1984-06-29

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the 27th Annual Croatian Day celebrations took place in Vancouver. These celebrations mark the long and honourable history of Canadians of Croatian heritage, who number in the tens of thousands. Many Croatians settled on the West Coast more than a century ago and played an important part in the building of British Columbia. Canada owes much to these people, yet the federal Government continues to ignore its obligations to an issue of concern to 80 per cent of the Yugoslavs in Canada who are of Croatian origin.
One major problem results from the lack of adequate Canadian consular services in Yugoslavia. Members of the Canadian Croatian community have long requested that a Canadian Government consular office be established at Zagreb in Croatia, Yugoslavia. This seems only fair, given that the Yugoslav Government maintains three consular offices in Canada, one in Montreal, one in Toronto, and one in Vancouver, as well as an embassy in Ottawa.
Additionally, a Canadian Consulate in Zagreb is a reasonable request when one considers that the only office of our Government in Yugoslavia is in Belgrade, several hundred miles from where Croatians live. Many Croatians must therefore travel a great distance to the Serbian capital of Yugoslavia in order to process passports, visas, and immigration documents, or to consult with the Canadian Government on business matters. Surely if the Yugoslav Government deems it important to operate-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time, unfortunately, has expired.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the real tragedies of this Parliament has been its failure to address the very serious unemployment problem in the country. Most Members and most Canadians know that there are fewer Canadians working today than there were four and a half years ago at the time of the last election, even though our population has increased since then. What they are less likely to know and understand is that, in the midst of this unemployment tragedy, the Government has also chosen to cut the training opportunities for Canadians by some 20 per cent. That runs counter to what more progressive and successful nations have been doing.
We hope to see an early election so that more Canadians can be put to work and so that more Canadians can have training opportunities, thus giving more Canadians hope for the future. All that Canadians need to do is turf the Liberals out of office and put the Progressive Conservative Party in office. If they do that, jobs will come.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in many publications and media reports, well meaning but poorly informed writers and journalists have been unjustly critical of the financial input of Canada to NATO. In 1978, at a key meeting of the Alliance, a decision was reached to increase defence spending in real terms by 3 per cent annually.
A table compiled by The Sunday Times of London, and recently published in The Toronto Star, showed the amount each member of NATO contributed in 1983 as compared with the previous year's spending. In summary, the Europeans as a group never reached the 3 per cent benchmark. Belgium and Denmark actually decreased their contributions to NATO in the past year. Canada has increased its spending by 5 per cent.
In response to all of the doubting Thomases who have been critical of Canada's NATO defence spending, Canada in fact is in second place among all NATO members. Only the annual increase of the United States continues to stand ahead of Canada's substantial annual increase in NATO spending.

June 29, 1984


FAREWELL MESSAGE FROM MEMBER FOR SASKATOON EAST
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, there are rumours that there could be a summer election. If that is true, this will be my last time in the House of Commons, and I would like to say a few words of farewell to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues. I had fully intended to run in the next election and had been nominated on January 28 in my constituency. However, on February 21 I received a message from the Vatican which indicated that under the new code of Canon Law it is no longer possible for me, as a Catholic priest, to continue in active political life. Because I had made a very firm commitment that I was a priest first, and that I would be a priest before, during, and after my political activities, I resigned my nomination on March 1.
I would like to say that it has been a very good, beneficial, and happy experience for me in this House. I appreciate and thank all Members of the House of Commons who have become my friends. I feel that I have been able to state positions clearly which are important concerning international peace and development. I trust that those particular things will be carried on by my colleagues and, in particular, I hope that the person whom I have nominated to represent my constituency, Rev. Colin Clay, who is an Anglican priest, will continue what I have started and will be able to have the same good experiences which I have had in this House.
To one and all, my sincere thanks. It has been a great experience.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THREAT TO STEEL INDUSTRY POSED BY POSSIBLE UNITED STATES QUOTAS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the past three years have been difficult ones for the steel industry in North America, both in Canada and in the United States. In steel producing cities we have seen tens of thousands of steelworkers laid off, many of whom will never return to their jobs. This has been a very serious problem at Algoma Steel, in Sault Ste Marie.
The reduced demand for steel in the United States market, due to the recession and the dumping of cheap imports by countries in South America and Asia, has caused the United States Congress and administration to take legislative action to impose quotas on steel imports in Congress, and to hold hearings of the International Trade Commission.
Canada has always been a fair trading partner with the United States in steel products. Our steel industry, markets, and source of raw materials span across the international
boundary. Canada should be exempt from any quotas imposed by the United States Government. These quotas, if applied to Canada, could result in the loss of as many as 2,000 jobs, many of them in Sault Ste Marie.
The future Prime Minister, who will be sworn in tomorrow, is very aware of this problem as he recently visited Sault Ste Marie and consulted with steel company officials. I would urge him, in the early days of the new administration, to speak with President Reagan in order to ensure that no action will be taken by the United States Government to harm the vital Canadian steel industry further.


THE SENATE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, media reports indicate that the nation should brace itself for a new round of Senate appointments. Will these new appointments be based on the enrichment of the Senate? Will they be based on the merits of the appointees and the contributions they have made to their communities and Canadian society? No, this is Canada. We base Senate appointments on one element, political expediency. If the person who is appointed has any abilities, that is a coincidence, and it more often appears in the case of appointments made of political enemies of the Government rather than of political friends.
What has happened to Senate reform? A joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons studied the problems of the Senate and tried to make recommendations which would lead to the advancement of that body. Those recommendations have been ignored. The most important recommendation was that the Senators should have term appointments. The second most important recommendation was that appointments should reflect the society of Canada. All of this has been ignored in the name of political expediency. Government takes whatever action it chooses. If there is a favoured public servant who has no place to go, he or she is appointed to the Senate. If there is a politician who has stayed too long in office, he is appointed to the Senate.
If we are to have Senate reform it must start now with the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and continue with the new Prime Minister. We cannot have a Chamber that does not reflect Canadian society.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
June 29, 1984


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, since today is probably the last day of this session, I wish to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for the tremendous work he has done for the designated towns of Schefferville, Gagnon, Fermont, Sept-Iles and Port-Cartier, in accommodating workers seeking employment outside the North Shore region.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Government for all the work done on the harbour of Sept-Iles and the various infrastructures that have been put in place on the middle and lower North Shore over the last three years.
Speaking on behalf of North Shore workers laid off by the local mining industry, and on behalf of the metal workers union, I would like to thank the Government of Canada at this point for helping to alleviate the lay-off situation and making it possible for individuals to make a living in other parts of the country.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, we are not
getting a new Prime Minister tomorrow, and we are not getting a new Cabinet. We are getting another Prime Minister, and what is left of an old, worn out Government. The Cabinet that will be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General, really means an endorsement of policies which have disunited Canada, which have aroused separatism in every part of our Dominion, that continue the increased freight rates imposed on the western grain growers, that retain the exorbitant and unfair taxation contained in the national energy policy, that give CPR-is Mr. Turner still a director?-not only the benefit of increased freight rates but also the whole shortfall amounting to millions of dollars, indeed a guaranteed annual income for the railways.
It will be an endorsement of the high interest rates which have resulted in hundreds of our people losing their homes, and farms, and businesses. It will continue the confrontation with the provinces and the abuses under the Official Languages Act, and trigger withdrawal of investment money and the flight from our country of thousands of investment dollars. The 1.5 million unemployed, many of whom are without work because of the policies of the Ministers of this temporary Government, are left without hope.
Oral Questions
It is the same old gang with a leader from Bay Street, the same old body with another head. Indeed, it is a sinking ship from which many are fleeing. What Canada needs is a brand new Progressive Conservative Government with a brand new leader, Mr. Brian Mulroney!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, three people, two men and a woman, are conducting a hunger strike outside the Polish consulate in Toronto. They are endangering their health, and certainly risking their lives. Why are they involved in this very dangerous situation? Because the Polish Government has refused to permit their families permission to leave Poland to join them, in violation of the Helsinki agreement with regard to reunification of families. I am certain that all Members of Parliament will join with the New Democratic Members of Parliament in urging the Government of Poland to live up to its obligations under the Helsinki convention, and permit the families concerned to leave Poland on humanitarian grounds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the banks increased their prime lending rate to 13 per cent. This came at a time when the Canadian Council on Social Development was finding that one in four families in our country were living below the poverty line. This confirmed earlier findings by Statistics Canada in February that 46 per cent of the unemployed were forced to live at or below the poverty line. Given the fact that there are fewer people working full time in Canada today than when we came here four and a half years ago, I think the House and the country have a right to know from the Minister what rate of interest rates he will tolerate to condemn thousands and thousands more Canadians to unemployment and poverty?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind my hon. friend that one of the latest pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament, at the urging of this Government, has been a measure to come to the aid of elderly single people, 75 per cent of whom were women, who still lived below the poverty level. Thanks to the measure

June 29, 1984
Oral Questions
which this Government has passed, there will be no single senior citizen in the future who will be living below the poverty level in this country. This is something which this Government has done, and this is a policy which we have pursued.
In the last 16 years, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, we have been able to reduce very significantly the percentage of Canadians living at the poverty level. We have cut that percentage by more than half. That has been brought about because of the steps which have been taken by the Liberal Government during that particular period.
I want to point out to my friend that the social assistance programs are under provincial responsibility, although the federal Government pays 50 per cent of whatever the provinces decide to pay. Surely he knows that the level of social assistance is the responsibility of provincial Governments, under the Constitution. They determine the level of those payments. Once more, we are providing 50 per cent of those payments.
As far as interest rates are concerned, the Hon. Member knows that the policy of the Government is to follow the lowest possible interest rate policy. We are now in a situation where we have the same prime rate as in the United States, and we kept those rates below the U.S. level, thanks to our policies, for as long as we could. We will continue that policy of the lowest possible rates, taking into account the reality of our economic environment internationally.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my concern is that unemployment in Canada continues to increase while it is continuously on the decline in the U.S. A StatsCan survey shows that in February 46 per cent of the unemployed were forced to live at or below the poverty line. Unemployment is going up, which means the ratio of poor people is also increasing. Surely the Minister and the Government have to bear the burden of responsibility for this. Surely he has an obligation to tell the House, and the poor, and the unemployed, how much more they are expected to tolerate.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that employment has been rising during the last several months in this country. We have created more jobs, not less. The economy is growing and jobs are being created.


Mr. Broadbent:: The economy is not growing.


Marc Lalonde: As to the unemployed, the Hon. Member knows that we have set up a number of direct job-creation and recovery programs. A number of steps have been taken to increase the money for training and retraining of workers and unemployed. We are spending billions of dollars in that area, more than at any time in our history. There could be a few other things done. For instance, I am still hoping against hope that the Conservatives will support the income tax amendments before the House at the present time which would help
small business considerably, as well as farmers and mediumsized businesses.


Mr. Kempling:: Where is the Bill?


Marc Lalonde: We cannot get the agreement of the Tories to pass the Bill.


Mr. McDermid:: You have not tabled the Bill.


Marc Lalonde: This is one area where the Conservatives could co-operate and help the unemployed, instead of arguing amongst themselves and being unable to agree on what should be done.


IMPACT OF INTEREST RATES ON CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that there are fewer Canadians working full time today than when this Parliament first met four and a half years ago. The economic indicators show that Canada could be heading back into recession. For the last quarter construction is down, and housing starts are down. The Minister knows, or should know, that for every one percentage point increase in interest rates there is a drop of 10,000 housing starts. That means 25,000 jobs are lost. We know increased interest rates mean higher mortgage rates, which will mean lower housing starts. Surely the Minister can tell the House to what level he will tolerate these high interest rates going before he moves in to protect Canadians from another recession.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is taking the typical Conservative pessimistic and negative line that the economy is going into a recession. That is not a view shared by any serious analyst in this country. The economy is growing, and is expected to grow significantly this year. Even if the economy were to grow at the rate of 4.4 per cent, which is the projection on the basis of the growth in the first quarter, that would still be the best rate of increase since 1967. Inflation today is lower than it has been since 1972.
We are not in a recession and we are not heading into a recession unless, I suppose, we were to follow the Conservative prescriptions, and unless the Conservatives form a Government. That obviously would be a real recession for the country in many respects.


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday Cabinet confirmed additional funds for the sports pool. Will the Minister confirm that the figures presented to
June 29, 1984

the Cabinet indicated that the pool has lost in the order of $20 million to date? Will he give the House a guarantee that, whatever happens in the negotiations with the provinces, no more public money will be put into the sinkhole of the sports pool and that the House of Commons can expect that the sports pool will be closed before the House resumes sitting in the fall?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can say that we will follow what Parliament has said in passing a law about the sports pool. My hon. friend should be concerned about efforts made to subvert a decision of this Parliament to set up this particular operation, the objectives of which are to fund the Olympics and other worthy causes. That is what my hon. friend should be concerned about.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government ought to be very grateful that there are provinces which are prepared to assist in funding the Olympics.


REQUEST THAT FUNDING OF CORPORATION BE HALTED
John William Bosley: We embark on a new era tomorrow. It appears that the Liberals are proposing to hold off closing the sports pool until the new Prime Minister is sworn in tomorrow so that he can take the credit. Why will the President of the Treasury Board, who, it appears, will continue in a position of authority over public money, not tell the House of Commons today that $20 million so far, and potentially $50 million by the time we return in the fall, is a terrible waste of public money and should be stopped right now?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend thinks that supporting the Calgary Olympics is a waste of money, that is his opinion. If my hon. friend thinks that helping medical research and sports is a waste of money, that is his opinion. However, I do not think that opinion is shared by Canadians. I will make sure that his representation, for whatever it is worth, and it is not much, is brought to the attention of the future Prime Minister.


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the alarming report that came down yesterday which indicated that 26 per cent of Canadian families live in poverty and 100,000 of those families live on an income of $5,000 or less. Just a minute ago the Minister tried to suggest that the responsibility for this rests entirely with the social programs of the provinces. What nonsense.
Oral Questions
Two years ago his Government brought in a Budget which reduced by 20 per cent the tax rate on all those earning more than $130,000 a year. Last year he himself brought in a Budget which increased federal sales taxes which impinge most directly on the poor. Could he explain to the people of Canada, and most specifically to the poor, why his Government continues to do most for those who need it least, and least for those who need it most? Is this the new Liberalism?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been very selective in his comments on the effects of Government policies and budgets. I informed him that a few weeks ago, for instance, Parliament passed legislation under which the Government agreed to increase by $50 its monthly payments to the elderly who live alone. This will bring all Canadians 65 years old or over above the poverty line. It is an exceptional achievement, which compares very favourably with what has been done by other countries, because practically, we shall have eliminated poverty among the aged in Canada.
The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that in recent years, the percentage of Canadian families living in poverty in Canada has been reduced by more than half. This was possible thanks to a host of measures initiated and promoted by the Government of Canada and adopted by Parliament. I may remind him once again that the levels of payments for families living in poverty or on welfare are determined by the provincial governments, and the federal Government pays 50 per cent of whatever the provincial governments are prepared to give. The Hon. Member may have a centralist view of Canada's political structure. However, we live under a federal system, which means certain areas are the responsibility of the Government and the Parliament of Canada, and others fall under provincial jurisdiction, and we are trying to work together with the provinces, with all parties discharging their share of the responsibility. However, if the Hon. Member considers the economic situation in recent years, he will realize that this Government and the Liberal Party of Canada have done a great deal to help those who are most in need in this country, and that is our policy.


REQUEST FOR INCOME TAX REFORM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the facts are as follows. With the policies the Liberals have brought us, the majority of Canada's elderly will continue to remain at a certain poverty level. That is a fact. Unfortunately, the Minister failed to answer the question about our tax system here in Canada. It is the most unjust tax system in the world! It is the most unjust system of any democratic society.

Since he has tried to suggest, by talking about the slight amount they have done for a part of the elderly poor, that that

June 29, 1984
Oral Questions
is all they have to do, why does he not bring in some tax reform so that upper income Canadians will pay their share? He could do a lot more, not only for the elderly poor but for the rest of the poor in the country, if his colleagues in the Cabinet and the rest of upper income Canadians paid their share of taxes. Why does he not do that?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statements are absolutely unfounded. Let him compare Canada's tax system with systems in most other industrialized countries and he will realize that our tax system is very fair, in comparison.
I would urge the Hon. Member to do his homework, and if he does not want to do his homework, he should get a better research service. He will find that the information he is getting is not accurate and does not reflect the real situation.
Once again, what the Hon. Member is saying with respect to the aged is totally inaccurate. Thanks to the measures we have taken, the elderly in Canada now have the assurance that they will be protected against poverty. There is no longer any reason why Canadians over 65 and living alone should be living below the poverty line, and that is thanks to the latest measures adopted by this Parliament.
As far as tax reform is concerned, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that we tabled a broad range of budget measures designed to stimulate the economy, create jobs and provide for a fair distribution of the tax burden in this country. More specifically, we now have before Parliament a major piece of legislation which concerns an amendment to the Income Tax Act, legislation which the Opposition is reluctant to adopt. I suggest we start by adopting the reform proposals that are actually before the House before talking about reforms next week or in two years' time.


FUNDING ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand why John Turner has kept the Minister in the Cabinet. If the Minister would take the time to read them, I would like to send him a number of comparative studies of tax systems in countries in western Europe. I wish he would read them. He will hear more about that in the days ahead.
Since the Minister refuses to do anything about our unfair tax system, will he understand that the major cost burden for the poor, apart from food, which is very important, is housing? Would he explain why the important part of the housing program, namely, social housing in general, and the co-operative housing sector in particular, has not been increased by the Government but decreased in terms of its budgetary allocation? Why does the Government not announce today, on this last sitting of the House before the summer, and perhaps before an election, a major increase in funds allocated for
social housing which could meet a human need and also provide jobs that are badly needed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member looks at one single program in the housing area. I invite him to look at the entire spectrum of our housing measures.


John Edward Broadbent: The housing that affects the poor. That is what I asked.


Marc Lalonde: He will find that the Minister responsible for housing has taken steps to ensure that those who really are in need are getting help and support. It is not as much as we would like to do. Obviously we would like to be able to do more and we will try to do more but, contrary to the NDP, we realize that there is only so much money available.


John Edward Broadbent: Why did you give it all to the rich, then? Why did you give it to the rich?


Marc Lalonde: That is typical of the Hon. Member. He prefers to shout than listen. I listened politely to his question-


Ms. Jewett:: It is high time you listened.


Marc Lalonde: -but politeness is a little bit too much to ask of him. He is so concerned about his own rhetoric that he cannot sit down for a few seconds to listen to what is being said.
I invite him again to look at the total package of measures in the area of housing. He will find that the Government has put a high priority on providing support for those in need in the area of housing.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Hon. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in this, the Prime Minister's last day-


An Hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was in your riding saying goodbye for you. It won't be long now.
In this, the Prime Minister's last day in the House of Commons, on behalf of my colleagues I want to wish him good health and happy days in his retirement years ahead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: On this, his final day, would the Prime Minister grasp the moment to right an historic wrong that has been inflicted on Canadians of Japanese origin? Will the Prime Minister, on this special day, take the time to convey, either on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, a formal apology to Canadian citizens
June 29, 1984

whose rights were so trampled upon in the war years? I think it would be a gesture that would sit well with all Canadians who believe so fundamentally in the sanctity of minority rights.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Leader of the Opposition for his good wishes. I will remember this place with no nostalgia but some kindness, and certainly I have been honoured to serve the people of Canada as best I could in this place for some years. I am very proud of it.
With respect to the matter that he raises, I put it to the Leader of the Opposition that he might want to associate himself with the response of the Government to the recommendations of the Task Force on Visible Minorities when we did express regrets at what had happened to the Canadians of Japanese ancestry on the occasion of the Second World War, and when we announced the setting up of a fund in order to promote racial equality in Canada.
If the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party want to go that far, I think it would be a progressive step, and an encouraging one.
I am not sure what more the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would have in mind when he talks about redressing an historic wrong. There is no way in which we can relive the history of that period. In that sense, we cannot redress what was done. We can express regret collectively, as we have done.
If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition intends going further and indemnifying individual Canadians with sums of money, I think he should make it clear. I know that there is a fair amount of confusion in that. I would have respect for him if he suggested that, and made some provision for the many millions of dollars that would be involved, but the sum of money is not the main question. The main question is how many other historic wrongs have to be righted.
Even today we know that there are people living in Manitoba who have been deprived of their constitutional right since 1890, and who are deprived of a very real freedom of expression in that province. It is not of the same material order as the deprivation that the Japanese Canadians suffered after the war, but I think a deprivation of the spirit of a freedom is also worth some redress. Yet this Government has never suggested that they be given money. We have just suggested that we right the wrong which has been perpetrated in these recent months by a Conservative Government in Manitoba. I know that the Leader of the Opposition shares the regret that we on this side have for that. I just hope that his fellow Tories, if they are so anxious to right wrongs in the case of Japanese Canadians, will think of these wrongs and will do something to right them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Prime Minister's sense of partisanship will remain with him to the end. I hate to have to remind him with regard to the Franco Manito-
Oral Questions
bans that it was a Liberal Government that removed the rights of French Canadians in Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: Laurier did not do a thing.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT APOLOGIZE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister on this his last day. We are talking about a specific problem, and there is a world of difference between a regret and a formal apology. Canadians of Japanese origin had their rights trampled upon. The reputation of this country was besmirched. All I am asking the Prime Minister today is to acknowledge the fact that this country, this Government, this Parliament, was wrong, and to convey our deep and genuine apologies to the Japanese Canadians, and in so doing tell all visible minorities in this country that this kind of heinous action will never again take place in Canada and, if it does, that we will have the nerve and the courage to stand up and apologize for it and deal with it honourably.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is all I am asking the Prime Minister. I am not trying to cast aspersions or blame. There is enough blame in our history to go around for all of us, Mr. Speaker. I am pointing out to the Prime Minister on his last day that there is a specific problem, and I am asking him if he will rise to the occasion and convey, on behalf of the Government of Canada, a genuine apology to Canadian citizens who were so badly done by. This does not preclude action in other areas in the future.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the emotion with which the Leader of the Opposition speaks. I respect that. He feels deeply indignant about what happened to the Japanese Canadians some 40 years ago. I share that indignation. I have expressed it on other occasions. It seems to me he is making much of a semantic difference between an apology and a regret. As for me I am always prepared, with some effort, to apologize for my actions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which we or these people in this House were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why mount to great heights of rhetoric in order to say that an apology is much better than an expression of regret? This I cannot too well understand. All I am asking the Leader of the Opposition is why only regret this particular aspect of our history? He mentions the Liberal Government of 1890. Why doesn't his Party, as a Party, apologize for those events too, to the French Canadians? Why don't they do that? Why does the Leader of the Opposition not use the same amount of rhetoric for this? Why does he not apologize for what happened to Riel? Why

June 29, 1984
Oral Questions
does he not apologize for what happened during the Second World War to mothers and fathers of people sitting in this House who went to concentration camps? I know some of them, Mr. Speaker. They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who went to jail, who went to concentration camps during the Second World War. Why do we not apologize to them?
I do not follow the Leader of the Opposition who talks about my political partisanship. Why suddenly only the Japanese, Mr. Speaker? Why suddenly only the Japanese Canadians? Is it because there are votes in it?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Come on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, come on. Is it because there are no votes in Manitoba for his Party? Is it because there are no votes in all the other groups? Some of these other groups-


An Hon. Member:: You are sad.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are sad over there, my friend.


Mr. Dick:: You are sick.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And you are sick if you are trying to take one wrong out of Canadian history and make great speeches about it and say that we-excuse me, Mr. Speaker, through you- say that we are going to deal with this particular problem because there is a particular pressure group now. We could mount pressure groups across this country on many areas where there have been historic wrongs. I do not think it is the purpose of a Government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time, and that is what we have done by bringing in the Charter of Rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it does not give me a great deal of pride to follow such sophistry from the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: My question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Will the Minister confirm that there has been no significant progress in reducing economic disparity between the Atlantic Provinces and the rest of Canada since the mid-1970s? If so, to what does he attribute that failure?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not confirm that at all.


ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL DISPARITIES
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development? Is the Minister aware of a confidential federal Government document which I have in my hand, prepared by his own Department, entitled "Regional Disparities: A Statistical Overview"? This document concedes the fact that economic performance:
-has slowed considerably in all regions since the mid-1970s.
And the document goes on to state that the gradual reduction in disparities between the Atlantic Provinces and the rest of Canada:
-has come to a halt since 1975.
Does the Minister reject that assessment by his own Department and by the Government of which he is a part?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate at some length in the House just a few weeks ago when we threw statistics back and forth across this Chamber. The point is that the Government had a dedication to correcting regional disparities. That was the purpose of DREE. DREE has been an outstanding success in Atlantic Canada. These successes have been built upon, and that commitment to regional development is ever present and has been moved forward aggressively by this Government.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF FRENCH PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Speaker:: Order.
It is with great pleasure that I draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation of twelve French parliamentarians, headed by Mr. Fran?ois Loncle, Deputy of the French National Assembly. Our distinguished visitors are attending the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For many years Canadians with ties to the Baltic States and the Ukraine have been able to send gift parcels to relatives in the Soviet occupied territories. However, recent changes to the U.S.S.R. Criminal Code render a person who receives help by way of
June 29, 1984

parcels from abroad liable to conviction and imprisonment for "anti-soviet agitation and propaganda". Can the Minister say what steps have been taken to persuade the U.S.S.R. to reconsider this step which appears to breach the Helsinki Final Act?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on this particular point I can only say that at the current meeting, for example, which is taking place at Stockholm, the Canadian representatives and others are continuing to press the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries to live up to the Helsinki Accord and to recognize the necessity of the greatest possible communication and interchange among the peoples of the world, particularly between the Soviet Bloc and other countries.
I am thankful to the Hon. Member for raising this particular point with respect to gifts and parcels which friends and relatives may want to exchange. I will be pleased to have officials of the Department raise the point with Soviet representatives as soon as possible.

Oral Questions
should bear in mind, in asking a question, whether it will be possible to answer it within the traditional confines of Question Period.


PLIGHT OF SINGLE FEMALE PARENTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. The Canadian Council on Social Development report also documented the feminization of poverty. The Minister knows that many women would be able to survive alone, but because they have children to support on their own, with very low wages or welfare, they just cannot make it. Would the Minister recommend, therefore, an increase in family allowances to assist low income mothers particularly? Would she also advocate a change in the welfare system to provide continuing social assistance for children while low income parents work?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is always looking for simple solutions to very deep problems.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Give me another solution now.
(l ,50,	Mrs. Erola: The problem of women is much greater than the
SOCIAL AFFAIRS	suggestions which she put forward. We have to fight for a
complete change in the way women are paid, in the way they FAMILIES LIVING IN POVERTY-PRIME MINISTER'S ADVICE are treated m thg workforce-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns poverty in Canada. The Canadian Council on Social Development reports that 2.3 million Canadians are poor. Many of these people are very poor, lining up at food banks in order to survive. A whole generation of children, young people and youth, are seriously at risk.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister a very sincere question, not a partisan one. In his last day in the House, what message would he leave for all political Parties that we should be doing together to try to decrease poverty in Canada and to try to guarantee an adequate level of income for all Canadians?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about women on welfare?


Mrs. Erola:: -and the way they are treated in their senior years. This is one of the reasons the Government just increased the GIS payment by $50. Those most affected are the poorest of the poor, the elderly women.


John Edward Broadbent: That's right; make it complex so that nothing is done.


Judith A. Erola: I wish she would support the programs that we are putting forward.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not intend to be a valedictorian today. However, the best advice I could give to the people of this country, to continue to help solving these problems, would be to vote Liberal in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: He is just as bad as the Minister of Finance was earlier. They do not care about poverty.


Mr. Speaker:: It is very difficult, within the confines of Question Period, for such a question to be answered. The Chair has to observe certain limits on time. The Hon. Member


INCOME TAX ACT
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He made reference yesterday and today to an income tax bill which would make certain changes and bring in some simplified tax reporting procedures. Would the Minister indicate the number by which the particular Bill can be identified?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Ways and Means Motion has been tabled. It is available. It has fundamentally the same text as the Bill. A copy of the Bill has been given to the critic of the Opposition and to the

June 29, 1984
Oral Questions
critic of the NDP for them to examine. There was an understanding that if we could get agreement to pass the Bill quickly, it would be immediately introduced on the basis of the Ways and Means Motion before the House and we would proceed with one speaker on each side.
The Opposition has had the Bill for several days. The Hon. Member knows the problem is that the Conservatives are divided. They cannot even agree on what stand they should take on anything. The Leader of the Opposition and his finance critic have contradicted each other on what stand they should take on the value of the dollar, and on interest rates. They have contradicted each other on universality. They have contradicted each other on every other subject. As on everything else, the Conservatives cannot make up their minds whether they are coming or going. I can tell them that they are going.


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the prime rate has risen to 13 per cent. The dollar is at 75 cents, with no bottom in sight. The Minister is talking about a Bill which has not been introduced into the House of Commons for debate. It is not on the Order Paper. Could he tell us whether this elusive tax Bill is one of the 11 Bills which will be brought forward today in the House of Commons for debate?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader is here. He will be available to meet right after Question Period with the House Leaders of the opposition Parties. If they are ready to pass this Bill today, I am sure that our House Leader would be very happy to do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the Bill?


Marc Lalonde: The fact is that the Conservatives cannot get together and agree on a strategy or policy to pass this Bill. The fact is that they are not ready to pass a measure which will be of great help to small and medium-sized businesses.


William James Kempling: There is no Bill.


Marc Lalonde: They are unable to agree on passing a Bill which will help farmers. They are unable to agree on passing amendments to the Income Tax Act which would help all Canadians. I can tell them that if they do not pass the Bill I will be there to remind the Canadian public whose fault it is that that Bill is not passed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Could the Minister confirm that a private complaint had been filed with the Marine Safety Division of the U.S. Coast Guard on the day before the sinking of the Royal Princess, from which the 20 passengers, fortunately, were rescued by Canadian as well as by American helicopters?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful the Hon. Member brought this particular event to the attention of the House. As the Hon. Member has indicated, it was a most remarkable and successful search and rescue operation. It saved the lives of 20 human beings at considerable risk to the lives and safety of the crews of four helicopters-two from the Canadian Forces and two from the United States Coast Guard. Again that is a manifestation of the high level of co-operation between Canada and the United States in search and rescue.
I am not in a position to advise or to confirm the information which she advanced to the House. However, I would say that it gives us the occasion, especially at the beginning of the holidays, to identify the importance of search and rescue in Canada from coast to coast, and to ask all Hon. Members in the House to communicate to their constituents the information, which is essential for people on holiday to know, relating to search and rescue, its infrastructure, and where they can contact search and rescue operations in their own regions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Malpeque.


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Speaker, I was about to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but he has just ducked out the door for a second. I will have to defer for the moment.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I do not intend to intrude myself or this Chamber into the ongoing labour dispute on the Great Lakes. However, one of the serious problems seems to be the method by which lake carriers take on drinking and other fresh water. Could the Minister advise the House whether or not the practice of taking on untreated, raw lake water from the middle of the Lakes, for human consumption, is permissible under transport regulations?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the regulations require that any potable water be of a safe nature. The means by which it is extracted or treated are what have to be tested. It does not matter where the source is as long as it is proper, fresh and usable water. As the Hon. Member said, it is a matter under some dispute as part of the negotiations. I think the role we could play is not to intervene in the negotiations, but to ensure that the standards applied are properly adhered to. It would be my responsibility. I will take the Hon. Member's question as
June 29, 1984

representation and will undertake to examine the situation carefully to ensure that those standards are in fact lived up to, so that there will not be a problem in relation to the safety of drinking water.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has been in and out of the Chamber, and I cannot find him now.


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION-FUNDING OF CALGARY WINTER OLYMPICS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. The people of Calgary are very concerned about funding for the Olympics. The sports pool is losing money at the rate of $10 million per month. How can the sports pool provide money for the Calgary Olympics when it is losing money? How can you lose money and have a profit at the same time? The mathematics of it escapes me. I would really like the Minister to explain that to us.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance pointed out yesterday, when asked about this same subject, that it has been the pattern for operations of this kind, including provincial lottery operations, to take a number of months, or perhaps longer, to reach a profitable position. The precedent in this case indicates that there is a period of time before an entity like this can be in a profit-making position. This point was made quite effectively yesterday by the Minister of Finance.


REQUEST THAT TICKETS BE PRINTED IN CANADA
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister table any studies that would prove that? In addition, will he make a commitment to have the lottery tickets printed in Canada instead of the United States so that some jobs may be created here in printing, forestry, and so on? Why are we spending $10 million, which will be lost money, to create jobs in the United States rather than in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will draw my hon. friend's representation to the attention of the responsible Minister. I am glad to see his belated conversion to the worthy cause of Canadian nationalism.
Oral Questions POLITICAL PARTIES


LIBERAL PARTY LEADERSHIP CONVENTION-PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker-
All Hon. Members: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I trust he will forgive me if I repeat an issue that I discussed with him personally a few days ago. I referred to the fact that at the Liberal Convention which was held here on June 14, 15 and 16,1 felt that the most important speech at that gathering was made by the present Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I even went so far as to suggest at one point that he read a book of mine about 23 years ago. At any rate, in his speech the Prime Minister declared that the Liberals had been concerned about old age pensions, medicare, unemployment, and economic conditions. He further stated that the Liberals have always been concerned about peace rather than war, in particular the late Prime Minister Pearson. However, we are aware that a few days ago a peace award was announced for the present Prime Minister.
He also made the point that it should be a concern for all people in this country that they have equality of their rights, regardless of race, colour, or religion.
Although the Prime Minister is leaving, I hope he will continue to use all the efforts he can with regard to his Party and the other Parties, as well as with all Canadians, so that it will be a major concern of this place to deal with those problems which the Prime Minister spoke of on June 14.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for remembering what I said two weeks ago and for remembering what he said to me 23 years ago. I assure him that I have always respected his sense of dedication to Canada and the means that he used in order to further the Canadian common weal.
I must say that this House has been very supportive of the peace initiative. All Parties have joined in a very difficult negotiation, and a very successful one, in ensuring that the Peace Institute would be created by this Parliament. I am particularly grateful to the committee chairman, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, who ensured the difficult negotiations which permitted the passage in committee and, of course, to my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, with the Hon. Member for Yukon and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, was able to give life to this Institute. I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North Centre will, like me, in our respective retirements wish all those who will be involved in the Institute and in the pursuit of

June 29, 1984
Petitions
peace, which is so dear and so close to Canadian ideals, well, and watch with approval their work in that line.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S RECORD ON SOCIAL MEASURES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the comments that he has made. I express the hope that he will make the point to the members of his Party and to other Parties that the organization that is strongest in pressing for pensions, health care and other matters, the one that has done the most and the one that mostly deserves support, is the Party of the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Be a statesman.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to agree one hundred per cent with the final statement of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. I sincerely hope that they will always be sitting there to the left of the Liberal Party, prodding the Liberal Government on to do more and more good things for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRIBUTE TO PAGE STAFF
Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of all Members of Parliament, I would like to express our appreciation to the pages for their services and wish them well in their careers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of three, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, June 28, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The two petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and one of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security; Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act; Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act; Bill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with relation to the House business for today. I want to report to my colleagues that following consultations with the House Leaders, we will be dealing with a certain number of Bills today. At the end of the sitting last night, I enumerated the order in which we thought at that time the Bills would be debated. We had further consultations this morning.
The following order will be followed for debating the Bills today, as agreed among the House Leaders. The first item of business will be Bill C-50, followed by Bills C-51, C-54, C-53, S-ll, C-47, the Saltfish Bill that will be introduced in a few moments, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Bill that will be introduced by consent in due time, and Bill C-56. [Translation]
Of course, since these are non-controversial measures, there is still room, provided we have the co-operation of Hon. Members, for other Bills we are prepared to introduce, if necessary, on income tax or other measures. In any case, according to the Standing Orders of the House, we must finish Government business by four o'clock this afternoon.
I believe that as soon as we have finished Government Orders, we have unanimous consent for suspending the sitting of the House to allow the Senate to consider and finish consideration of these bills and then proceed with Royal Assent-
Therefore, I would ask that the motion be seconded by the Hon. Member from Edmonton-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Saskatoon. It is in Saskatchewan.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, that is where he is going in a few minutes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Unlike you, I will be back.


Yvon Pinard: I would like the Hon. Member to second the following motion, following our understanding:

June 29, 1984

That at the end of debate on Government business today and no later than 4 p.m. this day, the House shall suspend its sitting until the call of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. President of the Privy Council to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have another matter that I would like to raise on a point of order. I recognize that what I am about to ask would require unanimous consent and I raise it with that in mind. Perhaps, Sir, you would seek the unanimous consent of the House in order that a motion could be put. If unanimous consent was forthcoming, I would be prepared to move or for that matter to support anyone else who wished to move a motion to the effect that the employees of the House of Commons who worked all night in the sitting of the House of Commons which commenced on Wednesday, June 20, 1984, be paid an additional sum for the additional services they rendered to the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to make two comments. First, the normal method of payment by the House does take into account the fact that there are occasional periods of overtime. Second, it is a matter that the Chair would prefer to have referred to the Management and Members' Services Committee and a recommendation to the Chair could be made through that channel.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we of course never question your decisions. This one is one of the wisest decisions you have made.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, I have the honour to
Petitions
present the second report of the Committee, in both official languages. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two reports from two different Standing Committees. First, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in both official languages.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, the second report I have the honour to present is the second report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in both official languages. The subject matter deals with sexually abusive broadcasting.
[Editor's note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present and I will not be overly long. The first petition is from members of the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association and deals with the establishment of air fare structures without undue restriction by the Canadian Transport Commission. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to oppose plans to deregulate Canada's commercial airline service. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the undersigned residents of the Riding of Vancouver South. They call upon the House regarding the matter of a certain lease granted by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to operate a private fish selling facility at False Creek Government Marina. They call upon this House as follows: your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to give commercial fishermen the right to sell their fish directly to the public with no middle-man. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

June 29, 1984
Petitions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is again signed by residents of the City of Vancouver. That petition shows their concern with respect to federal excise duty and sales tax on distilled spirits and calls for the following: wherefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revise the federal excise duty and sales tax so as to lower the rate of taxation of distilled spirits. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from students of Vancouver Community Col-lege-Langara which is in the federal Riding of Vancouver South. These petitioners are seriously concerned over the decline in opportunities for those seeking post-secondary education in British Columbia. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to raise the issue of student accessibility in the Province of British Columbia, that Parliament demand a full account of the federal transfer funds that are meant to be spent on education and that all Members of Parliament work to guarantee that all Canadians have an inalienable right to seek the finest education available in all areas of their jurisdiction. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the next petition is again from residents of the City of Vancouver and it deals with the area of transportation and the pledge to renew VIA Rail passenger service. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reinstate VIA Rail passenger service between the Cities of Edmonton, Jasper and Vancouver. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the last petition is from residents of the federal riding of Vancouver South who submit this petition because of their very grave concern with respect to the threat to the survival of humanity posed by the existence of nuclear weapons and the continuing arms race. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation preventing the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada in all areas of your jurisdiction. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, l have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Yellow Point on Vancouver Island and other British Columbia citizens interested in marine environment. In addressing their petition to several Ministers, both in Ottawa and in Victoria, and to the House of Commons, they express their concern
about the inadequate protection provided to coastal communities and to the environment from bulk carriers of coal, oil, chemicals and other commodities carried along Canada's coast.
By citing a specific case which occurred on February 5, 1984, the residents demonstrate the virtual impossibility of obtaining a conviction for pollution and call for an inquiry to find practical, enforceable means of protecting the fragile and recreationally valuable waters and shores of Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands from the risk of further damage by bulk carriers.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill which I am presenting to the House is to create a separate seat for Labrador. Labrador is a distinct geographic entity with clearly defined boundaries. It stands historically, culturally, socially, logistically and politically apart from the rest of its own province. I am asking the House to consider that since Labrador has special geographic consideration it should be allowed the same dispensation that has been allowed to Prince Edward Island, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



SALTFISH ACT


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Saltfish Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the House allow the Hon. Minister to table this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 29, 1984


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? Later today, with unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. 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 Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bank Act, without amendment.



LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, if the House would give its consent, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand), that the second report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to present his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have just gone past the point of Introduction of Bills. I was anticipating that the Government House Leader might have introduced a Bill which has been discussed in the last few days. I was wondering if the income tax Bill would be tabled in the House in order that Hon. Members would know what is in the legislation.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, not at this exact moment. The Hon. Member knows quite well that it is always possible, with unanimous consent, to revert to the tabling of Bills or documents.
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today, for the last time: Nos. 734, 735, 736, 788 and 863.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Capital Commission Advisory Committee on Arts and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: June 29, 1984
Order Paper Questions
(ii) For 1983-84, committee members received remuneration of $12,125 and were reimbursed travel expenses of $8,016.
(d) No other direct funding is provided. Elowever, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the National Capital Commission budget.
2. (a) Five times, (b) There is no set minimum limit to the number of times the Committee should meet, (c) The Committee reviewed various items pursuant to its mandate, (d) The Committee does not publish reports or recommendations.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Capital Commission Advisory Committee on Real Property and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. Yes. (a) The Committee advises the NCC on matters relating to major real property transactions including acquisition, disposals, leases and easements in the National Capital Region. In addition, the Committee advises on other matters concerning real property management, particularly in the area of policy development.
Name	(ii) Occupation	(iii) TermGeorges Couillard Lac Megantic, Quebec	Real Estate Advisor	One year, renewable annually for a maximum of five yearsJames Butler Toronto, Ontario	Real Estate Advisor	Joseph H. Chung Montreal, Quebec	Urban economist	M. J. Fitzgerald Ottawa, Ontario	Agriculture Specialist	William Assad Gatineau, Quebec	Businessman	Edmund Nesbitt Ottawa, Ontario	Real Estate	" "James William Parker St. John's, Newfoundland	Businessman	" "Robert Frechette Ste-Foy, Quebec	Real Estate Advisor	n nWilliam Patrick Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	Contractor	Monica Becott Prince George, British Columbia	Alderman	Armand Turpin Hull, Quebec	Businessman	" "
(c) (i) The Committee members receive remuneration as follows: $200 per day or $100 per half day for attendance at meetings and time spent in performing special assignments approved by the Commission, a travel time allowance of not less than $50 plus $25 per hour for any number of hours
exceeding two to a maximum of $400 per return trip, reasonable travelling and other expenses are reimbursed.
(ii) For 1983-84, Committee members received remuneration of $14,500 and were reimbursed travel expenses of $13,113.
(d) No other direct funding is provided. However, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the National Capital Commission budget.
2. (a) Four times, (b) There is no set minimum limit to the number of times the Committee should meet, (c) The Committee reviewed various items pursuant to its mandate, (d) The Committee does not publish reports or recommendations.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Capital Commission Advisory Committee on Design and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. Yes. (a) The Committee on Design advises the NCC on the discharge of its duties with regard to approving designs of buildings and other works of federal lands in the National Capital Region; this mandate relates to siting, erection, alteration and extension of such buildings and works.
Name	(ii) Occupation	(iii) TermDimitri Dimakopoulos Montreal, Quebec	Architect and Urban Designer	One year, renewable annually for a maximum of five yearsClaude Belzile Quebec, Quebec	Architect	Michael Hough Toronto, Ontario	Landscape Architect	Andrew B. Lynch Halifax, Nova Scotia	Architect	D. John Moore Vancouver, British Columbia	Architect and Urban Designer	Takao Tanabe Parksville, British Columbia	Artist	A. Jack Diamond Toronto, Ontario	Architect and Urban Designer	William T. Perks Calgary, Alberta	Engineer and Environmental Designer	Eva Vecsei Montreal, Quebec	Architect and Urban Designer	Alexander E. Rattray Winnipeg, Manitoba	Landscape Architect	Charles G. Smith Calgary, Alberta	Lawyer	Phillip M. Reynolds Winnipeg, Manitoba	Architect	
June 29, 1984

(c)	(i) The Committee members receive remuneration as follows: $200 per day or $100 per half day for attendance at meetings and time spent in performing special assignments approved by the Commission, a travel time allowance of not less than $50 plus $25 per hour for any number of hours exceeding two to a maximum of $400 per return trip, reasonable travelling and other expenses are reimbursed.
(ii) For 1983-84, Committee members received remuneration of $35,200 and were reimbursed travel expenses of $35,675.
(d)	No other direct funding is provided. However, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the National Capital Commission budget.
2. (a) Seven times, (b) There is not set minimum limit to the number of times the Committee should meet, (c) The Committee reviewed various items pursuant to its mandate, (d) The Committee does not publish reports or recommendations.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Advisory Committee on Financial Institutions and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the Fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: l.(a) Yes. There is an Advisory Committee on Financial Institutions. In establishing the Committee in January, 1984, the Minister of State (Finance) said that he would ask the Committee to advise him on what regulatory changes would help to ensure that the benefits of the evolving trends in the financial services industry can be secured, while simultaneously protecting the public interest.
(b)	(i) Committee members are: Mr. Donald Bean; Mr. Michael Belanger; Mr. Raymond Blais; Mr. Norman Brom-berger; Mr. Larry Clarke; Mr. Edward Crawford; Dr. William A. Dimma; Dr. Marie-Josee Drouin; Mr. Frank B. Lamont; Mrs. Betty Kennedy; Mr. Earl H. Orser; Mr. Dan Pekarsky; Mr. Grant L. Reuber; Mr. Jean Robitaille; Mr. William H. Somerville and Mr. Robert H. Jones.
(ii)	Most Committee members are senior executives of financial institutions (see below).
(iii)	It is hoped that the members will be able to serve until the Committee is dissolved.
(c)	(i) Committee members receive no remuneration for serving on the Advisory Committee, although they may request reimbursement for travel expenses incurred.
(ii) To date $1,671.36 has been expended for these purposes.
(d)	The Government has also covered the cost of meeting rooms used by the Committee and catering costs. These expenses have totalled $3,740.12 to date.
Order Paper Questions
2. No.
Committee Members
Mr. Donald Bean President and Chief Operating Officer Wood Gundy Limited
Monsieur Raymond Blais President
La Confederation des caisses populates et d'economie Desjardins du Quebec
Mr. Larry Clarke Chairman of the Board Chief Executive Officer Spar Aerospace Limited
Mr. William A. Dimma President and Chief Operating Officer A. E. LePage
Mr. Robert H. Jones Chairman and Chief Executive Officer The Investors Group
Monsieur Michel Belanger President du conseil President et chef de la direction Banque nationale du Canada
Mr. Norman Bromberger Chief Executive Officer and General Manager
Saskatchewan Central Credit Union
Mr. Edward Crawford President
The Canada Life Assurance Company
Madame Marie-Josee Drouin Directeur general Institut Hudson
Mrs. Betty Kennedy, O.C.
Public Affairs Editor CFRB Radio
Mr. Frank Lamont President and Chief Executive Officer Richardson Greenshields of Canada Limited
Mr. Dan Pekarsky President
First City Financial Corporation
Mr. William H. Somerville President and Chief Executive Officer Victoria and Grey Trust
Mr. Earl H. Orser President and Chief Executive Officer London Life
Mr. Grant L. Reuber
President
Bank of Montreal
Mr. Jean Robitaille President
Royal Insurance Company of Canada


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Office of the President of the Privy Council and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names (d) initial date of employment as exempt staff?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


John Leslie Evans: 1. (a) to (d) The President of the Privy Council employs exempt staff as follows:
Name and Title
Date of Employment
Young, R.-Executive Assistant	01.05.80
Mathieu, J.-Communications Assistant	24.10.83
Deslauriers, L.-Assistant Private Secretary	13.09.82
Giovanniello, M.-Research Assistant	17.11.82
Therien, J.-Y.-Chauffeur	06.03.80
Yip, M.-Senior Special Assistant Constituency	06.12.82
Burgoyne, L.-Secretaire	04.08.81
Melan^on, L.-Special Assistant Constituency	01.11.82

June 29, 1984
Order Paper Questions 2. No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 180 and 713 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 180 and 713 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

EM&R-EMPLOYMENT OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS


Mr. Blenkarn: L In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2. Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Council meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-51, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. By consent, we would like this Bill to be sent to a Committee of the Whole in order that it can be passed through the House today.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to indicate that there is agreement in so far as this Party is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the motion is amended as follows: "Mr. MacGuigan, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves that Bill C-51, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to put on the record the purpose of this Bill, not to delay proceedings but in order to provide a written statement as to its purpose.
The Convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters was signed in Ottawa on April 24, 1984. This Convention codifies the existing principles for recognition of judgments in Canada and the United Kingdom and also simplifies the procedures in this area. The Bill extends the application of the Convention to judgments rendered by the Federal Court.
The main reason for concluding this Convention was the imminent accession by the United Kingdom to a European Convention on the enforcement of judgments. The European Convention provides for the enforcement of judgments of other European states, including some which would not otherwise have been recognized by the United Kingdom courts because they were based on challengeable, frequently qualified as exorbitant bases of jurisdiction.
The European Convention, however, contains a provision which enables the United Kingdom to declare that it will not recognize or enforce any judgment based on exorbitant
June 29, 1984

grounds of jurisdiction given against a party that is domiciled or habitually resident in a specified non-European state. I refer the House to Article 9 of the proposed Canada-United Kingdom Convention whereby the United Kingdom undertakes to make such a declaration.
Before Canada can ratify this Convention, both federal and provincial legislation must be adopted. Almost all of the provinces have undertaken to adopt the necessary legislation. I can advise the House that this has already been done in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Article 12 of the proposed Convention enables Canada to ratify and expand the application of the Convention to specific provinces, not necessarily all provinces.
Since it is expected that the European Convention will come into force in January, 1985, it is very important that the Bill be granted speedy passage to ensure that Canadian assets in the United Kingdom will be protected against claims and judgments which, but for the European Convention, would not be recognized in the United Kingdom.

I might just add in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since this is probably the last occasion on which I will be speaking in this House, that I have enjoyed very much my 16 years here. I have enjoyed them not only because of the contact I have had with my colleagues in my own Party, but because of the warm, friendly and co-operative relations I have had with Hon. Members of the two other Parties. I would like to thank them for their co-operation and to say that I will keep a very close and friendly eye on proceedings in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has, I believe, succinctly stated the purpose of this legislation. It would be untoward of me to expand upon his remarks except to say that those who have worked for a long time to bring about this Convention have no doubt put their minds to most of the complex issues which are contained within it. It is our responsibility, I believe, under those circumstances, to pass this legislation which ratifies and approves the arrangement between our country and the United Kingdom. Therefore, we consent and approve the passage of this Bill.
I would like to just take a moment to respond to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and to say to him, on behalf of our Party, that we have enjoyed working with him in this place. Our many personal relations with him have been useful. I hope he feels the same way, and I feel he does. We wish him well and Godspeed in whatever endeavours he is called upon to engage on behalf of the law and on behalf of our country.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will take even less time than the critic for the Official Opposition. I want to begin by saying to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) that I, like all Hon. Members of the House,
Canada-United Kingdom Reciprocal Agreement
listened with interest to news reports which would indicate that the Minister's pursuit of justice will continue, if not in the House of Commons, in another equally important capacity. I believe it is both appropriate and in the best interests of Canada that that goal should be pursued. I want, therefore, to wish the Minister well in what I understand will be a very challenging and, I anticipate, very interesting vocation beyond politics.
I would also like to say with respect to Bill C-51, which is self-explanatory and, therefore, easy to support, that we will likewise provide the necessary support in order that this piece of legislation, together with yet another piece of legislation to follow at some later time, can be passed into law in the best interests, I believe, of those persons who will be affected by it.
This legislation has interesting and far-reaching effects and although it is not perhaps one of the highlighted Bills of this session of Parliament, I know that Canadians and British subjects, who may have felt offended by the lack of such legislation, will now feel that their needs have been met. With that in mind, we will do whatever we must in order to see that the legislation passes through the various stages.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to enter into this debate for the sole purpose of expressing to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) my best wishes for his future endeavours. I have served in my Party as the justice spokesperson, and also as chairman of our Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, for some years. A good part of that time was when the present Minister of Justice had those responsibilities.
The Minister has, indeed, had a distinguished academic career. He has served in the House of Commons, which is an honourable profession. I look forward to his contribution to our country from the bench, I understand. In view of the fact he has appointed a lot of his friends there, he will at least be among friends. He will have more friends there than he had at the Liberal convention, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity, in the context of this Bill, which is the last piece of legislation which the Minister will introduce and sponsor in the House, to extend to him my best personal wishes for every success in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the Chair.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1984
Public Service Superannuation Act

Hon. John C. Munro (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


John Raymond Ellis: I did not catch the number clearly. If it was Bill C-54, I intended to speak on it briefly. I assumed the Minister would want to speak first and I was looking for him to stand or for a Minister to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is Bill C-54 but the Chair has a problem because we have moved to the stage now where I am to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We will speak on third reading and speak a little longer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the amendments this Bill is making to the Public Service Superannuation Act are required to confirm the past and future super annuation status of employees of Members of Parliament, many of whom have been participating in the PSSA without clear legislative authority for a number of years. This became apparent only very recently when legal opinions were provided by the Department of Justice and the law branches of the House of Commons and the Senate. In addition to the constituency and Ottawa staff of MPs, the amendments apply to employees of Speakers of both Houses, Government Leaders of both Houses, Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, staff of the official residences and other similar employees.
The proposed Bill deems the employees of Members of Parliament to be employed in the Senate or House of Commons, whichever is appropriate, for purposes of participation in the PSSA. The Bill also provides that other categories of employees engaged in parliamentary business, paid out of monies appropriated by Parliament for use by the Senate or the House of Commons, can be brought under the Act by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Speaker of the House or the Senate. This regulation-making power can be used for employees such as House of Commons research staff who are in effect working for political Parties but who have been participating in the PSSA In the past and whose coverage we are asking Parliament to ratify.
The Bill provides that coverage will be extended to all present and future employees of Members of Parliament and other categories named by regulation from the date the Bill comes into force. In so far as the past is concerned, employees and retired employees who actually made contributions to the superannuation account will have their coverage and benefits ratified. Existing employees who did not actually contribute prior to the coming into force of the amendment will be given a one-year period to elect to count their prior service and pay for it on the basis of their salaries during the periods in question. This places them on an equivalent basis to those who made contributions in the past.
In conclusion, these amendments are urgently needed to remedy a past legislative oversight which has only recently become apparent, and to protect the promised benefits of the employees in question. There are other outstanding pension issues, but I want to confirm that I have begun consultations with my advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act on the reform of Public Service pension plans and I hope that before too long there will be some conclusions to be brought forward in that regard. In the meantime, there is an urgent situation which I ask the House to remedy through passage of this Bill.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, we indeed will give speedy passage to Bill C-54. However, I want to spend a few moments talking about it and some of the other things mentioned by the Minister.
When I first realized that some Members' staff had been told they would not receive the pension benefits they understood they should receive under the Public Service Superannuation Act, I was horrified and brought it to the Minister's attention in committee. I was glad to hear him say that there were negotiations going on and two things would happen. One, that the Bill would be brought forward and, two, that the people in question would be dealt with as though the Bill had been in place.
That is only fair; after all, all of us in this House rely so very heavily on our staff. Some of the things we ask them to do by way of long hours and overtime pay deserve to be paid for somewhere along the way, and these benefits that they have paid for are surely a very small way of doing that. It is fair to say that Mr. Speaker and his predecessor, Madam Sauve, have spent a great deal of time putting in place the benefits that
June 29, 1984

some of us felt for a long time were due our staff. Through their direction to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, this and a number of other items are finally coming to pass.
Members know that they will receive in the next few days a comprehensive change in policy with regard to staff benefits and salaries. Finally, we will by August 4 be in a position to pay some of our senior staff a remuneration that comes somewhere close to the work they perform. In the past, there have had to be of necessity all kinds of funny little deals to help us keep top level staff. We will now have, as a result of the letter dated yesterday from the Speaker's office, a long list of changes that will allow us not only to pay them better but also to provide more benefits. To have had this held up would have been unthinkable.
Before I sit down I would like to pay some credit to some of the people who have been directly responsible under Speaker Francis and Speaker Sauve for the implementation of these various changes. I appreciate that in this particular case it was the staff of the Treasury Board who were responsible for these changes, but other changes having to do with salaries have been put in place by the Administrator, Mr. Arthur Silverman, and some of his senior staff. I think it is a credit to the two Speakers that they have had the courage of their convictions to have in place a new administration which, granted, has not always been popular. At least it has had the work of the Members of Parliament in mind at all times and has put in place for the Members' staffs benefits that are relative to their workloads.
We hear repeated rumours that there may be an election this summer. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would not want either to qualify or deny that suggestion, even if you could, which I doubt you can. If indeed there is an election this summer, the Speaker's chair will, of course, by vacant. I would like to put on record a word of credit to the current holder of the Chair and his predecessor for those things which they have put in place for our staffs over the past years. In doing so, I pay credit to his staff, the administration of the House of Commons.
I cannot add an awful lot to the Bill. We will see this Bill receive third reading and, I assume, Royal Assent later today. We look forward to having these benefits in place for our staffs.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to add something to what was said by the Member who preceded me. It never ceases to amaze me how things can slip by for such long periods of time without anyone ever noticing them. I am pleased to see that this has been caught and that those who may well have suffered are going to be taken care of by the legislation and the retroactive feature.
However, this is not all that needs to be done, not by a long shot. Within the operation of the House of Commons as it affects Members' staffs, there is a great deal of work which
Public Service Superannuation Act must be done quickly. I know that I would have the concurrence of the Conservative spokesman in saying that there was some legislation proposed to the House of Commons not so long ago which would have afforded Members' staffs the opportunity to transfer into the Public Service if, as and when they found it necessary to do so as a result of the Member having been defeated. On behalf of my colleagues I had hoped that that legislation would have been forthcoming today too.
For far too long the staff of Members have been treated as second-class citizens in terms of the way in which they have provided for as a result of decisions made, not by the Management and Members' Services Committee, but by the Commissioners of Internal Economy. The Commissioners of Internal Economy do not seem to appreciate the important function of the staffs of Members of Parliament, the increased responsibility that Members' staffs have had to assume and the additional workload which has resulted naturally from the greater degree of public exposure of Parliament and Members and the considerably more complex nature of the work that we do. Members' staffs have been asked to assume responsibilities which I dare say, and I hope I am not offending anyone, would have been unthought of ten or fifteen years ago.
Keeping that in mind, it is important that we address the legitimate requests and matters that affect the day to day operations of Members' offices and the way in which staffs are remunerated and given the opportunity to have a sense of permanency. My good friend and colleague made reference to the issue of now being able to pay Members' staffs at a level higher than we had been allowed to up until now. Unfortunately, we do not have the money to do it. That poses a problem for us. Raising the allowable level but not raising the amounts available for the Members to enable them to pay people at the upper levels is an issue which must be addressed. It strikes me as more than passing strange that we see that kind of proposal come forward from the Commissioners of Internal Economy.
I do wonder at the new direction which has been offered through the Management and Members' Services Committee, but often at the behest of the Commissioners. I am concerned that we are, on the one hand, affording an opportunity for a greater level of benefit or, in the case of this legislation, reinforcing or putting into law that which we always believed was the law in any event. While we are doing that, on the other side of the coin we are reducing the benefits that Members' staffs are to be entitled to. I believe there must be an opportunity for a review of that before it goes too far.
In keeping with that I would like to suggest that matters such as this are in fact properly before the Commissioners of Internal Economy. However, the make-up of the board of commissioners is wrong. While it is clearly the responsibility of the Commissioners of Internal Economy to pass judgments on matters such as this, it is well past time that the Opposition should be represented on the board of the Commissioners of Internal Economy. There must be representation there from other than the Cabinet. The matters which are dealt with by that board, such as this matter, affect every single Member of

June 29, 1984
Mingan Archipelago National Park Act the House of Commons. They are not only matters of Government policy. They are matters of policy of the House of Commons and if they are to be dealt with fairly and properly, ordinary Members of Parliament must be represented and must make direct representations when the matters are being discussed. That is the case in Ontario. During my time in the legislature of the Province of Ontario, I sat on the board of internal economy. We were able to come to agreement without embarrassing the Government, but also without denying members and their staffs adequate and proper compensation and representation.
Having said those things, Mr. Speaker, perhaps straying ever so slightly from the pith and substance of this legislation, I think that this step, though necessary, is a very tiny step. I think I have the support of all Members in saying that it is time we got together to solve the problems which affect our staff.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


MINGAN ARCHIPELAGO NATIONAL PARK ACT
Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-53, an Act to establish a National Park on the Mingan Archipelago, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up too much time. I may have only one or two comments to make with respect to this legislation. This Bill and many other items of legislation we have attempted to deal with expeditiously. Basically, I want to say that if the Minister who is responsible for this legislation does not find it convenient or does not have the time to appear here to guide this legislation through, it makes it difficult for us to deal with these matters in a manner which is befitting the importance of the legislation. While the Bill to establish a national park on the Mingan Archipelago is a very thin Bill, it is an important Bill. I am just sorry that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) who is responsible for Parks Canada is not here. I would have hoped that he would be here to sponsor his own legislation.
Of course, we are prepared to allow the Bill to go through all stages. It demonstrates again that we are co-operative in
terms of putting legislation through and that we attempt to assist the Government in its legislative agenda in many ways.
I simply rise to say that, in supporting this Bill, I am sorry the Minister of the Environment is not here to conduct this legislation on his own. I would hope that during the course of the afternoon the Ministers responsible for other bills that are coming forward will be here to deal with them and will be able to answer questions in the event that such questions are forthcoming in the Committee of the Whole.
Having said that, I will resume my seat and hope that in the last moments of this trimester the message that has been given has been received.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say on the subject. First, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) is returning to Ottawa from Europe where he attended the acid rain meetings. This was well known by my colleagues in the Opposition.
I was informed that an agreement had been reached to let this Bill go through all stages without debate, but obviously it was not a firm agreement. If the Hon. Member does not want the Bill to go through without the Minister present, then the Bill will not go through because the Minister will not be back on time. However, his Parliamentary Secretary is here. He is an excellent Parliamentary Secretary who is prepared to speak. We were not putting up any speakers because we thought we had an agreement not to speak on this Bill. But the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is here and is prepared to speak on the second reading motion on the Bill.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there is a general understanding that we introduce no speakers but I want to say, as pointed out by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), that it is impossible for the Minister to be here. To show that the work goes on even when our Ministers must be in other countries, we are introducing this Bill in good faith for the Mingan Band. With your kind permission, I will just say a few words of introduction.

The purpose of the Bill I am presenting today, for consideration and approval by the House, is to set aside land for the Mingan Achipelago National Park, which will be the thirtieth in a network of national parks extending from coast to coast. There are national parks in each province and in both territories. We are proud of this system, which is the best in the world, and it gives me great pleasure to present this Bill and to ask the House to join me in setting aside one of the most beautiful spots in this country for the enjoyment of all Canadians.
National parks were created so that Canadians would always have access to places that reflect the natural splendor and serenity of this vast country of ours. These parks have been set aside for the benefit, education and enjoyment of Canadians. Each national park protects representative exam-
June 29, 1984

pies of fauna, flora and also natural areas of outstanding scenic interest. They contain the natural heritage of all Canadians.
The national parks system covers thirty-nine natural regions across Canada. At the present time, only two of the eleven regions in Quebec are part of the system. There are a number of regions missing, one of these being the eastern part of the St. Lawrence lowlands which includes the Mingan Archipelago.
The Mingan Archipelago consists of twenty-five islands spread out over a distance of approximately fifty miles along the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from lie aux Perroquets in the west, to lie Sainte Genevieve in the east. The proposal to reserve the Archipelago for a national park would be a worthy prelude to the festivities planned for the national parks centennial in 1985.
Fossil deposits, flower-pot formations, rare plants and colonies of sea birds in the Archipelago have for many years attracted the attention of naturalists, conservationists and tourists. By reserving the territory of the Archipelago for a national park, it will be possible to safeguard these natural resources. There will also be a positive impact on the economy of the North Shore, where the unemployment rate is over 20 per cent. Expenditures earmarked for salaries of Parks Canada employees and for park operations will act as an immediate stimulus to the regional economy. Within ten years or so, the Archipelago will be able to receive about 30,000 visitors annually, compared to a total of 12,000 last year, and the local population will benefit from what is spent by park visitors. Finally, payment of grants in lieu of taxes for the lands acquired in order to create a national park will further enhance the economic benefits.
Why would Parks Canada want to reserve the lands of the Mingan Archipelago for a national park, instead of just creating a park? The Mingan Archipelago lies within a territory that is the subject of land claims by the Attikamek-Montag-nais Council. The Mingan Band has already agreed in principle to this Bill. Establishing a park reserve guarantees that creation of the national park cannot be definitive until native land claims have been settled. Any right, title or interest of native peoples included in a claim will be recognized within the limits of the national park. Visitors will therefore be able to visit the Archipelago, and go hiking and camping and on guided tours, depending on the fragility of the environment.
The Mingan Archipelago will be the thirtieth national park and a new and very substantial asset to a national parks system that already has an international reputation. In concluding, I again wish to thank the Opposition parties for agreeing to limit debate to one speaker per Party.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the Parliamentary Secretary in thanking the Department of the Environment, and the two Ministers who were respon-
Mingan Archipelago National Park Act sible for Environment Canada and Parks Canada, for the tremendous work they have done to make one of the major natural resources of the North Shore, namely, its coastal region, into a national park. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank Parks Canada officials for their exceptional achievement in creating this park. At this stage, I think the park is a major step for the North Shore towards economic diversification.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to thank the chiefs of the Mingan Band for their contribution and their support for reserving the lands for this park. Throughout the process, we intend to take into consideration native rights and traditions that must be respected. We have promised them that nothing will be done without their permission, so that native traditions will indeed be respected. Mr. Speaker, this is a red-letter day for the North Shore, and since today is the last day of this session, I also wish to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who visited Natashquan on May 4, 1982, and flew over the Mingan islands. It was then that we thought of creating this national park, a place where Canadians could find knowledge and repose and enjoy the splendors of this part of Canada and Eastern Quebec.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, may I add a
few comments to those already made regarding Bill C-53 which will see the creation of a new national park. It is our understanding that this park is ready to go and the Government has financing for it. It will provide valuable jobs in an area where unemployment is regrettably very high.
In terms of the philosophy and concept of the park, it is very clear that we have areas right across Canada that are represented by national parks. One year from now we will be having the 100th anniversary of our national parks system. It will be good to have Mingan National Park included at this time so it can be part of the celebrations and be included in the representation we have of national parks across Canada.
There are other areas in Canada, such as South Moresby and the Bruce Peninsula, that can be similarly considered in their own way to represent for the people living in those areas the national parks system. We are happy to co-operate with the Minister on this Bill. We regret the Bill was brought forward at such a late date and under such constrained circumstances, which means it cannot receive the full consideration that I believe a Bill like this should have. Be that as it may, we are co-operating and are happy to see it go forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 29, 1984
Message from the Senate
Motion agreed, Bill read the second time and, with unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the Chair.


Eymard G. Corbin: Order. The House is now sitting in Committee of the Whole, to consider Bill C-53, an Act to establish a National Park on the Mingan Archipelago.
Clauses 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Bill reported.


John Carr Munro: that the Bill as reported be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carr Munro: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are now ready to move on to Bill S-ll. If you ask for unanimous consent, I am certain you will find that there is consent for us to move through all stages in the House rather than sending the Bill to a standing committee. In other words, we will proceed to Committee of the Whole.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to proceed with Bill S-ll. I do not want to presume on the House; I would think the Parliamentary Secretary would move that the matter be referred to the Committee on the Whole at the appropriate time in the debate and we will give our consent at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to the proposal put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-252, an Act to grant access to records of the Special Committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations.


INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS
Roy MacLaren: that Bill S-ll, an Act to implement Conventions between Canada and the Republic of Tunisia, Canada and the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Canada and the United Republic of Cameroon and Canada and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, an agreement between Canada and Kenya and conventions between Canada and the Arab Republic of Egypt, Canada and the Republic of the Ivory Coast and Canada and Sweden for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As was obviously appropriate the last time I did it, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent that the Bill be not referred to the Standing Committee but referred to the Committee of the Whole so that we can proceed with all stages of the Bill in the House today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to proceed to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Bill be referred to Committee of the Whole?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? There has been some confusion. The Chair did not formally put the question to the House. I recognize the Minister of State for Finance on debate at second reading.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. The terms of the tax conventions embodied in Bill S-11 are similar, at least in broad outline, to those in Bill S-14, the Bill concerning a tax convention with the United States which was adopted in the House a few days ago.
The eight tax conventions covered by Bill S-ll follow the general pattern of similar tax conventions approved by Parliament in the past. The convention with Sweden, when in force, will replace the existing agreements signed in 1951. I might add that when these eight conventions are ratified, the number of Canadian tax treaties in force with other countries, will increase from 32 to 39.


Ian Deans: How can you add 8 to 32 and arrive at 39?


Roy MacLaren: I am sorry, I meant to say seven. The conventions follow the normal practices with regard to such treaties between sovereign nations. They cover such matters as capital gains and non-discrimination. Provision is made in several of the conventions for the taxation of foreign teachers in Canada. The pensions paid to residents are included in this Bill. The standard provision for double taxation relief is also
June 29, 1984

incorporated in each of the tax conventions under consideration.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks on Bill S-l 1. As we know, it was passed in the Senate on May 24 after having had reasonable examination in the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. It is some 175 pages in length and it is about as exciting as watching paint dry. However, it is one of those things which have to be done.


Edward C. Lumley: We do not want to hear about what you do in your spare time.


William James Kempling: It covers a whole series of taxation matters between Canada and Tunisia, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Egypt, the Ivory Coast and Sweden. It will allow for commercial and personal financial matters to proceed in an orderly manner without double taxation. Of course, it deals with matters of taxation on income and capital.
For example, it defines fiscal domicile where a person has a residence in both countries, to be determined by a set of rules which have been established as a result of negotiations between our Government and the governments of the contracting countries. Also there is a provision to determine permanent establishments. That is the term used where a business is carried on in two countries. Also it defines place of management, branch, office, factory, workshop, mine, quarry, et cetera. We now have ground rules by which to determine all these matters.
As well it deals with matters pertaining to shipping and air transport, matters relating to profits, dividends, capital gains, interest income, royalties, directors' fees, compensation to artists and athletes, teachers' salaries, students' income where they attend school and work in one of the contracting countries, as well as miscellaneous income. Of course, it will assist in the orderly commercial arrangements between Canada and those other countries.
As the Minister indicated, we now have agreements of this nature with 39 different countries. It helps us in our commercial relations with those countries to know that we have a taxation regime which can be defined by both sides and will allow standard, normal business practice to carry on between the contracting countries.
That is about all I have to say. I understand there is a disposition to have the Bill considered in Committee of the Whole today.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I found interesting the analogy of the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) in terms of the excitement of reading this particular legislation. I have never been in the position of watching paint dry, unlike my colleague. I suspect he is right; I cannot verify it.
As the Hon. Member said, the legislation has gone through the Senate. As is my normal practice, I sat and read assiduously through all the Senate committee proceedings to ensure that
Income Tax Conventions
the matters had been dealt with properly and that its deliberations were in fact in keeping with the kinds of things we would have done here. It may well be that we have finally found a use for the Senate. Perhaps this is an appropriate use to which the Senate can be put on matters such as this, as important as they are but less political in nature.
In any event, like the Official Opposition we will facilitate the passage of these seven agreements reached between our Government and the governments of those foreign jurisdictions.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred rather briefly in his comments to the non-discrimination clauses of the conventions, copies of which are part and parcel of the Bill. Indeed they mirror the non-discrimination clauses in Bill S-l4 which the House has already passed. I wonder whether the House is fully aware of the fact that the Income Tax Act, as it currently stands, establishes a small business deduction based upon discrimination. One ground for the discrimination is not whether corporations are only small but whether they are Canadian controlled.
Since these conventions are substantially the same, I should like to examine for the purposes of demonstration paragraph 3 of Article VI of the convention with Tunisia. It is interesting to note that the taxation on a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a contracting state has in the other contracting state shall not be less favourably levied in that other state than the taxation levied on enterprises in the other state carrying on the same activities.
When we intend to amend the Income Tax Act, it would be so nice for the Income Tax Act to be amended in the House instead of its being amended as a consequence of a Bill originally introduced in the Senate being given speedy passage in this House. I pause to note that despite the fact the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) was urged to bring in the Bill amending the Income Tax Act, which should have followed his Budget of February 15, he has not done so.
This series of treaties will in effect overrule any provisions of the local law. We amend the provisions of the Income Tax Act by passing this statute which will be interpreted by the courts as having primacy over the provisions of the income tax legislation.
I wonder whether the Minister of Finance, in projecting his revenues from those corporations carrying on business in Canada with a small business deduction limit which may be the same as Canadian-controlled corporations, whereas the shareholders of those corporations are foreign, is relying upon the receipt of income from those corporations in excess of the amounts he will receive once this Bill is passed.
Too little regard has been paid in the dying moments of this session and possibly the dying moments of this Parliament to the implications that these tax conventions will have upon revenue. It is quite permissible if you seek to lower taxation in Canada for both Canadian controlled and non-Canadian con-

June 29, 1984
Income Tax Conventions
trolled corporations to do so as long as you recognize what you are doing. My great fear is that this Government, through its negotiators, has prepared some conventions which will have the effect of tying the hands of whatever Minister of Finance we have in Canada because we have eliminated the possibility of continuing the special small business deduction which is allowable to Canadian controlled private corporations.
I would like to remark for a moment upon the exchange of information program that this Government, in the event that this Bill passes, may be obliged to undertake. In looking at the first convention, the one with Tunisia to which reference has been made, the provision for the exchange of information is not as extensive as that contained in Bill S-14 and the attached tax convention between Canada and the United States. It is, nevertheless, a remarkable departure from the way in which tax conventions hitherto have functioned.
I am particularly concerned about the potential of providing information to foreign tax authorities and, accordingly, to the governments of foreign states with respect to the business activities of Canadian corporations and in particular trade secrets of Canadian corporations which may be made available to foreign jurisdictions. In the case of Bill S-14, we not only provide for depositions that would be taken in Canada for the benefit of a foreign country, we also provide for the collection of taxes imposed by a foreign jurisdiction. I submit that step is a remarkable departure from the way in which current tax conventions have operated. It would have been nice had the Minister, when he explained the provisions of some of these Bills, specifically noted the remarkable departure that we have been confronted with as a consequence of the changes in the tax conventions. He has not done that, save and except to make some reference to the non-discrimination clauses which, as I said, have a detrimental effect upon the way in which our current Income Tax Act functions.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Herbert in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Harold Thomas Herbert: In view of the fact that there are a large number of clauses, the Chair would ask whether the committee gives its consent to the Chair calling Clauses 2 to 27 inclusive?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Clauses 2 to 27-


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, I indicated in the brief remarks I made with respect to the Bill that I did not know whether the Minister was cognizant of the implications of what he referred to as the non-discrimination effect of this legislation. Would the Minister comment on that?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, under the conventions, discrimination on the basis of nationality is prohibited, thereby ensuring nationals of a country equal treatment with nationals of the other country is the same circumstances. However, that does not prevent a country from providing fiscal incentives; for example, a small business deduction on the basis of the residence of the taxpayer. I would only add that the convention with the Ivory Coast does not contain an article of non-discrimination and consequently the rules of the domestic legislation will there apply.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, it may well be that we will ultimately determine the difference between the Minister and myself when we have a variety of tax cases in front of us, which I suspect will ultimately go to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the Minister is correct or I am correct. Reference has already been made to paragraph 3 of Article 23. It is very clear that the taxation on a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a contracting state has in the other contracting state shall not be less favourably levied in that other state than the taxation levied on the enterprise in that other state carrying on the same activities.
The Minister suggested that what the small business deduction amounts to is a special incentive. Of course, it is not a special incentive; it is a provision of general application that will apply to all corporations provided they meet the financial requirements entitling them to that deduction. It is very clear that the measure of taxation imposed against anyone is an end product of an amount calculated by determining what one's taxable income is and what is the rate of tax applied against that taxable income.
What this clause and all non-discrimination clauses will do when applied specifically to permanent establishments is make it obligatory for the Government to allow all foreign corporations, which in fact meet the financial guidelines of our Income Tax Act, to be entitled to the same small business deduction, because that deduction is available in the event that you meet certain standards. One of the standards happens to be whether you are Canadian controlled; another is whether you have met certain fiscal requirements. If foreign-controlled corporations meet those fiscal requirements, I submit we are discriminating against those foreign corporations, thereby breaching the provisions of the convention Canada is to enter into.
The Minister knows the effect of a court judgment where there is a clash or a conflict between convention provisions and the provisions of the Income Tax Act; the convention provisions apply.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clauses 2 to 27 inclusive carry?
June 29, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Carried on division.
Clauses 2 to 27 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Harold Thomas Herbert: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave now?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


John Carr Munro: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and the Bill read the third time and passed.


INDIAN ACT ' AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BIRTH OF CHILDREN
John Carr Munro: that Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Indian Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on the Indian Act, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


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


Mr. Shields:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It has been drawn to the attention of the Chair that at this time the Bill is not debatable. The Hon. Member will have to wait for third reading.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carr Munro: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Jack Wendele Shields: No.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we have a copy of the Bill as reprinted with the amendments that were carried last night in the committee so that we will know what we are dealing with?
Indian Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is my understanding that the Bill should have been made available since I have a copy of it in my hands.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have a copy of the Bill in its original form but not as amended. I think today we are dealing with the Bill as it was amended in the Standing Committee last evening.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I denied unanimous consent to proceed with this Bill at this time. I represent the riding of Athabasca in northeastern Alberta and among my constituents are quite a number of Treaty Indian people. It is my duty and indeed it is my obligation to speak on their behalf. There is not one member of the bands or chiefs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. There will be an opportunity to speak on third reading. At third reading stage, whatever point of view the Hon. Member may have may be expressed at that time. However, I do not think it is a proper point of order at this stage. We have come to a certain stage of the Bill and we are discussing another point of order which has been raised by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I think we should deal with that matter first.
I have in my hands the report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I believe that that report has been made available to the Members of the House. The Bill has not been reprinted because of the physical difficulties involved in having it reprinted and in the hands of the Members of the House at this particular time. However, the understanding of the Chair is that all of the information necessary for debate, if it is the wish of the Members to continue with the debate, is in the hands of the Members.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked for the reprinted Bill and the reason I did not deny unanimous consent to proceed was that I wanted to propose some amendments at report stage. I wish to propose two amendments to the Bill in order to improve it. I do not know how I can propose amendments to clauses, pages and lines without knowing to which clauses, pages and lines to refer. It is extremely irregular-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Perhaps the Hon. Member will take his seat. The procedure we have followed by unanimous consent is that we have passed report stage and we are now at third reading of the Bill. I am also advised that it is not essential that the Bill be reprinted in order for Members to deal with third reading or report stage. Since no amendments were proposed and since report stage was passed, we are now dealing with third reading. Third reading, of course, is debatable.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Under ordinary circumstances when a report comes from a committee, the Bill is printed in its revised form. Members can look at it and can propose further amendments to it at report stage. Members draft their amendments to correspond to the

June 29, 1984
Indian Act
reprinted Bill. What you are telling us now is that we must deal with the Bill as it was printed at first reading along with the written report of the committee without having that written report incorporated into the Bill. I find that very irregular. I simply put that on record. I am amazed. I did not realize we had moved from report stage to third reading stage so quickly. If that is the case, I would like to make some remarks on third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The point is well taken by the Chair. However, inasmuch as it required unanimous consent for the House to proceed in the fashion which it has and inasmuch as it is not essential that the Bill be reprinted because it is for the committee to request that the Bill be reprinted and the affairs of the committee are in the hands of Members at this time, the Chair would find some difficulty in saying that the information is not available to the Members. It was up to the Members if they wished to refuse unanimous consent to proceed with report stage. We are now at third reading stage, which is debatable.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is all part and parcel of the difficulties that we have envisaged with the hurry-scurry of trying to finish up. I sympathize very much with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I would suggest that should similar occasions arise in the future, the Speaker should make it his or her duty to point out to the House that, as a result presumably of the arrangement made this time between the House Leaders to telescope the 48-hour period following the tabling of a report of a committee with regard to legislation, the 24-hour period during which Members could propose amendments had been eliminated. The Chair should clearly point out that now is the time to bring forward amendments, if any. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that not all Members of the House are cognizant of the fine footwork which goes on or the intricacies of the rules of the House. We have a situation now in which the Hon. Member Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has been caught unawares. I do not think it is good enough for anyone in this House to tell any Member- and particularly for the Chair to tell a Member-"Tough luck, but you should have known that as a result of the moves which have been made, your rights as a Member to propose an amendment have been lost". I make that statement with the benefit of a fair amount of experience on this side. It is a basic rule of the Chair to protect the rights of all Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair appreciates the comments of the Hon. Member, but it should be abundantly apparent to him, as he has had experience in the chair, that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that there has been adequate communication between the various House Leaders who have had discussions and the Members of their respective Parties.
All the Chair can do is to put to the House the fact that it requires unanimous consent. When the House has given its unanimous consent, that effectively means that every Member
of the House is assumed to have adequate knowledge to allow him to give unanimous consent. It is up to the individual. Certainly, from the personal experience of the present occupant of the chair, if one is in any doubt, one refuses unanimous consent until the matter has been settled. In the present case, unanimous consent was given. We are now at report stage, which, of course, is debatable.
I can only suggest that at this stage-


Some Hon. Members:: Third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Excuse me. We are at third reading, which is debatable. If Members wish to rise, they can debate the Bill. When, the House reaches the end of third reading, the Bill will be voted upon.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know how we were supposed to be able to know what was in the report of the committee. I did not hear you call report stage. When I heard you call third reading, I distinctly heard at least two noes. Consequently, I want to know, why did we overrun report stage?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair should clarify the point. There were noes when the Chair asked whether we were going to carry or whether we were not going to carry third reading. At that stage the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) said "no". I assumed that he wanted to debate third reading. However, we had already arrived at third reading.


Jack Wendele Shields: No, we had not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry, but the Chair is ruling that the House had arrived by unanimous consent at third reading.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we check the "blues". I do not think we had reached third reading when we heard a "no". I distinctly heard a "no."


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, when unanimous consent was sought for third reading, I denied unanimous consent. I stood, but you ignored my "no". You informed me that I could discuss it at third reading in debate. Mr. Speaker, I denied unanimous consent to proceed to third reading debate on this Bill. I was explaining the reasons I had denied unanimous consent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair will clarify the situation again. We have arrived at third reading, after report stage-


Gordon Edward Taylor: When did we have report stage?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair called report stage. The Chair asked for unanimous consent and the Chair received unanimous consent. The Chair arrived at third reading. To call third reading, the Chair does not require the unanimous consent of the House.
June 29, 1984


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh yes it does.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If the point is being contested, I wish the Hon. Member would rise and make his point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will agree that you did call the report stage and that there was nothing said at that time. However, to have the report stage adopted-which it was- and to move to third reading, the Chair required the unanimous consent of the House because the report enclosed amendments. When there are amendments put, there is a requirement-if one is going to go into third reading-to have the unanimous consent of the House to move to third reading. Otherwise, third reading is deferred until the next sitting of the House. That is particularly important in legislation, not just taxable legislation which comes from the Committee of the Whole, as I heard suggested to you. I emphasize that it is a basic requirement-if there are amendments made in committee, in Committee of the Whole, or at the report stage-that there be unanimous consent to proceed to third reading after adoption of report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Once again, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. However, I would refer him to Standing Order 79(14) which reads:
When a bill has been reported from a standing or special committee, and no amendment has been proposed thereto at the report stage-
It goes on to say, "and in the case of a bill reported from a Committee of the Whole", which is not applicable. Therefore, when no amendment has been proposed at the report stage, a motion that the Bill be read a third time and passed may be made at the same sitting. Thus, it is not necessary to have unanimous consent to move into third reading immediately following report stage. Since there were no amendments made at report stage, we are automatically in third reading. I maintain the position that we are in third reading and I am calling for debate on third reading.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we check the "blues". I denied unanimous consent at the report stage. 1 denied unanimous consent when you wanted to proceed to third reading. I denied unanimous consent every time you sought unanimous consent on this Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The Chair in all honesty must say that it certainly does not deny what the Hon. Member is contending. However, the Chair did not hear any such noes. The Chair has proceeded in the normal fashion and we are now in third reading debate on this Bill.
I will recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), and I hope that it is a new point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard a "no". I suggest we check the "blues".
Indian Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry. The Chair has made a decision. The decision stands. The Chair's decision is that we are now in third reading of this Bill.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It must be a new point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members in this House must give unanimous consent when it comes to the report stage. You called for unanimous consent and I yelled, "no". I was told to wait until third reading-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. That is a repetition. The Hon. Member is contending that he said "no", and I agree with that. It is when I put the question on third reading that I distinctly heard a loud "no". At that point I assumed that the Hon. Member wanted to debate third reading. We are now in third reading debate. For debate on third reading, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I was going to propose two amendments at the report stage, but unfortunately I believe the rules require some improvement, because I feel that my rights have been denied in not being able to make those amendments. In any case, I will state what I intended to do now at third reading. While I completely support those parts of this Bill which would abolish discrimination against Indian women, and I have supported the abolition of Section 12(1 )(b) and others for many years, I do not hold the same position with respect to some of the other clauses in the Bill, in particular, those clauses which deal with the reinstatement of those persons who lost their status in past years. I firmly believe there has to be reinstatement provisions. We have to reinstate those people who have lost their status. However, the clauses in this Bill for reinstatement are extremely inadequate and many witnesses before the standing committee which met in the last couple of days gave evidence of that.
Once again, by passing sections of the law on such sensitive measures which affect Indian people, we are acting like a colonial institution. We are a white man's Parliament, for the most part, imposing our views on Indian people in a very paternalistic way. I would like to point out those parts of the Bill which are inadequate and which have been highlighted by the Assembly of First Nations and by the Native Women's Association of Canada.
First, the Bill does not permit the reinstatement of all Indian citizens who were previously denied registration. Because reinstatement is arbitrarily cut off at half of the second generation, the Bill perpetuates the very discrimination which it is supposed to terminate. I was going to propose an amendment which would have allowed the reinstatement of more people, basically a great many more people who had lost their status but who were still able to trace their lines to certain Indian

June 29, 1984
Indian Act
bands. That is the first area in which the Bill is inadequate and one area I wanted to amend.
Second, the Bill does not recognize Indian control of their citizenship as was set out just yesterday in Bill C-52. This right must be in any statute purporting to deal with Indian status. I myself, along with other Hon. Members of this House, have sat for a year and a half on the Indian self-government committee in which we proposed that there be a bilateral relationship between the Canadian Government and the Indian nations in this country. We also proposed that Indian nations should have the right to determine their own citizenship.
Third, under the proposed Section 18.1 of the Indian Act, as the Bill was amended last night, preferred treatment is given to non-Indians over reinstated Indians as regards the right to reside on reserves. I was going to propose an amendment to take care of that. Here we have a situation where non-Indians, because of this Bill, will have preferred status with respect to living on reserves, over reinstated Indians. Women who have lost their status, will get it back, but will not have the same rights as non-Indians who, in the future, will marry Indians. My second amendment would have corrected that situation.
Fourth, the Bill does not give bands special by-law power to control the flow of non-Indian residents onto the reserve. That relates to the point I have just made.
Fifth, under the proposed subsection 64(2), reinstated persons will be heavily penalized, since interest is included in limiting per capita shares they will receive and the Government is not obliged to repay bands any amounts which had been paid out earlier.
I fully support the end of discrimination with respect to Indian women. I have held that position for a long time. I would like to see those parts of the Bill passed immediately, but I feel it is extremely unfortunate that we are going to pass a Bill which will contain sections which continue discrimination against the very people we are going to reinstate. It is too bad we did not have more time to work on those reinstatement provisions to make them better, and I regret that fact.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we should indicate that the procedural mish-mash which we have just seen in the House is typical of the entire handling of this Bill. It should have been possible on a day like this when we are finally getting rid of Section 12(1)(6) to feel good about doing something positive for Indian people. Instead, that feeling has been turned to dust and ashes in the mouth of every Hon. Member who sat on that committee. Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Indian Act, and to remove discrimination, also does other things to Indian people, with which we are not at all happy. It is not possible for any Hon. Member in this House, nor for the Minister for that matter, to rise and make any kind of a self-congratulatory speech that at long last we are ending this injustice, because we cannot congratulate ourselves on what is happening. We all know the history of Section 12(1)(6) and the way in which it
has become in the Indian Act a symbol of sexism, racism and assimilation.
It is a symbol of sexism because through it a woman derives her status from her husband. The emphasis throughout the Indian Act is on the male line. It is racist in its implication that Indians are somehow lower on the scale of humanity and that by marrying a non-Indian, an Indian woman is supposed somehow to have risen on the scale of humanity and thus no longer to have Indian status. And, of course, just the opposite was true for a non-Indian woman who married an Indian male so that this non-Indian woman acquired Indian status. This racist assumption runs through the entire Indian Act.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Section 12(1)(6) is typical and symbolic of the assimilationist aspects of the entire Indian Act because, like other sections of that Act, it was designed to reduce the number of status Indian people. One of the forerunners of the present Indian Act was entitled "An Act for the gradual enfranchisement of the Indians", and it is interesting that in 1920, when the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott, was testifying at a special committee of the House of Commons, he said, and I quote:
I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that this country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone. That is my whole point. I do not want to pass into the citizens' class people who are paupers. This is not the intention of the Bill. But after one hundred years, after being in close contact with civilization it is enervating to the individual or to a band to continue in that state of tutelage, when he or they are able to take their position as British citizens or Canadian citizens, to support themselves, and stand alone. That has been the whole purpose of Indian education and advancement since the earliest times. One of the very earliest enactments was to provide for the enfranchisement of the Indian. So it is written in our law that the Indian was eventually to become enfranchised.
-our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.
That was said in 1920, Mr. Speaker. Section 12(l)(b), by denying Indian status to Indian women who married non-Indians, was just one aspect of that assimilationist policy. Section 12(l)(b) has split Indian communities and Indian families. We heard testimony countless times, not only during the hearings which we held with regard to Bill C-47 but also in the subcommittee and the special committee on Indian self-government. We heard testimony from a great many Indian leaders that they wanted to end this division. They wanted their sisters and their daughters back in the community. Section 12(1 )(b) and the other sexist sections on the Indian Act were an imposition on the Indian people by the Government, the non-Indian Government. It was not an Indian designed proposal at all.
[DOT] (MIO)
It is important to recognize that Section 12(l)(b) and others have hurt Indian women in at least three basic ways. Most obvious, it resulted in a loss of status for those Indian women who married non-Indians. Secondly, an important number of Indian women gave up a relationship that would have led to marriage because they did not want to lose their status. As they were growing up, it was emphasized to them that if they

June 29, 1984

married a non-Indian they would lose that special and very important status. That is regrettable. There is a third group of Indian women who did not wish to give up a relationship or their status and so they entered into a common-law relationship, had children, but they would very likely have wished to have had their marriage regularized in some way. This section has penalized Indian women and their communities in countless ways, and at long last it is being repealed. This is something desired by all parties and the majority of Indian people.
However, we cannot be self-congratulatory because of the way we are dealing with this Bill. This end of discrimination was supposed to have been a major commitment on the part of this Government and the previous Government, yet we had to wait four years until the very last month of this Parliament. The Bill was tabled only two weeks ago and we only had three or four days to deal with it in committee. This, in spite of repeated requests to table the Bill early so that there would be adequate time to study it, hear from Indian people and make sure it was as acceptable as possible to the Indian people. The committee had to deal with it in a very rushed atmosphere, which did not do justice to the Act. I think most members of the committee question whether we are really doing justice to the Indian people.
There was limited time for testimony from Indian people and even less time for dealing with our amendments. In effect, we had time for one shot at acceptable amendments. When they came back and we wanted to make further changes it was too late. It is that kind of rushed atmosphere that we are dealing with here this afternoon. The committee was put in an impossible position by the Government. Either we had to leave Section 12(1 )(b) on the books, which would deny justice to Indian women, or we had to accept the implicit assumption of this Bill that Indians somehow could not be trusted to do justice to their own people. We are in a situation where non-Indians, all of us here, are making decisions for Indian people and their communities.
The Trudeau years began with the promise of participatory democracy and are ending with this kind of fiasco. I cannot help but contrast the promise of participatory democracy with last night's committee meeting. After the members of the committee had made what was not an easy decision for anyone, there was a request from some of the Indian leaders to make a final statement. Leaders from the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada spoke to the committee and acknowledged our hard work. But they indicated that the Bill itself was completely unsatisfactory. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) indicated some of the ways in which they found this Bill unsatisfactory. I moved an amendment that would have given bands control over residency rights from the reserve for non-Indian spouses, but this was denied.
In 1947, when proposals were made to change the Indian Act, Indian speakers from across Canada representing the Alberta Indian Association, bands from Ontario and the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia all made presenta-
Indian Act
tions suggesting that they were the people who should be looking after their own membership. They knew the needs of their people and they wanted to be able to design membership requirements that would meet the needs of their people. That Government, in its wisdom or lack of it, decided that Indian people should not be trusted with looking after their own membership. It then brought in even more bureaucratic changes to the membership sections, including the notorious double-mother clause. Indian people have continued to suffer because non-Indian people have been making legislation for them. Clause 16(b) of Bill C-52, tabled this past week, recognizes the power of the Indian Government to legislate on applications for membership. Unfortunately, that Bill was tabled too late for any legislative action this year. Again we wonder why it took so long to table it. But the question the Indian people ask is, if they have the power in Bill C-52 to look after their own membership, why is that same power not in Bill C-47? That is a good question and I do not have an answer.
One of the difficulties committee members found in trying to draft amendments was that Department of Justice officials who were there helping us draft the amendments kept saying that whatever we were proposing was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We had hoped the Charter would have expanded the role of self-determination and autonomy for all people in Canada rather than hemming in the aboriginal peoples as it seems to do. But this kind of attitude on the part of the officials-and perhaps they are accurately reflecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms-underlines the need for constitutional entrenchment of the aboriginal right to self-government. This was recommended by the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government.
The New Democratic Party gives its consent to the passage of this Bill, but it is a reluctant consent. The elimination of Section 12( 1 )(b) of the Indian Act should have been a cause for rejoicing, but because of the way this Bill has been handled that rejoicing has been turned to ashes in our mouths. We hope that the review process will take a long and detailed look at some of the provisions of this Bill and that a future government will be able to deal with them in a more sensitive frame of mind and over a more extended period of time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Hon. Minister would tell us what these amendments are going to do. Those who were on the committee know all that, but the rest of us have had no access to this at all. Surely we should at least be entitled to know what the amendments are going to do as it might make a difference.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is of course up to the Minister to decide whether he will speak or when he will speak.
For continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in a historic debate in this Parliament. Canadian women, especially native

June 29, 1984
Indian Act
women, have worked very hard for this day to come. It is regrettable that Parliament did not have adequate time to make a proper study. The committee was pushed. It is not precisely the Bill that we would have liked. Native women are not happy with it. The Assembly of First Nations is not happy with it. The National Action Committee is not happy with it. We would all have liked something a little different from what we have before us. Nonetheless, this is a historic day. A historic injustice to native Canadian women is going to be corrected. That is something to celebrate.
I want to pay tribute to the many native women who have struggled to achieve equality for themselves and their sisters. I think of women like Lavell and Bedard who took cases to the Supreme Court of Canada and were denied justice and equality by the Supreme Court of Canada under the old Bill of Rights. I think of women like Sandra Lovelace who took her case to the United Nations and brought international attention to the disgraceful discrimination which is currently in Section 12(l)(b) of the current Indian Act. I think of the women who have worked for rights for Indian women and for the Native Women's Association of Canada and the various other Canadian women's groups which have supported them. I think very especially of Mary Two-Axe Early who struggled a long time ago. She went before the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Year after year she has lobbied the Government. She is here in the galleries today. We really must pay tribute to her for the patience, courage and nobility of her struggle. She is a splendid person. She exemplifies what is so important in native Canadian women.
It is due to the quality of people like this that we can rejoice at having this Bill passed today. It means that with their courage, determination, intelligence and commitment to their bands and to their people, native women will be part of the struggle of native people for justice and for a fair part in Canadian society. Women who until now have had to struggle for their rights within their communities can now unite with their communities to work for a better place in Canadian society.
We have the pleasure of being part of a Parliament that is correcting a historic injustice. This is not perfect legislation, but a terrible problem is going to be solved. We can all be very proud that on this last day of Parliament we will leave knowing that we have done good work in changing this historic wrong in Canadian society.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I spoke briefly last night at the end of the committee meeting. At that time I had the feeling inside that I had betrayed my best friend. If this Act had not passed, I guess I would have had the same feeling. As my friend from St. John's West would say, we were caught between a rock and a hard place, all because of an Act that is known as an Act respecting Indians, the Indian Act, which is probably the worst piece of legislation on the books in the House of Commons.
I am not going to belabour the point, but I want to express my extreme displeasure at this Bill coming in so late. We on the committee felt like hostages. I think that I can speak for all those who were on the committee. We worked extremely hard in a non partisan way to try to come to a suitable conclusion with Bill C-47. Every single witness who appeared before that committee, including our friend Dr. Mary Two-Axe Early, was not happy with this Bill. The Native Women's Association, the Assembly, the Alberta Association of Indians, and the Coalition of Indians were all there. None of them liked it. Indian Rights for Indian Women were representing the feelings of the National Action Committee and they were not happy with it. Even the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, who appeared before the committee, was not entirely happy with the Bill. The amendments which she would have liked to have added to the Bill could not get through Cabinet.
We had to try to amend this Bill to make it as workable as possible. I am not happy with it. I do not like it. However, as a kid, you have to hold your nose, close your eyes, and take that damn medicine your mother rams down your throat. There are very legitimate concerns being expressed. That is why I insisted that an amendment be introduced last night, that is the new Clause 13 of the Bill. It says that this Parliament will investigate through a committee the very serious ramifications of what we are doing with the bands.
I asked the Minister responsible for the Status of Women whether she considered this to be an Indian issue under the whole scope of Indian issues, or whether it was entirely a women's issue. She said it was a women's issue. Indian Rights for Indian Women said it was an Indian issue. The Native Women's Association said it was an Indian issue. Yet they most genuinely want their status returned. I understand that. I also understand the self-determination that the Indian people want. They were once a proud people and they want that pride restored. I understand that. I am hopeful that in the next Parliament we will be able, in a very reasonable length of time, to come up with workable solutions which will respect that request.
We are supporting the Bill, but we are not happy with it. I want to assure the Indian people that when this Parliament comes back that clause which we put in will be activated and we will have a proper study. We have not had a proper study. We will have a proper study of the ramifications. We will get the facts, figures, and information which is necessary to make a reasoned decision on how this Act can best be implemented.
I would like to thank everyone who has worked with me on this Bill in the committee. I have met many new people. I have enjoyed their advice, their constructive criticism and their support. I can assure them once again that this Bill will not destroy their way of life. We will work to make sure that it preserves the Indian culture and the right of Indians to self-determination. We are exercising paternalism of the worst kind. The Indian people agree that this offensive clause in the Indian Act must be done away with.
For some reason I am not happy today. My hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood tells me that this is a historic and
June 29, 1984

momentous occasion. Somehow I do not feel that way. However, the Bill is going through. We will hold our nose and swallow the medicine and see it go through.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Indian Act was imposed on the Indian people of this country 100 years ago. It was legislation that was passed in this very Parliament that imposed a law on the Indian people across the country.
Today is a historic day if this Bill passes through the House because once again this House is passing legislation and imposing it on Indian people across the country. When in God's name will this paternalism stop?
I have talked to constituents of mine in northwestern Alberta as well as the band members. I have yet to find one registered treaty Indian-I wish the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) would listen. I was kind enough to listen to what she had to say. Maybe she should listen to what others are saying. That is unparliamentary but I will do the same to you. There is not one treaty Indian of whom I know in this country who denies that the Indian Act discriminates against women. There is not one chief, one band councillor or one member of any band in my riding who has told me that he does not want that clause removed or the discrimination clauses removed. They all want it removed because it is blatant discrimination against Indian women. That injustice was imposed by this House of Commons on the Indian women of this nation.
What are we about to do now? Think about it for a minute. We are not just eliminating the discrimination clauses of the Indian Act; we are now imposing on the very people whom we say should be given self-government and should be allowed to make their own decisions, and the very people to whom we say we should not be paternalistic, a piece of legislation that retroactively reinstates to the band lists members who were discriminated against as a result of the old Act.
Do Hon. Members realize what this will do to many of the bands across the country? We are talking almost about genocide. We are talking about cultural genocide. Rights are being restored to women who lost them either because the husband became enfranchised and took the wife and children with him or because they married non Indians. But they were following the law. It was not the Indian bands which made the law; it was the Government.
We are doing exactly the same thing again. People are being put back on the band list. One of them, who was referred to in the House by the Member for Broadview-Greenwood, is an American citizen who is demanding treaty status on a Canadian reserve. Think about that for a minute.
Do Hon. Members know the implications? A problem which we have recognized in the House, the passing of the Indian Act years ago that discriminated against Indian women, is being thrown back to the Indians. Instead of the House having the courage to remove the discrimination clause from the Act, it reinstated these women and children to the band lists. The House does not have the courage to compensate the women although it is the House of Commons itself that created the
Indian Act
problem. It is giving the problem back to the Indians and telling them to solve it.
There was no discussion about how they will be compensated. In fact, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) who is pushing this Bill through told the committee that he could not give guarantees to the bands that the Government of Canada will be able to compensate them for any monetary losses that they might experience as a result of these women and children coming back. When the Department is asked how many people will be returning to the bands, the Minister does not know. But the Department says it has received many assurances that people do not want to move back to the reserves.
Let me say that there are a number of reserves in my riding and a number of reserves in Alberta and Saskatchewan to which people will move back. Even if they do not move back, since they are on the band lists they are entitled to funds that are received from oil and gas revenues. There are bands which are working with this depleting resource and beginning to build an economic base and pull their people out of the quagmire into which we pushed them. They are doing this on their own with their own funds. It is true that the Parliament is now passing a very historic document. It will push those same band members down into the quagmire again. I know the one band right now whose population will increase or whose band membership will increase three times over. It happens to be a band that has wealth in the ground and that receives oil and gas royalties.
Surely there is a fundamental injustice, bordering on immorality, when the House passes a piece of legislation and, in the style of Pontius Pilate, it washes its hands of the situation and throws it into the lap of the bands to solve.
I would like Hon. Members to come to my riding and visit some of the reserves, including the poorer ones. I can think of one reserve now, the Janvier band. Half of the people are treaty Indians and the other half of the population of the Janvier area is classified as Metis. They are related. They have been enfranchised. Some of them married off the reserve, knowing what they did. The current band membership still cannot provide adequate housing on the reserves. If this Bill goes through, that band will have to cope with twice the population. Again they will face poverty because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Government of Canada cannot guarantee that they will provide the funds necessary to keep the band merely at a subsistence level.
It shocks me absolutely to think that when the Indian people petitioned the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Members of Parliament to remove the discriminatory clauses in the Indian Act we do not do just that. Why do we say that we know best, that we in central Canada, in the House of Commons, know best. The Government says that it will reinstate all the women who lost their rights and that cut-off date will be sometime in the 1950s. If they lost their rights before the 1950s, there will not be reinstated, and

June 29, 1984
Indian Act
if they lost them after that time, they will be reinstated. How do you think that will stand up to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If the Government is to allow resinstatement retroactively to the 1950s, it had better do so back to the time when the Indian Act first came into force. How many people will come forward then?
The sad fact is that this very question about removing the discriminatory clauses has been discussed in the House and in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the past four years. It makes me question why the Minister brought this Bill in, got unanimous consent to take it to the committee for study, in three days had the amendments moved, brought them back and rushed them through the House in order to have the Bill passed in the House of Commons. It is political. The Minister knows that it is political. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola) knows that it is political because she had stated in the House that if the Bill is not passed she will resign her seat. I do not think she would do so.
There is a fundamental injustice being done to the Indian people. This will go down as a very sad day, tantamount to the sadness that we should look upon the day the Indian Act was just passed, forever putting Indian people in a paternalistic situation. They cannot do anything without the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development saying: "Yes, you can do it". This at one time forced Indians to stay on the reserves. They could not even leave the reserve without a pass from the Indian agent. The Minister of Indian Affairs is saying to the Indian people: "We want you to govern yourselves. We want you to take part in society, so we are going to introduce a self-government or an Indian government Bill", as he did. But then the Government brings in a Bill like this that negates everything the Minister said two days ago on the Indian self-government Bill.
I would like to commend the Minister for introducing that Bill but I cannot commend him for introducing this one. We are doing something fundamentally wrong. Why will the House of Commons not take the responsibility that is rightfully and morally ours? Why can we not grapple with the situation, and come to a conclusion? We have no right to force membership in those Indian bands. We have no right to do that. They did not create the law that discriminated against the women; we did so in this House of Commons. We do not have the right to force band membership on the bands across the country when out of the other side of our mouths we say: "We want you to have Indian self-government."
I agree it was a terrible situation when women were discriminated against. How do you compensate them? I do not know. We are intelligent people in this House. We should be able to come to a solution. How do you compensate the women who decided 40 years ago not to get married, but would live common law against their religion because they did not want to lose their Indian status? Let me ask the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), how do you compensate a woman who says: "I am not going to get married. I will
live common law even though it is against my religion and against everything I stand for because I do not want to lose my Indian status and I do not want my children to lose it"?
I have attended weddings and I have seen Indian people in their sixties finally getting married because their children had grown up and established that they were treaty Indians. My God, what have we done to those people? And we are doing it again today. I cannot for the life of me fathom why we would force this Bill on the Indian people of this nation. We say continually that we want them to be citizens of this country and take full part in it. But, dammit, we are not allowing them to do this when we force the bands to take God knows how many people back into the reserves. You are killing the Indian people with this legislation, just as you killed them in spirit and in drive when you brought in the first Indian Act which said, "We in this House of Commons and we in this Government are going to look after you. Do not worry".
I say to the Minister: Come to my riding and see what has happened to the young children in some of the reserves because of their dependence on welfare, their lack of health and the fact that they cannot make a decision without having to come to Ottawa to the Minister of Indian Affairs. It sickens me to think that intelligent people in this House of Commons have passed that legislation the way it is. We should be removing the discrimination clauses. There is no doubt about that. The Indian people want that; they have been asking for it. But we have to take it that other step further, that one more step that says: "Well, we really know everything that is good for you people. We are going to reinstate all these women and children and put them on your band list." We will put them on a general list first and we will put them on the band list at the same time because we cannot create two types of Indians.
Let me say to the Minister, today, mark my words, you are destroying the self-reliance, the resourcefulness and the development of Indians who have pulled themselves out of the quagmire by their bootstraps, out of the continual welfare system, and you are imposing on them again something as terrible as the Indian Act.
I implore Members in this House of Commons to talk. I implore the NDP members and my colleagues on this side to talk on this Bill until four o'clock this afternoon and let it die. Give it some thought. Give it some understanding. Let the Indian people sit down and tell you so you can understand what is happening. Why are we going through this Bill in 48 hours? The Minister brings in amendments to the Indian Act that include reinstatement. Why? We did that before through Bill C-169. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? Do you remember what happened with Bill C-169? Every one of us looked like a fools because we passed the Bill which infringed on freedom of speech-


Mr. Cullen:: Nonsense.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member may say "nonsense". Let him say "nonsense" about this Bill. I would like to hear what the Hon. Member has to say about Bill C-147. Does he
June 29, 1984

understand what he is doing, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Indian people of this country? We did it once with the Indian Act. For God's sake let us not do it again. Let us get some sense in this Bill, even if it comes at the last minute. Amend the Bill now. The Minister can withdraw the Bill and bring it back. He could remove the discrimination clauses. Everybody wants that. I say to him not to impose on the Indian people in those bands retroactive reinstatement. For once let us speak with a straight tongue and tell them: "Look, you people, you can govern yourselves. We will compensate if there is compensation to be made". Or we could say: "We will guarantee that those moneys will be paid into the band funds if there is a drain on them". We could do all sorts of things.
I do hope Members will stand in this House and speak on this Bill. I do hope they will stand and make their presence felt in this House. It will be a travesty if we allow this Bill to pass. We will regret it. We will be looking back in 20 years, nay, in ten years, and we will be saying what fools we were.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). I know of the sincerity, compassion and conviction with which he spoke. Everyone in the House could detect that. I hope he does not have to tell the House that he spoke with the same compassion and vigour in his own caucus when the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was there. I hope he tried to convince her of the sentiments which he feels so deeply. I want to read-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to answer that question. I have met with the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. A point of order is not permission to answer a question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking a question. I was expressing a hope. I thought the Hon. Member might launch into another speech. However, I should like to point out to him what the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said recently. She said:
The issue we must address, first and foremost, is equality-the equality of women and men everywhere in Canada. For years, individuals and organizations, national and international, have pointed to the discriminatory clauses of the Indian Act-
Then she went on to say:
Today we have a chance to correct the wrongs perpetrated against Indian women by an Act of the Canadian Parliament for over 100 years. To do so must surely mean that Indian women-all Indian women-must have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as those now enjoyed by Indian men-
I hope the Hon. Member for Athabasca remains here to hear my comments. She continued:
-including the right to full membership within their band and residency on their reserve for those who have lost their status, should they so desire it.
Then she went on to say:
Indian Act
It is not enough merely to remove the discriminatory clauses of the Indian Act. Full reinstatement to their bands must be a complementary move unless thousands of women and their children are to be left in a state of limbo.
That is not much choice for the bands to determine their own membership. So much for this type of position.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Hon. Member for Athabasca. Who could? That is the conundrum in which all of us in the House find ourselves. This is why there is unanimous consent to proceed today.
There are those who say, like the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, that we must guarantee them membership, that we must reinstate those who have lost their status and that nothing less will do. We have people who feel strongly about this in the New Democratic Party, as indeed we do on this side of the House. Of course we have others who deal on an ongoing basis with Indian people. They are the ones who have heard the fears of Indian people week in and week out, month in and month out, about our tackling this particular problem. They tried to resolve the internal conflict within their own consciences. They tried to resolve the political conflict within their Parties as to the urgency of the situation. That is where the conflict is. Then I think they tried to paper it over, quite frankly, with some rather fragile arguments such as: "We regret that we are being forced to do this and are being rushed".
We have talked a lot about this matter. We set up a special standing committee of the House of Commons to look into the matter. It heard many witnesses and made a report. By the way, on that committee were representatives of the native people. That parliamentary report was made under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burg-hardt). It was an all-Party committee which made a series of recommendations. If the Government had departed substantially from the terms of the Bill, we would have been accused of irresponsibility because we would have fractured the unanimous and bipartisan atmosphere in which the report was created. There was all-Party support for the report. We brought in recommendations which were almost dead-on the ones contained in the report of the parliamentary committee.
Now we are being told how unfortunate it is to rush the matter through the House. If we had come in with something substantially different from the parliamentary report, I know what we would have heard on the floor of the House. One does not require a vivid imagination to know what Hon. Members would have said. They would have reminded us that the parliamentary committee studied the matter, that it heard witnesses and made recommendations. They would have called us an arrogant government and have indicated that we departed substantially from the all-Party report. They would have asked: "What right do you have to do that? What arrogance! Don't you care?"
To accuse the Government of parternalism in a situation such as this against such a background is shameful. Surely people who argue that should be ashamed when they know the origins and that it was an all-Party report.

June 29, 1984
Indian Act


John Horton McDermid: I am not ashamed at all.


John Carr Munro: I am not talking about my official critic. I am talking about those people who expound with deep sentiment what they feel about this issue within their own Party. They know that there are people within their own Party advocating a Bill which is even stronger than this one.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood said that all the organizations were against it. That is right, they are against it but they are against it for different reasons.


John Horton McDermid: That is right.


John Carr Munro: I agree with my official critic. However, some Hon. Members disagree with him because they do not think the Bill is strong enough. They think that we should be unequivocally forcing them to take up band membership and residency immediately, without any discussion with the bands respecting the rate of flow of people on to the reserve or anything else.


An Hon. Member:: That is not right.


John Carr Munro: Well, I just quoted the statement of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. Of course there are others who think that there should not be any time limit within which the bands must act and take their non-status people back into the bands, as well as their nonIndian spouses and children. I think the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) was one who advocated this. Let me say to these people that I have a legal view which casts considerable doubt on that suggestion. If that were the case and we left it to the bands to determine band membership, indeed it could be struck down by the Charter. If we gave the bands the power to decide band memberships, we can be sure-and this is true-that people would be treated differently from one band to another. Of course they would be. There are 600 or more bands in the country. Since they would be treated in many cases differently from one band to another, and since they would all have lost their membership for the same reason-and all these women lost their membership for that reason-it would be contrary to Section 15 of the Charter.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East wanted to remove the two-year provision. We would have had to strike it down because we have a legal opinion which casts considerable doubt on its validity, based upon the fact that it would be contrary to Section 15 of the Charter.
Perhaps that information will be helpful to Hon. Members. Perhaps I would have been tempted, as others would have been tempted, to extend the deadline or remove it.


John Horton McDermid: That is the only thing that stopped you.


John Carr Munro: That is right, it is that legal opinion which stopped it. However, those who advocate it here as if it could be done ignore the fundamental reality that it would be contrary to the Charter.
This is the last day on which I will be Minister of this Department. I have had a very enriching experience for over four years dealing with the aboriginal peoples of the country. I have worked, along with my own colleagues in Government, to achieve some notable breakthroughs. Now I am on the floor of the House on a Bill about which I know native peoples will be unhappy. I have had a tremendous association with those native peoples, one which I will remember until the day I die. I do not know how we could meet this situation in a much more constructive way than we have attempted to do. I think their unhappiness is inevitable and justified. I am not entirely sure any government could have turned that unhappiness around. The minute it would try to correct this situation, it would be confounded with dilemmas which are almost unresolvable. In the first place, it did not create the problem, we created it, as the Hon. Member for Athabasca said, when we incorporated that section in the Indian Act. It was offensive and created this discrimination in the first place. At last we are coming to grips with correcting it.
How do we correct such a thing when a blatant injustice has been done to thousands and thousands of people? It is not the fault of the Indian people, but we have to look to them to correct it. We tried our best. The committee tried its best. I congratulate most sincerely everyone on the committee, members of all Parties. Some of them came up to me the day before yesterday and indicated that they thought they had a compromise. They indicated that if I could get my colleagues in Cabinet to approve these amendments and to agree to the essential elements of this compromise, they thought they had all-Party agreement to proceed. Despite all the unhappiness of the organizations, unhappiness for very different reasons, they were prepared to grab the mettle, show some courage in a troublesome situation and have all-Party support. I think most of the Members will agree with this. I came back with what I think the committee felt was pretty well an endorsation by Cabinet of all the elements of the package which were in that compromise except one. That was the one where we said that we could not go back for reinstatement past the people who lost their status plus one generation. We could not go beyond that. It would double the number of those qualified from 70,000 to about 140,000.
We heard what the Hon. Member for Athabasca said about the potential of 70,000 Indians coming back on the reserves. How would Members like it if we had a further amendment to reinstate up to 14,000 Indians? Talk about the devastation that might have been created for some bands in the country! Of course we could not go for that. For that reason, to say nothing about the horrendous expense of people coming back on the reserves who have virtually no connection whatosever with the Indian reserves or their culture, and despite what the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East says, to open up the floodgates to that extent, would, frankly, be a little unreal.
I am prepared to make a challenge. I do not think anyone believes it is likely to happen, but I challenge the Official
June 29, 1984

Opposition, should it become the government, to increase the potential number of returning Indians from 70,000 to 140,000 people by taking the reinstatements back to the grandchildren of those who lost their status. Implicit in that is the deluge of people who could potentially come back to the reserves, to say nothing about the hundreds of millions dollars more which the Official Oppostion should be prepared to put up front in a separate fund to assist all those Indians who come back. I hope Members opposite will put their muscle where their mouth is today in the House. Let us see whether they will do it. I do not think they will. From private discussions I have had with many of them, I do not think all Members in the Official Opposition think like that.
My colleagues on the committee and I are trying to give some type of assurance. We want to give some type of comfort rather than stimulate the concern and worry that is already there. Let us try to inject some calm in the situation. The reading I have of the amendments that we are making to this Bill do this. I will speak very slowly, because it is a fundamental type of assurance for which some Members in the Official Opposition were looking. I am talking about reinstated people.
Reinstated people will become band members as a matter of right after two years. Part of being a band member is the right to access to reserves. We could not change this without creating two classes of band members. I emphasize this for all the chiefs across the country and all the Indian people who are troubled by this, but bands will have the power to provide for the orderly settlement of reinstated persons. This means that bands can make rules on such things as the zoning of land, the use of land and buildings, the timing and procedures for returning to reserves. In this way they will be able to manage the return to reserves in a way which makes sense in each one of their communities, depending on their different circumstances. Reinstated Indians will also have the right to have their non-Indian spouses or children live with them on reserves, but these families will also be subject to by-laws regulating settlement. Also, any rights beyond that of residency would be decided by the band. It seems clear that the federal Government has a duty to restore the rights it took away. This Bill does that.
When I refer to the rights which the federal Government gave away, the Parliament of Canada gave them away when it passed the Indian Act. It also gives bands, in conjunction with existing powers under the Indian Act, power to manage effectively the settlement of reinstated persons on reserve. I would like to point out that as far as Bill C-52 is concerned, when Parliament approves it, bands will have the right to obtain much broader powers than they now have under the Indian Act to manage their own communities. They can regulate that power of movement back on the reserves because of zoning powers and all other powers such as building codes and so on. That is absolutely essential if there is not to be chaos on the reserves. There can be that space-plan treatment.
Let me point out one more area to which the critic for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid), made reference. There is provision in
Indian Act
the Bill now to which every Member, including the Hon. Member for Athabasca, who is concerned about the implications which this Bill may have and some of the dislocations that it may cause on reserves because of the impact it might have in increasing the deplorable poverty which exists already on reserves, should pay attention. The Bill provides for a parliamentary committee to review the reinstatement provisions within 18 months. By that time we will know with reasonable accuracy how many people want to be reinstated and to what bands. If there is a problem, Parliament can take the necessary legislative action at that time, before the reinstated people are put back on the band list. It is a two-year period. You have that essential guarantee of the parliamentary review.


John Horton McDermid: Where did it come from?


John Carr Munro: I give the Hon. Member full credit. He asks where it came from. He brought up the idea, we checked it out, found that it could be done, so we put it in there. That shows what can be achieved when all Parties get together and try to find a solution. As I say, it is now in there. The only credit the Government takes is that it had the wisdom to adopt a useful and constructive suggestion. There is nothing wrong with that. It is in here and it gives that type of assurance. Let us take some relief from that.
As far as my successor is concerned, and certainly as far as many of my colleagues are concerned, if we form a government the next time, I will be around, although not as a Member of Parliament, to insist to the maximum of my influence that the Government I will insist that the Government take a hard look in 18 months and see if some of the implications of the disastrous situation referred to by the Hon. Member for Athabasca will occur. If there are not adequate safeguards to take care of that, action will have to be taken before the two-year period is up.
In conclusion, I want to refer to something of fundamental importance. This was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Athabasca. What about the money? How deplorable it would be if we removed this injustice only to create more injustice by raising expectations for these people who lost their status if, when they came back on the reserve, there were absolutely no financial resources to look after them. It would be a mockery. The money that has been established to treat this situation is identified in a special fund separate from Indian Affairs estimates. As the experience comes to us of people moving back to the reserves, that identifiable fund can be tapped based on need, whether it is for infrastructure, community services, land, or whatever. If those numbers coming back on the reserves meet a band that is totally incapable of treating them with adequate resources and the band comes to this special fund and is denied the money necessary to treat those people right, that will be identified immediately because of the accessibility of that fund. Parliament can be the watchdog starting next month, starting next year or starting when the new Parliament convenes. It can be the watchdog to see that there is fairness in terms of access to that fund. Noticeable

June 29, 1984
Indian Act
amounts of money have already been put into that fund in order to ensure that after the first application, there will be money there to give those people the necessary resources. That is another essential guarantee.
Let me say one last thing with regard to the timing of this Bill. There has been some criticism indicating that we could have brought this Bill in earlier. There has been an absolute deluge of legislation coming from my Department in the last three, four or five weeks. We saw a chance to get legislation approved, whether it be legislation on the COPE final agreement and on the Cree-Naskapi Act or whether it be-


John Horton McDermid: And you have had great co-operation from the Opposition.


John Carr Munro: Yes, we have had great co-operation. We brought in the Bill for Indian self-government. Governments have been confounded when trying to come up with such a Bill over the decades. We finally put one through the House just the other day as a result of almost constant work on the part of the Department. There were many other legislative fronts on which we could not move all at once.
The committee and the Indian people wanted to look at the anti-discrimination clause of the Bill in the context of the Indian self-government Bill that was tabled in this House. They had a right to see that connection, so within a matter of days we brought the discrimination Bill and the Indian selfgovernment Bill out at the same time. I do not think that it would have been right in terms of that undertaking to give serious consideration to the discrimination Bill without having brought out the Indian self-government Bill.
I would like to conclude by saying to all my colleagues here that I realize how troublesome this issue is. However, we have tried to meet some of the basic concerns that have been raised through built-in guarantees for review should blatant injustices or tragic dislocations occur during the next two years. Let us hope that by carrying on in the spirit of that same bipartisan co-operativeness with the Indian people we can prevent the suffering that could otherwise occur. If we carry on the spirit of goodwill, I am sure we can do that.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not think the Hon. Minister meant to misrepresent my position in his remarks but when I proposed on several occasions that bands have the right to control their own memberships, I always did so within the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and within the terms of the International Covenant signed by Canada, and that is the same way it is done in Bill C-52.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would classify that as being a bona fide point of order, which I will accept.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he has given any thought to my proposal that the Bill be split
into two parts, allowing for the removal of the discrimination clauses. As the Minister knows, there is not one treaty Indian in the country who does not want the discrimination clauses removed because they are a reflection of something very terrible which happened to Indian women because of the Indian Act.
Coupled with that, does the Minister not believe that we are, in essence, passing over the problem by asking the bands to take on to their general lists and band lists the people who were unfairly treated because of the Indian Act? Does he not feel that it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to right the wrong that was done through the Indian Act and not the responsibility of the Indian people who live by the law that was imposed upon them by this House?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we took that into consideration, as did all political Parties which were involved in this. We found out that it would not work. For one thing, I believe we all have supporters within our political Parties who would feel that that would simply not do the trick. I have already read a statement made by the Hon. Member from Kingston. I believe that many Hon. Members feel the same way. They feel that we simply had to insist not only on full band membership but on the reinstatement of those people who lost their status.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have another short question for the Minister. The Minister will recognize that in the Act presently proposed, the cut-off date for reinstatement will be back around 1950. What legal advice does the Minister have about how that will be affected when it will be challenged by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If someone was enfranchised prior to 1950, is that person not no less Indian than the people enfranchised after 1950? How are we going to cope with that when a case is made under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the cut-off date is not 1950. I think the Hon. Member is quite incorrect to say that. What the Bill does say is that people as well as their children who lost their status would qualify for reinstatement. The legal opinion is that there is nothing offensive in that as far as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is concerned.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment to make. First, I would like to wish the Minister well in his new career. I have appreciated working with him over the past few years, at times with a bit of conflict, but I do wish him well.
The Minister said that the Bill followed fairly closely the recommendations of the subcommittee on discrimination against Indian women. I would like to point out that at least with regard to the question of residency of non-Indian spouses, the subcommittee recommended that Indian bands be asked to design procedures that would relate to that. This Bill simply gives a blanket right to non-Indian spouses and does not involve the bands in any decision-making process in that respect at all.
June 29, 1984

Second, with regard to the all-Party compromise that we reached in the last couple of days, I would simply like to remind the Minister of the chronology of it. Two nights ago, we reached a kind of a meeting of minds in the committee and we made some suggestions to the drafters of the Bill who then worked through the night. In the morning, they presented the Minister with a set of draft amendments which the Minister took to Cabinet. After they were approved, then we as members of the committee saw those amendments. We had no way of knowing whether or not they followed our recommendations completely until after they had been approved by Cabinet and there was no possibility of further change. It is this kind of last minute procedure that I feel is very much at fault which is the reason for some of the flaws that continue to be contained in the Bill. It is for that reason that we regret the late introduction of this Bill.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, during my remarks, I got so wrapped up in Bill C-47 that it completely slipped my mind that this was the last day that the Minister will be the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He has been a Member of the House for 22 years, I believe. In the last couple of days, members of the press have been asking me to assess him. The Minister assessed me in the House a few weeks ago-


John Carr Munro: But I took that back.


John Horton McDermid: However, he apologized. I must admit that. I said to the press, and I will say today, that there is probably not a harder working Minister in the House.


Mr. Whelan:: Oh yes, there is.


John Horton McDermid: And that includes you, Whelan. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
He is a Minister who, I believe, had the concerns of the aboriginal peoples deep in his heart and he worked extremely hard for all of them. I wish him Godspeed in whatever the future holds for him. Rumours have it that he will find one of those nice appointments that come along from time to time. However, I do wish him good luck.
I know the quandary the Minister has faced when dealing with this Bill because we have all faced it. I do not think the Minister is happy with the Bill. I know that he is defending it because as the Minister he must do that. But, deep down in his heart I know that he is not happy with the Bill. When we assume the responsibilities to govern this great country of Canada, we will be prepared to make the legislation work in a way that is not unfair to the Indian people of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions or comments? On debate, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in the very few minutes which have been allotted to me I want to make several points. I would first like to say that this is another
Indian Act
example of the sloppy way in which this Government brings in legislation. The Government brings one good principle into every Bill in order to get two or three bad principles passed. We have seen examples of this all through the session. An example of that is the enfranchisement of Indian Women, the good principle. Every one supports that. But, then the Government injects itself into the membership of the reserves. I will confine my remarks to the membership of the reserves.
In my view, the Government has no right to tell people who can be on the Sarcee Reserve, the Blackfoot Reserve or the Stony Reserve-which are in my constituency-any more than it has the right to tell other Canadians that they have to live in Alberta or Saskatchewan. It is the right of Canadians to choose for themselves.
The Bill solves one problem, but it creates several others. One of the worst problems appears in Clause 109(1) of the Bill. That Clause gives the Minister and the Governor in Council the right to say who is enfranchised. It reads:
On the report of the Minister that an Indian has applied for enfranchisement and that in the opinion of the Minister the Indian
(a)	is of the full age of twenty-one years,
(b)	is capable of assuming the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, and
(c)	when enfranchised, will be capable of supporting himself and his dependants, the Governor in Council may by order declare that the Indian is enfranchised.
That is going too far in telling people what is good for them. That is a serious objection I have concerning the membership matter. This legislation is in conflict with Bill C-52. Under that Bill the band council determines who will be on the reserves, and properly so. There are two pieces of legislation before the House at the same time which are in conflict.
Further, the legislation is a betrayal of Treaty No. 7. Treaty No. 7 was signed by the Government of Canada and the Indians in my area. It gave sovereignty to the tribes to decide who was going to live on the reserves. But the Government is injecting itself again and will take the power upon itself to determine what Indians will live on the reserves. That is completely contrary to the law which is in existence. I think this legislation could be challenged as a betrayal of Treaty No. 7. Again, we see the Government acting with haste. The Government has wasted time on various pieces of legislation. It could have brought this piece of legislation forward two years ago had it wanted to. The betrayal of Treaty No. 7 is very serious.
A further point which I would like to make is that the legislation affects all Canadians. It will require millions and millions of dollars to look after the people on the reserves. That money will come from the taxpayers of Canada. All Canadians should be concerned about this legislation.
All of the people on the reserves in my constituency are opposed to this Bill, and it would seem that all Indian people are opposed to it, yet we are imposing it on them. I only support the Bill because it removes discrimination against Indian women. The clause which makes me feel a little better is the one that provides for a review which will take place shortly after a new government is elected. The review will

June 29, 1984
Indian Act
correct the things we are imposing on the Indians. I hope that will materialize.
I received a telegram from Chief Clifford Big Plume, who is a good friend of mine and an excellent Canadian citizen. He is the Chief of the Sarcee Reserve in my constituency. The telegram reads:
The Sarcee Nation does not accept that the Government of Canada has any legal or moral right to abrogate to itself the authority to determine membership in the Sarcee Band. For too many years Sarcees have allowed the federal Government to add to our membership those names the Government has decided should be included and to exclude those names the Government decided to exclude.
Sometimes I believe we are in Moscow when I witness the things that this Government does. The telegram continues:
No where in Treaty No. 7 signed between the Government of Canada and Sarcee in 1877 did we the Sarcee Nation surrender our sovereign right to determine our own membership.
To rectify wrongs the Government of Canada believes it has committed against some Indian people, it is the right of the Government of Canada to enumerate these people and compensate them. It is not the right of the Government of Canada to legislate that the Sarcee Nation shall compensate anyone by admitting them to band membership. Sarcee shall determine who are Sarcees.
If the Government of Canada unilaterally amends that Indian Act by passing Bill C-47 without regard to our sovereign right to jurisdiction over our membership and land, we will fight such legislation.
Chief Clifford Big Plume said it better than I could say it. He approves removal of the discrimination. But, the Government then has to inject itself into the membership of each tribe in this nation. That is completely wrong.
Again, we must vote on two principles: one principle which is good and another principle which is bad. The only hope I have is that a government will be elected which will deal with-


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After listening to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) I would like to make one comment. If he continues to use his allotted time, in effect Bill C-47 will be talked out and killed. I want the Canadian public to know that, and especially the women of this nation. The Indian people-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that that is not a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is not I who is wasting time, Mr. Speaker. I am through. The Minister took a full 20 minutes-


John Carr Munro: You asked me to explain the Bill!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Are there questions or comments?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question because I know that he spends a great deal of time in his riding talking to individual constituents. As well, I know that he has had a number of meetings with the bands on the reserves in his riding. Has it ever been his experience to find anyone-a treaty Indian, a member of the
band, a member of the band council, or a chief-who disagreed with the Indian Act, as it was written, in that it discriminated against women? Was he ever told that those clauses should be removed?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an individual Canadian of Indian extraction say that to me. However, in a meeting with the Blackfoot Band Council about two years ago, they said they approved that type of legislation, but that they were not ready for it. They wanted some time to make arrangements. They indicated that they could not have several scores of people suddenly arrive on the reserve when there were already 27 people living in one house. They wanted to correct the situation on the reserve before further hardships were placed on them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any further questions or comments? On debate, the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble).


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I am driven to speak on Bill C-47, a Bill to amend the Indian Act, because of comments made in this House by Members from all sides and all Parties. It is obvious that this House is embarking on a plan which has been recognized as imperfect in the dying hours before the summer recess and possibly the end of this Parliament. We are passing a piece of legislation which has as its primary purpose-and I believe this is clear-the removal of discrimination against Indian women. When Indian women married outside the Indian community they and their offspring lost their rights to Indian status. Of course, it so happened that the same consequences did not befall an Indian man who married someone who was not Indian, and it did not befall his offspring.
The problem with the Bill is that it goes further than remedying the ill. The remedy would have taken the form of an amendment which would have precluded the disenfranchisement of Indian women. The Bill endeavours to rectify historical misjudgments, and mistakes which have been made by previous Parliaments in connection with this issue. The form of rectification was to be a reinstatement of women who had been disenfranchised, together with the reinstatement to full franchise entitlement of their children.
That second aspect of the Bill is the part which has created the difficulty, because the people affected, namely, the Indian bands, have taken very substantial issue with it on two understandable grounds. Some Indian bands are reasonably wealthy, particularly those in Alberta which happen to derive revenue from oil and gas leases on the reserves. It, therefore, becomes attractive for people who might otherwise never have claimed Indian status to make that claim, both for themselves and for their children. There is a financial advantage in so doing.
There are other circumstances where Indian bands are certainly less well off. As a matter of fact, the financial circumstances which prevail in these bands have caused very serious deprivation. Why people would choose to return to
June 29, 1984

those circumstances one may well feel is beyond comprehension. However, there are people, in fact, who are in worse financial circumstances living away from the bands and the reserve land. Accordingly, it may be advantageous for them to move back even though the circumstances into which they move are not the best. Whether we are talking about wealthy bands or impoverished bands, there is an obligation either to share some of the wealth or add to the poverty.
It is to the addition of the poverty particularly that Hon. Members who have spoken in this House, and for whom I have the highest regard, have directed their attention. I am speaking, of course, of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I am inclined to be moved by arguments of Hon. Members of this place who have firsthand knowledge of the problem which we are endeavouring to solve. I am very concerned when well meaning Hon. Members of Parliament say, I have a solution for your problem although I and my constituents do not suffer from it. Those Hon. Members have come here today to speak, raising their voices in opposition and drawing the attention of the House to the problems which they recognize will transpire.
I believe we must recognize that we have approached the second aspect of this double-barrelled alleged solution hoping for perfection but realizing we have not achieved it. We might well have suggested that the bands elect to disenfranchise male members of the band who married outside the Indian community and in that way the disenfranchisement would have been complete. In that way the bands themselves would not have been burdened with the colossal cost of attending to the needs of some 70,000 persons who are about to return to the lands where the financial situation of the bands, to say the very least, is not the best.
I am troubled, quite frankly, by the whole concept of the Indian Act, not only by these amendments. We in Parliament have treated a whole section of Canadian society as though this was the year 1884 and not 1984. How in the name of heaven, Mr. Speaker, could this House pass Clause 12 of this Bill? Clause 12 (109)( 1) reads as follows:
On the report of the Minister that an Indian has applied for enfranchisement and that in the opinion of the Minister the Indian
(a)	is of the full age of twenty-one years,
(b)	is capable of assuming the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, and
(c)	when enfranchised, will be capable of supporting himself and his dependents the Governor in Council may by order declare that the Indian is enfranchised.
What kind of a paternalistic interference in the affairs of Canadian citizens is this? I do not know how many of us who have not dealt specifically with this problem, who have not served on the committee and are not acquainted with the problems-and a lot of us are not-could sit here and pass a clause which deals with Canadian citizens as though they are second, third or fourth-class Canadian citizens as though we are adults and they are children. That is exactly the problem which confronts us and which finds itself imbedded in the very statute with which we deal today.
I am not happy with the Act and, like the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), I wish there was
Introduction of Bills
something better. I fear that what this House is doing in its mad haste to pass legislation at the last moment is less than what we wish. I have not been in this House too long but, quite frankly, I recognize that in dealing with the Indian Act in 1984, it will be 10 or 15 years before it comes back for re-examination. What we pass here today with all of its warts and imperfections is going to hamstring the Indian people. It is going to create financial burden, hardship and unhappiness. I believe that Hon. Members of the House should recognize exactly what they are doing before they proceed to pass this Bill into law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? Is there further debate?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. 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 the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-51, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Bill C-53, an Act to establish a National Park on the Mingan Archipelago; and Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
*****
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


John Leslie Evans: I think you will find there might be agreement to move directly to the introduction of the Miscellaneous Statutory Amendments Act at this point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we will deal with that Bill, and I gather with Bill C-56 as the next item of business. As to this Bill, it will be introduced and passed in all stages without debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this Bill amending a variety of different statutes can be passed in

June 29, 1984
Introduction of Bills
less than 30 seconds. We agree to that. However, I understood that the Saltfish Bill was being called next. Am I wrong in that regard?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion on saltfish. At this point we would like to call the Miscellaneous Statutory Amendments Bill for introduction. Consent must be had at this point just to get this Bill taken care of.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I understood there was consent to allow me to make a 60-second speech on this Bill on second reading.


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, what comes after that 60 second speech? Not Bill C-57, I take it, which is the saltfish Act?


James Aloysius McGrath: One step at a time.


Coline M. Campbell: I just want some clarification. The Order Paper shows Bill C-57, the Saltfish Act. We are now being asked to proceed to the Miscellaneous Statutes Bill. What comes next?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the Government would call the order as it saw fit, if there was agreement. I believe there is agreement among the House leaders to call the Miscellaneous Statutory Amendments Act now and follow that with Bill C-56, and then with the other legislation on the Order Paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Lion. Parliamentary Secretary. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


STATUTES OF CANADA
Hon. D. M. Collenette (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-58, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors, and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, now.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Collenette, seconded by Mr. Whelan, moved that Bill C-58, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors, and to deal with other matters of an uncontroversial nature in the Statutes of Canada be now read a second time and by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole House.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both the Government and the opposition House leaders for the opportunity to make a few brief remarks. Clause 54 of this Bill amends the constitution of the Northwest Territories and therefore deserves not to go unrecognized. Section 11(2) of the Northwest Territories Act is to be repealed. This has been done with all-Party consent at the request of the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, made by way of a unanimously supported resolution in September, 1983. This Section is an archaism which dates back to the time when the capital of the Northwest Territories was in Ottawa. It was moved to Yellowknife in 1968, and this section, which required that one session of the legislature each year be held outside of the capital, is now redundant.
On a future occasion Section 11(5) also ought to be repealed. This Section presently specifies that a majority constitues a quorum of the legislature. The Legislative Assembly has unanimously requested, and in my opinion ought to have, the right to set its own quorum as is the case in every provincial legislature in Canada. Clause 54 also changes the word "Eskimo" to the word "Inuit" wherever it occurs in the Northwest Territories Act. This is done in keeping with modern preferences. The people of the North will be pleased with this small step toward their constitutional future.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went went into Committee thereon. Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Eymard G. Corbin: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, you can call all the Clauses. We are prepared to consent to all clauses in the Bill and the schedule.


Ian Deans: We also agree, keeping in mind that we want to deal with the tobacco farmers' Bill today before four o'clock.


John Leslie Evans: Certainly with the agreement of the Government you can proceed that way because we, too, want to take care of the needs of the tobacco farmers.
Clauses 5 to 79 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedules agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
June 29, 1984
[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: that Bill C-58, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors, and to deal with other matters of a noncontroversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES ACT
Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and we would ask you to seek unanimous consent that the Bill not be sent to the Standing Committee, but rather to a Committee of the Whole, and proceeded with at all stages prior to four o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal. Is that agreed?


Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear. Does what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said imply that it will go through third reading as well, or will there be a request for unanimous consent for third reading?


John Leslie Evans: No, there will not be.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think we should take this stage by stage. I would suggest that we agree that the matter go to Committee of the Whole and we can deal with the merits of the Bill and try to make progress.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Is that absolutely understood, Mr. Speaker?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then we will come back and ask for any other unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the House. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act


John Leslie Evans: In that case, Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the passage or movement of the Bill, I would simply ask for unanimous consent that the Bill not be sent to the standing committee, but rather be referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed to?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the Chair.
Eymard G. Corbin: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There are five minutes to go. I think that we would want to have this matter proceed with so that we can bring it to its conclusion. I would seek unanimous consent of the House that we not see the clock at four o'clock, but proceed until we deal with the different stages of this legislation. In that way we can in fact have somebody say something. We have amendments to propose. The mere act of putting in amendments will take up the time. I am sure that all Members of the House would be agreeable to not seeing the clock at four o'clock in order that we can get this Bill dealt with.


Eymard G. Corbin: Before recognizing the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, let the Chairman indicate to the House that that poses a difficulty. The committee is not empowered to not see the clock or to extend time. That can only be done with the Speaker in the Chair.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would then ask for unanimous consent that the Chairman of Committees rise and report progress, at which time I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Committee of the Whole once we have passed a motion which I propose to bring that we not see the clock at four o'clock.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a terribly unconventional procedure which is being asked for. It violates the straight agreement which was put when the House order was passed this morning, that the House will rise at four o'clock to give the Senate the opportunity to deal with the Bills and give Royal Assent to these Bills today as the House is adjourning today. The Opposition has known that all along. There has been plenty of time to deal with these Bills.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on John.


John Leslie Evans: The House Leader has indicated clearly that at four o'clock no unanimous consent will be given.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of discussions that had taken place with regard to not extending beyond four o'clock. However, let us not be foolish about this. This is an

June 29, 1984
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act important Bill. It deals with matters of vital concern. We in this Party have made every effort to accommodate the Government and, I might say, the Official Opposition, in trying to get the business through the House that would enable us to deal with this legislation today. I could see as the day unfolded that we were going to be faced with this dilemma. I therefore appeal to the Government, recognizing the importance of this, albeit with an understanding that it had been made clear to us that we would not sit beyond four, to reconsider its position and allow us to complete this legislation.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, we have time right now. If we get down to business this Bill can be passed. I suggest that we do that. There is no consent to go beyond four o'clock. That was made clear and absolute at the outset today when the House order was passed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know of at least one amendment. I spoke to the Minister of Agriculture and he is prepared to accept it.


John Leslie Evans: Sit down and let us get with it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just putting that motion and having it accepted would take more than the remaining time. Let us proceed and go past four o'clock. I ask the Government to proceed past four o'clock.


Eymard G. Corbin: The Hon. President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: The request made by the Hon. Member is reasonable. I support fully my Parliamentary Secretary who is blaming the Tories for their attitude in the last minutes which is jeopardizing the passage of this legislation. Despite this attitude and the risk they have taken, we will make it possible for the Bill to be passed through all stages because it is important. We will agree that the House order be amended to allow 15 more minutes and we will sit until 4:15. If at 4:15 the Bill is passed, fine. If the Bill is not passed at 4:15, the House will rise.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask for clarification what exactly we will be giving unanimous consent for? Are we giving consent to sit until 4:15 for other Bills to be passed, or only so this particular Bill can go through all stages? I am not prepared to not see the clock beyond four o'clock if we are to consider other Bills like Bill C-57.


Yvon Pinard: We will not be sitting. If the Hon. Member wants to stay after 4:15 that is fine.


Coline M. Campbell: That is not the question. Is this the only Bill that will be called from now until 4:15?


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member is very swift indeed. [English]


Eymard G. Corbin: The question is the following:
Shall I rise and report progress?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think unanimous consent has now been given to not see the clock until such time as any Member deems to see it as four o'clock. I would ask therefore for unanimous consent to not see the clock until a Member decides to see it as four o'clock.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has been magnanimous in this case. He said that at 4:15 the House will rise. He said that the House order can be amended to 4:15, and we will agree to that. Now we are getting this craziness from the House Leader of the Official Opposition. The Government has indicated that we will give unanimous consent to not see the clock until 4:15 in order to deal with this Bill. That is what unanimous consent is being asked for.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are wasting time. If the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government House Leader want to see call, it four o'clock at 4:15 they simply have to raise their hands. I will not accuse them of wanting to go to the washroom.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made earlier this day, the sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 4.04 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 4.44 p.m.

Mr. 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 Bill C-58, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors which deal with matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statute of Canada.
June 29, 1984



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
["Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:\nBill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments-Chapter No. 29.\nBill C-30, an Act to amend the Bank Act-Chapter No. 30.\nBill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 31.\nBill C-51, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters- Chapter No. 32.\nBill C-54, an Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act-Chapter No. 33.\nRoyal Assent\nBill C-53, an Act to establish a National Park on the Mingan Archipelago- Chapter No. 34.\nBill S-l 1, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Tunisia, Canada and the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Canada and the United Republic of Cameroon and Canada and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, an agreement between Canada and Kenya and conventions between Canada and the Arab Republic of Egypt, Canada and the Republic of the Ivory Coast and Canada and Sweden for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax-Chapter No. 35.\nBill C-252, an Act to grant access to records of the Special Committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations-Chapter No. 36.\nBill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security-Chapter No. 37.\nBill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act-Chapter No. 38.\nBill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act-Chapter No. 39.\nBill C-58, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada-Chapter No. 40.\nBill S-l6, an Act to revive Stadacona Mines (1944) Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.\nIt being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) this House stands adjourned until Monday, September 10, 1984, at eleven o'clock a.m.\nMay you have a good summer!\nThe Thirty-second Parliament was dissolved on Monday, July 9, 1984, by proclamation of Her Excellency the Governor General."]
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments-Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bank Act-Chapter No. 30.
Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 31.
Bill C-51, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters- Chapter No. 32.
Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act-Chapter No. 33.
Royal Assent
Bill C-53, an Act to establish a National Park on the Mingan Archipelago- Chapter No. 34.
Bill S-l 1, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Tunisia, Canada and the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Canada and the United Republic of Cameroon and Canada and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, an agreement between Canada and Kenya and conventions between Canada and the Arab Republic of Egypt, Canada and the Republic of the Ivory Coast and Canada and Sweden for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax-Chapter No. 35.
Bill C-252, an Act to grant access to records of the Special Committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations-Chapter No. 36.
Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security-Chapter No. 37.
Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act-Chapter No. 38.
Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act-Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-58, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada-Chapter No. 40.
Bill S-l6, an Act to revive Stadacona Mines (1944) Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) this House stands adjourned until Monday, September 10, 1984, at eleven o'clock a.m.
May you have a good summer!
The Thirty-second Parliament was dissolved on Monday, July 9, 1984, by proclamation of Her Excellency the Governor General.