Well, 6 plus 15 is 21,1 think. Six minutes for report stage and fifteen for third reading, thus a total of 21 minutes.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has a second amendment on advertising during election campaigns. The committee on electoral reform-


Louis Plamondon: It is unbelievable. This is dictatorial, Madam Speaker, just like in South Africa and other such dictatorships. It is just pure dictatorship. Gangsters would not do that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gatineau still has the floor.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, the fourth amendment from my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, refers to the fact that we had asked that there be no third party publicity during an election campaign. The idea behind this is that during the 1988 campaign-


Louis Plamondon: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We do not have a quorum.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, may I speak?


Louis Plamondon: Come out of hiding, you bunch of dictators.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I must interrupt the member. We must call for a quorum count. The hon. member for Richelieu requested a quorum count and I am calling for it right now. However, I would be grateful if he would use another tone.


Louis Plamondon: I was not addressing you, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Granted, but my duty is to make sure everyone respects order and decorum in this House and by acting in such a way, you are being disrespectful towards me and what I stand for in this House.
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is now a quorum. The member for Gatineau-La Lievre.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, to get back to the debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands came back with his amendment that would prohibit third party advertising during an election campaign.
In 1988 there was an incredible amount of advertising in the various media expressing views on free trade, and it was obvious to the public that this type of advertising favoured the party in power which supported the free trade agreement as the best option for our country.
In fact there is always the risk and that is why we propose this amendment that organizations like the National Citizens' Coalition, for instance, and I do not mean this as an insult, might present an option that would not necessarily reflect the will of the majority. Because of their substantial resources they would be able to use-and we saw that in 1988 with free trade-TV, radio and the press to try and convince people that theirs is the best option for the country. That is where the danger lies. This amendment is intended to prevent that.
In an election campaign only recognized political parties should be allowed to set forth policies. If groups or individuals wish to take part in the democratic process they should belong to a political party and do their advertising within a democratic framework.
However, if individuals who are very wealthy or organizations with major resources are allowed to do this, the result may be a media blitz with an impact out of all proportion to the group's status. We always want to reflect the interests of the majority. But if minority groups have tremendous resources, it will be hard for them to understand what is happening in the process. That is why in an election campaign we must have restrictions to ensure party policy is reflected by the party honestly.
If they are allowed to call upon tremendous outside financial resources, it will skew the democratic process and that is why the hon. member's amendment proposes to avert this potential risk. Because our society truly believes in a democratic system that is fair and just that one day and since we are all pretty young, I am convinced we will see the day when in election campaigns third

April 2, 1993
Government Orders
parties will no longer be able to apply their considerable resources to try to influence policy. This is up to the political parties; and those who want to participate in the process can do so through the democratic system. Political parties will express their views or go door to door.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill.
The first 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.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 21 negatived.


Harvie Andre: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harvie Andre: moved that the bill be read for the third time and passed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the process which resulted in this bill started four years ago. It all started on April 3, 1989 in the Throne Speech at the beginning of the second session of this legislature. In the Throne Speech, His Excellency the Governor General said that his government would appoint a commission of inquiry whose mandate would be to make recommendations on changes that should be brought to the country's election.
Today we have a great bill following a study by this commission of inquiry and a year-long study of the commission's report by a committee of the House which proposed a bill greatly similar to Bill C-114.

The problem is not so much what is in this bill but what is not in it. As members of the Liberal Party and members in opposition we fought very long and hard in the Special Committee on Electoral Reform to have included in this bill various items that have been omitted.
I have moved some amendments here today which have been defeated that sought to improve the bill in so far as the bill itself went. I also tried to move two amendments which were ruled out of order which dealt with the rights of women under our electoral law. They would have enhanced the ability of women to run for public office, for membership in this House and would have provided incentives to the parties to recruit and allow them to stand as candidates. This would be with a
April 2, 1993

view to increasing the representation of women in the House. Those amendments were ruled out of order by the Chair. I can understand the ruling and I can see why they were ruled out of order.
When the committee made specific recommendations on one of those issues and the government chose to remove it from the bill, I found it difficult to understand why we are unable to move an amendment that the committee had proposed in its draft legislation and which is then out of order simply because the government bill does not include it.
Be that as it may, we have been unable to deal with those aspects of the electoral law in the course of this bill. The committee is continuing its work. When I say it is ad nauseam we do sit very long hours and have discussed this matter most extensively in committee, that and other matters.
We sat most of this past week. We did not sit today but we were sitting yesterday and I believe on Monday and Tuesday. We will be sitting on Monday when we resume. We are trying to reach agreement on various points but my general observation-I know the government House leader will probably disagree with me when I say this-is that in our view we are very concerned that the government is not really interested in electoral reform. What we are getting here is electoral fiddling.
This bill represents the culmination of work that has gone on since 1987 at least. Many of the amendments in this bill are ones that are not controversial. They will enhance our electoral law and were recommended by the chief electoral officer in his report which was tabled in this House in 1988.
We have not broken a whole lot of new ground. There are some new things: The special ballot rules are going to be a significant improvement and will broaden the franchise by allowing people who were previously disenfranchised to vote. The rules respecting the right to vote for non-resident Canadians is an improvement.
There are other things that are not improvements. We tried to get some of those fixed today with these amendments and failed. We will continue to try in the committee where we are pressing on with other matters.
Government Orders
I want to turn to some of those other matters and stress their importance in this House. By passing this bill today, I recognize that we have assisted in the passage to some extent. We have recognized that we are going to lose the votes. We have allowed that to happen without forcing standing divisions which would have held it up.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will be very short. I listened with interest to my friend for Kingston and the Islands. I just want to say publicly and to the House that we talked about electoral reform.
We have to reform our House rules. In view of what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said, there has been a blot put on any further work of the committee because of the fact that the opposition has allowed such-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is an experienced member. He knows very well that he got into debate on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I regret the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants feels that he is sort of responsible. The hon. member knows perfectly well he has had plenty of opportunity to debate in this House this afternoon. The hon. member knows perfectly well he has had plenty of opportunity to debate this. He did not come to the committee.


Louis Plamondon: Hypocrites.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's language is quite deplorable.


Louis Plamondon: Hypocrites. Carry on with your dictatorial way, as they do in South Africa.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Really.


Louis Plamondon: This is an abuse of power, Madam speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member with the big smile knows as well as I that it takes two to tango. I too have my glasses on. I see as well as the hon. member.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I would like to go on with my remarks concerning this bill because I think we can adopt it today so that the Chief Electoral Officer may continue to work towards implementing its provisions.

April 2, 1993
Government Orders

If the Chief Electoral Officer is not able to proceed with the special ballot rules promptly he will not be able to have them in place in time for the next election.
We are agreeing to passage today because we believe it is in the best interest of the Canadian public to have this bill in place in time for the next election.
That is the only reason we are doing so. It is not because we think everything in this bill is great. We have told the House and we have told the country what we think is wrong with this bill.
We will have another opportunity to debate the electoral law of Canada in this House when phase two is presented to this House, as it will be in the next few weeks. When phase two comes here concurrence in the committee report can be moved. If the hon. member is so keen to debate it why does he not move concurrence in the report of the special committee which is before this House right now and is still sitting there and has not been concurred in? He can have a debate for a morning any time he likes on the committee report and I invite him to move a motion of concurrence. He can do that.


Louis Plamondon: We want to participate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There is no need for the hon. member to sit and squawk today and say his rights are being taken away. There will be another report and he can move concurrence in that report and debate the electoral law, too. That is two mornings at least before the government can shut it off. If he is smart and moves it on a Wednesday afternoon he can have the whole afternoon to debate it until the government moves adjournment of the debate. I invite him to do that.
As for me and my party, we have our regrets about this bill and we have made those very clear, succinctly but clearly, in the course of the debate today. I regret that this is being pushed through on a Friday afternoon and I had asked the government House leader to give time for this bill earlier in the week. Unfortunately he said he was unable to do that, which I think indicates the priority the government places on electoral reform. Nevertheless, we are faced with it today.
We have to proceed with something in order for the Chief Electoral Officer to get this in place for the next election. I think most Canadians will be well served by those provisions that will be put in place, specifically the changes relating to the special ballot rooms which will enable more Canadians to vote than has been possible in the past.

The hon. members represent Quebec. In that province the elections act already gives voters the right to vote even if they do not reside in the province. The rules are not the same for the country, and we would like all Canadians to be able to vote during a general election regardless of where they live.


Louis Plamondon: We agree with that. We will debate on that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am pleased to see that the hon. members agree with that. However, if we do not pass this bill today, it will be impossible to complete the necessary arrangements and have these sections in effect on time for the next general election. I hope that all members in this House will support this bill, because it is an important measure for all Canadians. Even if we disagree over some clauses, we can still support this bill today, even though all our motions were defeated.

The hon. members in this party have their grave regrets, as I have said. We are not very happy with what is not in this bill, but we are reasonably happy with what is in it. That is what we have been talking about. That is what we were restricted to talking about and that is what we were restricted to voting on today in this House. It is only what is in it and what we might add to what is in it that we can talk about. We cannot talk about or vote on those things that are either not in it or that cannot be added to it because they are not already dealt with in the bill.
I have referred to the two amendments that you have ruled out of order, Madam Speaker. We regret that. We wish those things were in the bill. We wish there were many other things in the bill that are not there. But given that we have what is here on this piece of paper and that is what we have to vote on today, as an opposition we are prepared to say that is what we will go ahead with. We believe it is in the best interests of Canadians even though we wish there was a lot more in it. It is not there however and we are stuck with having to proceed with what is here. We are reluctantly agreeing to this today in
April 2, 1993

order to allow for more Canadians to participate in the election, whenever it is held.
I think I speak for most Canadians when I say that we want an election at the earliest opportunity. Canadians are most anxious that there be an immediate election. I would invite the Prime Minister to go to Rideau Hall tonight to dissolve Parliament and call an immediate election so that we can have it over with. Then the leadership convention my hon. friends opposite are having could be deferred to a later date. We could have the election and then they could choose their new leader. I think Canadians would appreciate the opportunity to express their views on the current government's position and its failures in the last eight years.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the order agreed earlier today, pursuant to Standing Order 78(1), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 19, 1993, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 19, 1993