1985-12-20

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, this being close to the end of December let us review the year 1985.
January: two Tories are reported to have received a $60,000 untendered advertising contract. February: the Solicitor General meets privately in a room at the Chateau Laurier with Premier Hatfield. March: the Irish eyes were smiling at the Shamrock Summit, while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was giving away the store to the Americans. April: everything became relative; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) awarded cushy contracts and appointments to all their relatives. May: the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget which viciously attacked the poor and the senior citizens of the country. June: senior citizens are really mad at the Government and the Government reinstates pensions. July: the Minister of the Environment had a wonderful time in Paris at a mere cost of $64,000 to Canadian taxpayers. August: the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) took an African safari. September: the tainted tuna scandal. We now know why the Prime Minister lost his sense of smell. October: the first bank fiasco in 62 years. November: the Tory Government gave away de Havilland to Boeing. December: the Government bullies Parliament by introducing closure seven times in 21 days.
That is "the way it was" in the great year of 1985. Merry Christmas anyway.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's refusal to meet today with members of la Coalition des femmes pour les allocations familiales, which represents thousands of Quebec women, is a further indication of his insensitivity to the concerns of women and the needs of children.
Undoubtedly he cannot face them because he has no just explanation to give for proceeding with Bill C-70 to reduce the purchasing power of family allowances. Instead, he intends to push through this incredible legislation which attacks families and children, especially women raising children on their own and on low incomes. Once again the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) cannot defend his broken promises. Bill C-70 denies his promises never to hurt universal social programs, to help those in greatest need, to act on women's concerns, and to reconsider cuts when the economy improved.
The Prime Minister could save face, re-establish his credibility, and make all Canadians have a happy Christmas by allowing Bill C-70 to die and by sending out fully indexed family allowance cheques in January.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a time to look back over the year-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Paul Ravis: -and take stock of what we have accomplished in 1985.
One accomplishment stands out as something of which all Canadians ought to be proud. The people of Canada, and our Government, have proved that by working together we can accomplish great things.
At home, the economic signs are excellent. The inflation rate has not risen above 4 per cent since we took office. Consumer and business investment is up. Housing starts are on the rise. Interest rates and unemployment are down. The number of new jobs in Canada continues to increase. We could not have accomplished so much without the enthusiastic participation of every Canadian, particularly small business people.
Over the past year Canadians have proven that they also have great concern for those in need around the world. The generous donations of both time and money by all Canadians to the Government's African Famine Relief Program have been tremendous. I am especially proud that Saskatchewan had the highest rate of contributions per capita to overseas assistance this year, a year when the residents of my province were afflicted with severe drought and difficulty in harvesting their crops. This accomplishment is not surprising since Saskatchewan has the highest rate of volunteers in the country.

December 20, 1985
Government alone cannot bring about economic recovery. Government alone cannot feed the starving. But working together Canadians and our Government can make this country and the world a better place in which to live.



Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Under the Liberal administration, Mr. Speaker, not only were investors not interested, but they even shut down several refineries in Montreal East. Today, we have three national companies which are seriously considering getting financially involved in Montreal East, namely Shell Canada, Gaz metropolitain and Ultramar.
Our open and welcoming approach has proved to be the driving force which has renewed the confidence of investors and prompted the management of those companies to invest in Montreal East.
For several days now the Liberals have been trying to use those investment projects in an insidious attempt to spread dissension among Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, our Government has achieved a national consensus. In the same way, Mr. Speaker, we intend to protect, maintain and strengthen the solidarity of Quebecers no matter where they live.
Aware of its responsibilities towards every region of Canada and Quebec, aware of the wider credibility it is gaining every day from private investors, aware of the challenges it has created for investors from all quarters, our Government will soon announce a strategy designed to inspire even more confidence on the part of investors, consumers and workers in Montreal and Quebec.


THE FAMILY
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the case of Mrs. Gwen Wills of Ottawa who has been unable to collect alimony payments for three years.
Mrs. Wills obtained an Ontario Supreme Court ruling ordering her husband to provide for some of the needs of their two children.
But her former husband left Ontario and now resides in Nova Scotia where he has launched a series of appeals against the ruling in a successful attempt to put off those payments.
Indeed Mrs. Wills' former husband does not have to pay alimony for as long as the case is before the court.
This case proves the urgency of establishing a Canada-wide alimony payments collection system. Unfortunately Bill C-48 does not provide for such a system which would help thousands of women in dire straits such as Mrs. Wills, because of legal proceedings.
In the meantime we are forced to realize that the rights of women and children are severely breached. One child out of five lives in poverty, and most of the victims of poverty in Canada happen to be women.
Bill C-48 will do nothing to keep track of defaulting husbands and will not be of any use to 80 per cent of women waiting in vain for their alimony payments.
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Wills is legally unable to defend herself, and 1 think that her predicament is absolutely absurd.
Therefore I urge the Government to amend Bill C-48 so that women in Canada will be able to receive their alimony payments.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the House has been following with interest the Government's attempt to set up a national tobacco marketing board. It was one of the first items of farm business to go through the House. Legislators here have been watching its progress with interest. One year after we passed the Bill there is still no board in place.
Farmers were agitating outside the House. The Minister took the two sides, locked them up under the old system, a provincial board, and announced to the delight of the House that there was an agreement. We now find that the agreement seems to have fallen apart when the two parties got together to sign it. The manufacturers have refused to sign and have decided to take some time off for the Christmas holidays.
The Government now has very few options. It can take the proposal from the National Products Marketing Council and sign it into law, which would permit the various provincial producer groups to take that agreement and begin negotiations from there. Instead, the Government seems to have chosen the route of going through the courts causing the resultant delay. Another point the Government should be very much aware of is that in the intervening time between now and when the agreement finally can be reached, there should be temporary border controls placed on importation of tobacco and tobacco products. It is unfair for the manufacturers-
December 20, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the latest survey of financial and economic forecasters of the Conference Board of Canada reveals that business investment spending is expected to continue its strong 1985 performance into 1986. According to the findings of this independent survey, growth of 6.6 per cent in general investment spending is expected in 1986. This represents an increase over the already high level of growth we experienced in 1985.
In addition, several trends are evident in the responses to the survey in the past few quarters. To start off, the average growth forecast for the GNE in 1985 has been steadily rising over the last four surveys and now averages 4 per cent. Second, the average growth rate projection for the GNE in 1986 has been increasing and now rests at 2.9 per cent, compared with 2.6 per cent in the fall survey. Finally, the over-all economic picture is improving steadily in the eyes of the forecasters.
All of these positive indicators are music to the ears of Canadians. Unfortunately, some people do not want to hear good news and I am referring to Hon. Members of the Opposition whose shortsightedness almost destroyed our economy. It is time that the Opposition starts giving credit where credit is due instead of constantly engaging in mud-slinging and backbiting.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to congratulate both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on the recently announced improvements to the Canada Pension Plan.
In exchange for slightly higher contributions, more Canadians than ever will be eligible for CPP benefits at an earlier age, and with less restrictions. I am especially pleased that survivor benefits will no longer be terminated if a widow or widower remarries. I am told that approximately 35,000 Canadians will have benefits reinstated as a result of this change. The disabled will have the base rate of their pensions increased by $136 per month, and I understand that 140,000 Canadians will benefit.
These two changes alone will result in 175,000 Canadians receiving more generous benefits, to say nothing of the many Canadians who will be eligible for CPP benefits five years earlier, at age 60, rather than at age 65, with appropriate actuarial adjustments.
Oral Questions	,
As a supporter of this Government I am very proud that, after little more than a year in office, the federal Government, with unanimous provincial support, has introduced the most generous and comprehensive amendments to the Canada Pension Plan since that Plan was enacted some 20 years ago.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, some people are very busy and get a lot done. Some others use the excuse that they are too busy so they do not have to do certain things. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) falls into the latter category.
A delegation of business people, labour and professional researchers from the Deep River area have been trying to have a meeting with the Minister ever since the disastrous cuts within AECL were announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget of May 23.
The Government cut the R and D budget of AECL by $100 million and robbed the company of another $70 million of retained earnings. The former Minister of Science and Technology stated in this House two days ago that money was not being taken out. He cannot even read the Government's own Budget Papers because it is right there in very plain language.
The Minister of Energy keeps saying that she does not have time to meet with the delegation from the Deep River-Chalk River area. I am amazed that she even had the time to approve the cuts. However, she obviously was around then. This is a case of hit and run or, even worse, a case of hit and then hide. I wrote a follow-up letter to the Minister on August 1 asking for a meeting with her on behalf of the business community, labour representatives and research scientists. To date my letter has not even been acknowledged. The Minister is still saying she does not have time to meet with people in the community.
This is a perfect example of how this so-called open Government works. Ministers do not have time for small business people, labour or scientific researchers in Canada. Because of the manner in which she is-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Perhaps you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself

December 20, 1985
Oral Questions
and my colleagues, to offer to you and, through you, the staff of the House of Commons and our pages our warmest Christmas greetings and wishes for a happy holiday. 1 also want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the very spectacular lights on the Hill this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: They may be the only light we have had in recent days.
[ Translation]
And I also wish to offer the Prime Minister personally, his family and the Members of his caucus and also the Hon. Member for Oshawa and his colleagues, our best wishes for the holiday season.

I also want to extend those greetings to the Fourth Estate, members of the Press Gallery.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Nystrom:: Not Duffy.


John Napier Turner: We also want to remember Canadians less fortunate than ourselves, those who are out of work and having a tough time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that the de Havilland documents are going to be presented to a parliamentary committee which will have an opportunity to review the deal, I hope the Government has drawn a lesson from this. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that in any future sale of a Crown corporation the full documentation and details of that sale will be referred to a parliamentary committee before the sale is closed?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I want to thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition for his generous comments to all Members of the House, Mr. Speaker. May I take this opportunity on behalf of my Party and the Government to extend to him and all of his colleagues, as well as the Hon. Member for Oshawa and his colleagues, and to you, Mr. Speaker-but I will not go much beyond that-as well as to all members of the Gallery and our staff, our very best wishes as well for happy holidays.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In any future transactions we will be respectful of the traditions and customs of the House and we will be searching for ways to provide as much information as possible to Members of the Opposition and public.


REQUEST FOR PRECISE RULES FOR FUTURE SALES OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when a Crown corporation is put up for sale, we must remember these companies belong to Canadian taxpayers, who are the real shareholders.
In the circumstances, could the Prime Minister, in future, provide more specific rules for prior consideration of these transactions, including information on the future of the jobs involved, the future of Canadian technology and research, and especially on whether control will remain in Canadian hands?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have ever denied the fact that we have an obligation to provide the Opposition and the Canadian people with all the facts of the case, while bearing in mind that we are also talking about a commercial transaction that has a number of confidential aspects, which is only normal.
There are elements that may become problematic if they are revealed before the sale is closed. I think we all know that. However, this does not relieve us from our responsibility to be open in all circumstances, where the sale of Crown assets is concerned. We were in this particular case, and we hope to be even more so in subsequent cases to be considered by the House. In any event, the Leader of the Official Opposition can count on our co-operation at all times with respect to matter that are so vitally important to us.


SOCIAL SECURITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have one final question. In view of the widespread opposition in the country, particularly that of our religious leaders, would the Prime Minister withdraw Bill C-70 relating to the deindexation of family allowances?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benjamin:: I'll agree to that.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have great respect, Mr. Speaker, not only for the religious leaders to whom my right hon. friend refers, but for other leaders in the country, many of whom have expressed deep gratification with the course that the Government is following to restore sanity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 20, 1985


Mr. Ouellet:: Come on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As a result of that, the course upon which we have embarked will be followed because we believe that, as the OECD reported yesterday, the Government of Canada is doing better than any other of the OECD countries with few exceptions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know my right hon. friend would wish us well in the pursuit of jobs and justice for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF BILL C-70
Mr. Jean-Claude Multipart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, it is the holiday season and therefore a time when we should express our generosity, not just in words but also by our actions. Everyone in Canada will be exchanging gifts at Christmas and New Year's. We have here representatives from all the groups that are asking you ... 1 am not just speaking for the Opposition but for all these people, religious leaders, family agencies and women, who are all asking whether you would have the generosity to announce immediately the withdrawal of Bill C-70, for the sake of all the children across this country.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times in the House, there is an increase in the child tax credit which makes up for any changes in the family allowance.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Scrooge.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As Members know, there will also be an increase in the family allowance as of January 1 rather than the decrease which they have been speaking of in the country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That's inaccurate.


Mr. Heap:: You know that's not true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Additionally, Bill C-70 follows the principle of directing the money in social policies to those in greatest need. That principle remains.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY IF PRIME MINISTER WILLING TO MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF CERTAIN GROUPS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, why has your office
Oral Questions
refused to let you meet all our religious leaders and the family agencies who have a very important matter to discuss with you? Would the Prime Minister be prepared to meet them outside the House?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been meeting with various groups, not only in relation to Bill C-70. The Minister of Finance and I have recently been meeting with social reform groups and considering further issues. Those meetings will continue. The Member should keep in mind that Ministers of the Government have been meeting with these groups and will continue to do so. If he looks at the record he will find that that is the case.


INQUIRY IF PRIME MINISTER DISPOSED TO DISCUSS GOVERNMENT'S DECISION TO REDUCE FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: I want to begin my questioning by joining the Prime Minister and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in wishing, on behalf of my colleagues, all Members opposite a joyful personal year in the months ahead.


John Napier Turner: What about us?


John Edward Broadbent: And with respect to the Party to my right, figuratively speaking, I say without qualification that 1 wish it and all its members and their families, in their personal lives, an enjoyable new year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I even extend that, without qualification, with total generosity as the Prime Minister might say, to all the men and women up there in that Gallery.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Expect Mike Duffy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Now, to get back to Scrooge-
[ Translation]

I have a question about the Government's decision to reduce family allowances. Here in Ottawa, we have a coalition representing a large number of Canadians from all regions, and it wants to meet today with the Prime Minister. My question is directed to the Prime Minister: Will he accept this invitation? Would he be prepared to discuss with Canadians the Government's decision to reduce family allowances?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that discussion has been taking place. It has taken place on the Budget, on the Bill, in the Legislative Committee, and again when the Bill came back. It has been taking place with members of the Government and members of

December 20, 1985
Oral Questions
the Opposition meeting with the public. That discussion has taken place.
I believe that the airing of the matter has been adequate. Furthermore, 1 remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party that when we look at benefits to families, he should also be reminded of the increase in the child tax credit, that there was a strong representation from social groups to change the tax expense for children on the basis that it gave greatest benefit to those with greatest income, and that there was a change to the family allowance that he has addressed personally.
I think we must look at that entire package. I believe the debate has been adequate.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister that I am also aware of the fact that the Government has given a capital gains tax gift to the rich of Canada that will cost the treasury some $500 million a year, which is more than enough to continue family allowance payments the way they should be.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET CHURCH REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHER GROUPS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister because the request for a meeting is with him, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That meeting is requested by representatives of the church, women's groups, representatives of the rich and poor and families throughout Canada. That request to meet with the Prime Minister was made some time ago. Will he meet with them sometime today in an act of generosity and Christmas spirit?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably fair to say that I have been very accessible to groups who wish to meet with me. I have done it on a regular basis at all times. I have never turned down a reasonable request at any time for a meeting that 1 could accommodate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about women?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that Ministers have-meeting with the women? I am the first Prime Minister to meet with representatives of women's groups in this country on a regular basis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And with representatives of the poor, with religious groups and peace groups. I am the first Prime Minister of the country to go to speak to the peace groups.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You don't listen and you do not do anything when they ask.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask Hon. Members to please allow questions to be put and answered.


André Ouellet: That is not an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We were elected to deal with the important social problems. For example, the people here who believe today-I know it is not Christmas-like for them to do so-but the people in the galleries should remember that when we brought in our economic program the Members opposite were predicting a loss of 200,000 jobs, but 416,000 new jobs were created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is social justice for the country.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind all Members on all sides that any reference to the presence of anybody in the gallery is entirely out of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is right, as he is, that the economy is doing better than not only the Government's forecast and the Opposition's forecast-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions and answers should be allowed to be put and answered without applause and comments.


An Hon. Member:: It is a big "if".


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Prime Minister with this improvement he should show some generosity by making sure the people get the money who need it, namely, the recipients of family allowances.
Since the Prime Minister has just suggested that he is willing to meet with a lot of groups, instead of meeting with groups at his convenience when he wants to persuade them to do something, will he meet with a group that wants to meet him to persuade him to change his mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a supplementary question. It is simply the same question put for the third time, with respect.


Mr. Manly:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 am perfectly prepared to allow supplementary questions but-


John Edward Broadbent: It is a new rule.


Mr. Axworthy:: It is a new rule.
December 20, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: No, it is not a new rule. The same question put over and over is contrary to our practice. Order, please. The Hon. Member for York Centre.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: I note that the President of the Treasury Board is back, Mr. Speaker. I hope he heard the news-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -that there has been a very welcome flip-flop by his Party over the question of giving information on the de Havilland sale.
I note that the brokerage firm of Burns Fry has been used as the agent on four of five of the Government's privatizations. There are other good firms that are capable of doing that work. I understand as well that very large commissions will be paid. Will that aspect of this transaction and all the documents be reviewed by the committee looking into the de Havilland sale?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: 1
would like to thank my hon. colleague for his words of welcome. I was absent yesterday because I was meeting with the ambassadors from the European Economic Community at the behest of the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: What is the country going to get?


Robert René de Cotret: On the question of information, Mr. Speaker, I think we have made available on the whole transaction all the information that was potentially available to the Opposition from a commercial point of view.
I further made available this morning an addendum to the memorandum outlining many of the points that were made in this House over the last few weeks just so Members opposite can focus their minds more clearly on the specific details that have obviously been concerning them. We will continue in that same spirit of providing all the details.
We are still committed, I would like to emphasize, to the sale of de Havilland to Boeing. We will throughout this process make available, as I indicated in my covering note this morning, all available information. Please phone or call, and we will give you the information that you request.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


AWARDING OF BROKERAGE CONTRACTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I consider the Burns Fry information to be very relevant and important. We want to be certain that all these privatizations are not being used as a way of awarding very lucrative business to the friends of the Government.
Again, if I phoned and asked for that information, as the Minister has invited me to do, will I get it?


Robert René de Cotret: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of the privatization exercise, we have employed a great number of firms. I would be happy to make the list available to the Hon. Member. There is no problem there whatsoever.
The reason we are employing a considerable number of outside advisers is to make sure that we are protecting the Canadian taxpayer in every way possible in the sale and divestiture of Crown assets by ensuring that we have the best possible advice. The list is much longer than just one firm. For that reason, I would like to take it under-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since he and the Minister of Finance promised to reconsider budget cuts to social programs when the economy improved, and since the P.M. feels the economy has improved, will he agree to take steps now to index family allowances fully for January? It will cost only $75 million.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we are gratified by the manner in which the economy is responding to the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are also pleased the Hon. Member's Leader has recognized that fact. What we are saying to her-as we have said in the Budget and as we have said subsequently-is that the Government is looking at further social policy initiatives on an ongoing basis. Obviously we want to get the finances of Canada and the deficit under control. Let me say to the Hon. Member that the best guarantee she and Canadians can have for better social programs is for us to have an economy that can afford those social programs. That is our job. That is the relationship between social and economic policy, and we will continue on that path.

December 20, 1985
Oral Questions


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There is absolutely no justification for taking money from children, Mr. Speaker, when there is money coming in through the economy.


USE OF MINIMUM TAX REVENUE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: I want to ask a question of the Finance Minister this time since the Prime Minister will not answer. He has recently introduced a minimum tax, or is in the process of doing so. We agree with that: we will have $300 million extra in the kitty.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a question please?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Finance Minister use the $300 million as extra income to reindex the family allowance in 1986?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member continues to isolate the family allowance. If she is going to be honest with herself and her constituents, she will be looking at this as a total package. The child tax credit has been increasing significantly, much higher than the reduction in the growth rate of the family allowance. As well, something she herself has been calling for-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is still deindexed. Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -is a reduction in the child tax exemption.
I would like to be able to say to the Hon. Member that as the economy performs, as we are able to generate the economic activity, that is starting to occur in a very favourable way and the OECD report has been, I think, quite pointed in the way it has referred to the economy this year, by saying that it has no policy recommendations for the Government of Canada. Because things are going so well the OECD has nothing more to add to the policy directions that we have already taken.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Prime Minister had the nerve to inform the House he was available, when we know that the Mayor of Port Cartier has been trying to reach him for a month and a half, but without success.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the people of Port Cartier that with him as their elected representative, the employment problem at the ITT plant would be dealt with.
For months, Cascades Inc. has been setting up a project, and the only other partner they need to carry out the project is the federal Government.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Why does he insist on undermining the credibility of the promoter and on ignoring urgent calls for help from the Mayor of Port Cartier and people who are seeking jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement is erroneous in the extreme.
On the North Shore, we did indeed inherit a disastrous situation, thanks to the policies of the Liberal Government and the federal Government in Port Cartier, where the impact was very serious indeed. The federal Government has agreed to invest $60 million at Port Cartier which will create 450 new jobs on a permanent basis, something the people appreciate as a very important step.
Furthermore, regarding the ITT matter and others as well, I had an opportunity to discuss this last Friday with Premier Bourassa, who is very interested in this particular case. If there is a solution, it will take joint action on this issue and on others as well. In fact, we will probably have an announcement to make in the near future.


CASCADES INC.-GOVERNMENT'S OFFER-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Prime Minister may have discussed this with the Premier of Quebec, but the Quebec Premier's offer is on the table. I just spoke to Mr. Bernard Lemaire, President of Cascades, who told me that if by January 1 the federal Government had not made its offer of $12 million as stipulated, there would be no more promoter-


Mr. Speaker:: The question, please!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Is the Prime Minister going to deliver the goods by January 1? Otherwise, he can kiss the project goodbye.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is interesting. Now if the promoter feels that the way to proceed is through the Liberal Opposition, that is his concern. But as far as we are concerned, we are handling this jointly with the Government of Quebec.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Shades of Duplessis!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is a joint dossier involving both the Quebec Government and the federal Government.
Mr. Bourrassa was sworn in last Thursday. We met that Friday, the very next day.


André Ouellet: A federal decision!
December 20, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: A decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -was made, Mr. Speaker, to assign Messrs. Roch Bolduc and Paul Tellier, our respective Clerks, to work on these issues. We are expecting to receive a joint recommendation, from Messrs. Tellier and Bolduc in the near future, on a series of projects, including Port Cartier. And 1 think I can inform my hon. friend that Port Cartier and the North Shore will fare much better in this instance than they did under the Liberal Government.


AIR TRANSPORT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Transport. They arise from the events of the last few weeks and the statements which he has made. The Minister has said that he will not allow any deregulation or legislative changes which would denigrate safety, maintenance, and inspection. How does he know how to do that without having conducted a thorough, in-depth study, including the Transport Committee, to define properly, in strong and clear terms, what "fit, willing and able" mean, and what the whole matter of freedom of entry and exit means in the areas of safety, maintenance, and inspection? Is it his intention to do that before he brings in legislation, and when will he be bringing in that legislation?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should know that the position paper presented in July reflected the Government's desire to move toward regulatory reform. We identified a number of areas of concern, which we asked the Standing Committee on Transport to look at and give us recommendations. I have received those recommendations. Certainly they will be taken into consideration during the drafting process. Anything in that report which will enhance safety or economic regulatory reform and produce the best transportation framework for Canada, to meet its unique circumstances, will certainly be taken into account.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON SAFETY MEASURES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in his last report the Auditor General indicated that none of the Transport Canada regional offices could inspect all airlines in their jurisdiction even once a year, and the Minister has said that he has beefed up safety measures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will he say-


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.
Oral Questions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Wait for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, a question, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will he say exactly, in some detail, what that beefing up consists of? All I have seen is a campaign poster which reads: "Think security in airports in Canada". What has he done to beef up inspection procedures and the number of inspectors required to do a decent job?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the system-wide operation, there are some 614 inspectors. With regard to the passenger safety side, there has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of people between 1984-85 and 1985-86. That is a clear indication that safety is of paramount importance. Surely the Hon. Member knows that we just passed the Aeronautics Bill, which amounts to the most progressive aviation legislation in the world. Surely he also knows that in many areas of transportation safety the mechanisms are beefed up. There are more mechanisms to enforce the necessary rules and regulations. I hope the Hon. Member will continue to work with us in improving the environment of safety to which I am committed and to which I am sure he is committed.


ENTRY OF SERVICE TECHNICIANS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. He will know that manufacturers in my riding and throughout Canada have had trouble in recent months getting after sales service people into the United States. This is still a problem. Could the Minister tell us whether something will finally be done about it?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise the Hon. Member that yesterday the United States Court of Appeal set aside the ruling of the lower court until such time as the appeal is heard. Our workers and servicemen will now be able to continue to enter the States to service those contracts without any problems. Also I am happy to advise him that I discussed the problem with Mr. Yeutter during my talks this past Wednesday, with a view to seeking a permanent solution to the problem.
Oral Questions LOBBYING


PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1985
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On September 9 the Prime Minister promised the following in a document which he sent to my office:
I have accordingly asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to prepare, on an urgent basis, legislation to govern lobbying activity.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House what forced him to break yet another promise to the Canadian people?
[ Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we have quite simply decided to give the matter more consideration, and we hope that Canadians generally will indeed express their views. It would certainly be more constructive if the Hon. Member were to voice his representations before the parliamentary committee instead of indulging in cheap criticisms.


ALLEGED PRESSURE EXERTED BY LOBBYISTS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In an interview yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs admitted that lobbyists had brought pressure to bear on him with respect to this matter. Can he tell us today who were those lobbyists who used such pressure tactics? Can he name them and, more particularly, can he tell us why he listened to them, contrary to the advice of his leader?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the impact of regulations on lobbyists and lobbying deserves more consideration and public airing, which is why we made that decision.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister; I hope he will answer it. In the spirit of Christmas, and as a gift to the kids of the country, will he now withdraw Bill C-70, a Bill to deindex family allowances?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the best gift that any Government can try to give to the
kids of the country is jobs and a sound economy, and that is what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are going to take that mountain of debt off the backs of the children of the country, which was being placed there by you and your Liberal friends.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are finally going to give the kids of the country an equal chance for some growth and prosperity and new jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE WITHDRAWN
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have heard enough rhetoric.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 would like an answer to the question. Will he or will he not withdraw Bill C-70? Why chisel on the children of the country? Will he or will he not withdraw that Bill? 1 want an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the answer in this case. May I remind the Hon. Member that there are several Hon. Members of his own Party who are rising to ask questions. I will therefore allow this to be the last time that simple question is asked.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as you indicated, it is the same question, and the same answer applies.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. I know it is the time of year for the giving and receiving of gifts, but a 13-year-old boy from my riding recently received an unsolicited catalogue from a film distribution company based in Canada. The material, or trash, contained in the brochure was, in my opinion, of an explicit, pornographic nature and entirely unsuitable for a minor, particularly one as young as 13 years old. Can the Minister tell the House how this type of material can he sent through our postal system to a 13-year-old boy, and what steps the Government is taking to prevent this type of occurrence?
December 20, 1985


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this to my attention. 1 share his concern.
1 will bring this matter to the Security and Investigation Branch of Canada Post Corporation for its review and recommendations.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to know whether or not the Prime Minister gave his permission for the Christmas-in-Barbados junket undertaken at the taxpayers' expense by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth in order to open an office which has been open for the last six months?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the report in this morning's press, the one to which the Hon. Member is apparently referring. The matter will be the subject of inquiry to see whether or not the accuracy level of it is of the same standards as the accuracy level of several other similar stories that have come out in the last several months.


TRAVEL BY MINISTERS AND MEMBERS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, Canadian government officials in Barbados confirmed today that the trip was organized at a time when the Member was probably going to be in the Barbados anyway at his own family hideaway. I would ask the Prime Minister, in light of the fact that he is asking the women and children of the country to pay through cut-backs in the increases in family allowances, how he can justify April in Paris, July and August on safari, and Christmas in the Barbados for his own Members of Parliament.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And Taiwan for Boudria.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to know if he is going to send a cheque for $ 15,000 back to the Government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to my question. The women and children of this country want an answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This is the House of Commons and you're ripping off taxpayers. It's a taxpayers' rip-off.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is indeed the House of
Commons.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, answer!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It refers to the closure by the Government of the heavy water plants on Cape Breton Island. As a result of those closures, 630 workers have lost their jobs and they will lose up to 60 per cent of their severance package to income tax. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not he will grant the tax remission to those workers that they have requested?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concerns of my colleague. As he knows, we met with some of the employees last October and I would like to point out to the Hon. Member and to the House that the severance package offered by AECL is an equitable one and that there is a measure of tax relief available to those employees either by using contributions to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan or a Registered Pension Plan. I can only assure the Hon. Member that we will consider studying the situation.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member and the House that the Government, led by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, is doing something far more practical. We are making extraordinary efforts to provide alternative jobs for the people of Cape Breton, which in the end is the most practical solution.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL CONSIDERATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Obviously that is where the log jam lies. I would like to give the Minister a chance to be Santa Claus. In light of the fact that these workers face a very bleak future while at this time we are lucky enough to have jobs, will the Minister of Finance give the serious consideration that was given by the Prime Minister to the workers of Gagnon, to a tax remission for these 630 workers from an area in which the chances of getting a job are very, very bleak indeed? Can he at least do that for them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member knows, I have had a number of discussions with the Hon. Member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso on this particular matter and we are reviewing the question very carefully. I would ask the Hon. Member not to spread these negative doubts about the future of Cape Breton.
9670

December 20, 1985
Oral Questions
As my colleague has just said, we are making extraordinary efforts through the Cape Breton tax credit, the most generous tax credit available in any part of the country. It is starting to work.


John R. Rodriguez: Why don't you give them some help now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is. We are helping people now because people are gettings jobs as a result of that tax credit.


John R. Rodriguez: But they're not going to get those jobs for a long time. You give them some help. Give them some help now.


Some Hon. Members:: Louder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Minister for International Trade. As the Minister may be aware, Vancouver Island remains one of the last densely populated areas in Canada which does not enjoy the benefits of natural gas. Consequently, recent media reports that Canada may be providing substantial financial assistance toward a proposed natural gas pipeline in India have created some consternation among the citizens of Vancouver Island. Would the Minister clarify the Government's financial involvement in the India gas line project and the reasons behind that involvement?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise the Hon. Member that India has called for bids on a pipeline project. A number of Canadian companies are interested in it and, to enable them to be in a position to bid on it, export financing must be made available. I am happy to announce that the Export Development Corporation is prepared to make export financing available for a company from Canada that would be successful in bidding on this project, and no aid or concessional financing from CIDA is involved in this matter.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. I
received a letter from a solicitor in Manitoba which alleges a very serious breach in the confidentiality of the tax system. According to this document, the Canadian tax authorities have given information to U.S. tax authorities relating to the exact earnings European investors holding assets in this country have received. I believe that this constitutes a serious breach of Section 241 of the Income Tax Act. Did the Minister authorize the transfer of this information to U.S. tax authorities? Does he know about it, and does he not also consider it to be a serious breach of our tax system?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it is a very serious matter if there are some irregularities involved. However, as the Hon. Member knows, pursuant to tax treaties between countries, the provision of information under certain circumstances in permissible. I will check to see whether or not there has been any breach in procedure, either on our part or on the part of American recipients of this information pursuant to the treaty. I will report back to the House.


CONCEPT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Government has several times in the House used the concept of confidentiality as a means of protecting disclosure of information on such matters as the Gulf takeover. There now seems to be a free flow of information to U.S. tax authorities. Will the Minister provide us with the guidelines which are used and which set out what rules are now applied by his officials in supplying information to U.S. tax authorities on any resident or non-resident in Canada who pays taxes in this country?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider this as a representation. However, I want to tell my colleague that I think he is exaggerating when he talks about a free flow of information. I do not believe that to be the case. I repeat to him that there are certain exceptions to Section 241 and to confidentiality requirements pursuant to tax treaties between countries. If there has been any breach of these types of safeguards, I will certainly provide him with the details.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, December 19, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
However, 129 petitions out of 300 presented do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
December 20, 1985


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You guys are misleading the country!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask all Members and all Ministers to come to order.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask all Members and all Ministers, and all Ministers and all Members, to come to order, please.
The two petitions presented by filing with the Clerk of the House meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you it is indeed an attack on the privileges of every Member of this House when certain false accusations are made against an Hon. Member in the House by another Hon. Member, which has been done on repeated occasions by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney).
The Prime Minister made reference to the trip which 1 took to Taiwan with Conservative Members from Mississauga North (Mr. Horner), Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), York North (Mr. Roman) and Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux), and others. The Prime Minister has insinuated falsely, I submit to you-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André Ouellet: Listen to him, he has a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear any argument with regard to any matter, 1 must ask the Hon. Member to tell me precisely what his question of privilege is.


André Ouellet: He is doing that!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) will please allow me to hear the Hon. Member's argument.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell knows that our practices are that rather than give me the argument he may wish to put to the House at this point, he must give me immediately his prima facie case of privilege.


André Ouellet: That is what he is doing.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that there have been serious erroneous attacks by a Member of Parliament
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
against another Member of Parliament, which is my initial submission.


Mr. Speaker:: Would you please fix the House microphone.


Don Boudria: 1 submitted to you in the first sentence that an untrue attack made by a Member of Parliament against another Member in this House is an abuse of our parliamentary privileges.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A lie!


Don Boudria: 1 was going on to describe very briefly what, indeed, that attack had been by the Hon. Member for Manicouagan, the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member is making an allegation that-


André Ouellet: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member is arguing that a mistatement of fact on one side or the other is the substance of his-


André Ouellet: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is that the basis of his suggestion, that there is a question of privilege involved? I think he knows that is not true.


Mr. Gauthier:: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the Hon. Member knows that, if he believes that something has been said which is improper or otherwise, there are recourses which he may take. However, it is not a question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to refer you to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 319. During Oral Questions the Prime Minister referred to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell by his family name. I think that is contrary to the rules and customs of the House. I want Your Honour to remind the Prime Minister that we are supposed to be addressed properly in the House. I refer to him as the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I think he should be made aware of the rules and follows them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised a correct point of order. In fact, it is the practice and custom of the House not to use family names and that all Members should be referred to by their ridings. I ask all Members-all Members-to remember that rule since it is honoured increasingly in the breach.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The first point of order I will hear will be that of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).

December 20, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme
[Translation\


POINTS OR ORDER
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling a while ago about the petitions tabled yesterday, and my point of order concerns those petitions.
The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), who is a very good friend, tabled a petition which said that the Official Opposition was presenting too many petitions yesterday.
I immediately went to the table to read the petition and to obtain a photocopy. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was very surprised to hear that I would not get a complete photocopy, which is quite unprecedented. I was told: You can have a photocopy of half of it, namely the text, but not of the names.
However, I already knew quite well what the petition of the Hon. Member for Athabasca said and I wanted to know who were these Canadians who objected vigourously to having the Opposition present a series of petitions on deindexation.
I was very surprised at what happened, Mr. Speaker, because, for the last several years, I have been able to get nearly on the spot all the photocopies I wished of certain petitions which had caught my attention when I wanted to see the names of those who had signed them. I was therefore quite surprised not to be able to get a copy since these documents are official. Moreover, I was informed that I could copy it by hand later, but I could have sat down at the table to copy the names.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to see the names of these people immediately to satisfy myself that, while they might be Canadians from various parts of the country, they probably were, as they were indeed, I believe, employees of the House of Commons, and they had signed the petition on the spot.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, before a precedent is set, and in accordance with Citation 344 of the Fourth Edition of Beau-chesne, I would like to ask you to rule today that, if a Member asks for a photocopy of a document which has been made public by the fact of being tabled, he should get it, and get all of it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I resolve this point of order, please. I will then hear from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), followed by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).
1 think the Hon. Member is raising a point of order which was brought to my attention earlier this morning. The Hon. Member did leave a note at my office last night. I was otherwise occupied at that precise moment.
I have checked our practices. I understand it is our practice, in fact, not to reply to requests generally for photocopies of petitions but to indicate that petitions are available for reading, after, of course, a judgemnt has been made with respect to whether or not they are in order. Therefore, I appreciate the point the Hon. Member is raising. I would be perfectly happy to review our practices and report back to the Chamber on the matter.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West on a point of order.


ALLEGED ACCUSATION BY MR. MULRONEY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have always understood it to be the tradition that when something is said by an Hon. Member which is untrue, the Hon. Member about which it is said has the right to rise in his place and put the facts before the House. In the case of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), he wants to put before the House that the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with respect to his having spent taxpayers' funds to go to Taiwan is untrue.


Mr. Tobin:: Absolutely false.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Either on a point of order or on a question of privilege, it has always been traditional for the Hon. Member to have the right to set that out.
In fact, if Your Honour looks at the precedents you will see that there have been occasions when allegations by one Member against another have been accepted as grounds for a question of privilege, referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and have been the matter of a decision. One way or another this House will be tainted unless the untrue and unfair accusation of the Prime Minister against the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is put aside.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West has, indeed, just done what it is our custom to do. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rose on a question of privilege which, in my view, is quite a different matter. I asked him to repeat his question of privilege and what he put before the House was the issue that there was a question of privilege involved.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was a lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Be quiet, Sheila.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate exactly the point the Hon. Member for Windsor West is making. That is why I chose to let him make his point of order. However, I have always tried to make the distinction between the use of a short statement under a point of order, which I understand to have certain values and meanings, and the use of that through a Question
December 20, 1985

of Privilege, which I happen to regard as a very distinct and special issue of parliamentary matter.
Therefore, I think the Hon. Member for Windsor West can draw from what I have said that 1 have sympathy with what he is saying as a point of order. I think the point has been made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Are you going to recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a point of order so he can put the facts on the record?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the Hon. Member for Windsor West has put the facts on the record.


John Napier Turner: They are not on the
record.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West has made a point of order-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You interrupted him.


Mr. Speaker:: -which is not a point of order, and I have tried to deal with it as best I can.
The next point of order I received was from the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Then I will hear the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) said in his point of order that he wanted to check-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are debating.


Jack Wendele Shields: the petition with respect to whether the petitioners were real Canadians or House of Commons staff. 1 got that on translation and I just wanted some clarification. I am sure he is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting farther and farther and farther away from what is a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will write up another petition.


Don Boudria: Following your advice, I would like to raise the matter I raised with you previously but this time on a point of order, which 1 understand is your direction. I will be very brief in explaining to this House that I believe the accusations made against me by the Prime Minister are untrue, are false and certainly should not have been made in this House of Commons.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that at no time at all during the trip which seven Conservative Members of Parliament and 1 made to Taiwan were public taxpayers' funds used. The allegations were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to review the "blues" as we refer to them, and arrive at a judgment upon it yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You just want to protect the Taiwanese.
Petitions


John Napier Turner: Every time you try it,
Ray, we are going to get up-every time.


Mr. Speaker:: Could 1 ask Hon. Members and Right Hon. Members to come to order, please.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has put his view of what is true on the record and that is what that procedure is for. There is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege involved.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a large number of residents of British Columbia, including a number of residents from Hornby Island and from Vancouver Island, as well as the lower mainland, who are concerned that the deindexation of universal family allowance and the cut-back in public commitment to child benefits will have a particularly unfair effect on single parent mothers. They call upon us in the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases of the last Budget.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very lengthy petition signed by almost every resident of the community of Stewart in Northwestern British Columbia. The petitioners hope that the House will do something to encourage that the logs which are presently being exported through the Port of Stewart be loaded on ships locally. This will help to create immediate jobs in the Town of Stewart. The Stewart residents feel they deserve a part of the value of this forest

December 20, 1985
Petitions
resource. I would like to thank Lloyd and Joan Jagoda and Frank Morrison for co-ordinating-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the duty of presenting to the House some petitions asking the Government in this festive season to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
These petitions are from Etobicoke-Centre, from Portneuf, Quebec, and from the federal constituency of St. Paul's, in Ontario. Another petition is from Hull-Aylmer, and finally I have another one from the federal riding of Richelieu, Province of Quebec.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty of presenting to the House a petition that comes somewhat belatedly, but on which I want to act just the same. It is a petition from people living in the Habitations LeMans, one of the major institutions in my constituency, run by Mr. Euclide Laliberte. Those constituents asked that the Government maintain full indexation of old age security pensions. They will be happy to know that this has been done, but I want to table the petition on their behalf just the same.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and the privilege of tabling in this House some petitions signed by residents of Leross, Semans, Nokomis and Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. All of these petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate the full indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to the House of Commons a series of petitions dealing with the family allowance. These petitioners are from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta. These petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several hundred people from my riding dealing with the family allowance. These people state specifically that, in their opinion, the deindexation of universal family allowances is an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent mothers, and that the cut-backs in family allowances are unfair in the face of budget
hand-outs of billions of dollars to the oil companies and to the banks.
1 have another petition with regard to family allowances from another group of residents from Winnipeg with slightly different wording.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have three different petitions here. The first two petitions relate to the test range at Nanoose. One petition calls for the agreement between Canada and the United States not to be renewed until a full public inquiry has been held.
The second petition states that because of the test range's contribution to militarism and its damage to the environment, the agreement should not be renewed at all.


James Douglas Manly: I have a third petition, Mr. Speaker, which calls upon the Government to rescind its plans to deindex family allowance partially and to rescind unfair tax increases which are combined at the same time with tax give aways to oil companies and banks.


Mr. Speaker:: I will rturn to petitions in a moment but there is something I should say now which I should have said before.


Mr. Speaker:: The House, I believe, will want to extend congratulations to one of our very special people. There is a gentleman sitting at the Table whose last day at the Table will be today. He is not leaving the House of Commons, 1 assure Hon. Members. Maxime Guitard has given unbelievably fine service at the Table. He will be performing a new job as of next week. He is not leaving the Chamber, 1 assure those of you who care, as we all do, about Maxime. I thought the House would want to extend its congratulations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting on behalf of citizens of the
December 20, 1985

federal constituency of Shefford a common grievance on the problem of family allowances. These citizens would like the federal Government to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, 1 will also present the same petition on behalf of residents of the federal constituency of Richmond-South Delta in British Columbia, residents of the wonderful constituency of Hillsborough in Prince Edward Island, and residents of the constituency of Okanagan North in British Columbia.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from people in several constituencies in Canada relating to the deindexation of family allowances. These people pray that the Canadian House of Commons reinstate the full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind this unfair form of tax increase. The first petition is from Trois Rivieres in the Province of Quebec. The second petition is from Kootenay West in British Columbia and is signed by many people from that area. The third petition is from the constituency of Assiniboia in Saskatchewan. It is signed by a lengthy list of petitioners and is with regard to the deindexation of family allowances-

-in the riding of Champlain, Province of Quebec.

I have a petition from the great riding of Etobicoke-Lake-shore in Toronto signed by many petitioners. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Broadview-Green-wood, also in Toronto, signed by many petitioners. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the riding of Sarnia-Lambton which is signed by a large number of Canadian citizens from that riding.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I want to join you in congratulating Mr. Maxime Guitard, and thank him for his loyal and extraordinary services to the House of Commons. It is my hope that we will continue receiving his excellent advice, which he always extends in a fair and equitable way to all Members in this House.

As an officer of the Table his duty is to treat every Member of the House of Commons equally, new or old, from any of the three Parties. I think he has given a good example of that, as have all the others, of course.
Petitions
[ Translation]



Marcel Prud'homme: To comply with Your Honour's wishes, I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to table a number of petitions. The first one is signed by a group from the Champlain riding, namely, the Coalition des femmes pour les allocations familiales, concerning the Government's decision to deindex family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table another petition from people residing in the federal riding of Portneuf who are asking again the Prime Minister of Canada to renounce its project to deindex the family allowances and child tax credit. I take this opportunity to congratulate my friend the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who has tabled a great many petitions we are all aware of his complete dedication to this cause, and I hope he will have a restful Holiday Season, because he has been very active throughout the year, having been selected by our caucus as our champion on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on the same subject from Toronto. It is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Cabinet and begs them to reconsider their final decision. While offering you my best wishes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to present my last petition from the fabulous, beautiful district of Kootenay West where Expo '86 will be held-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Expo will not be held in Kootenay West!


Marcel Prud'homme: Expo '86 will be held in Vancouver, British Columbia. Maybe some people will offer each other gifts during the Christmas season and go to Expo in British Columbia. It is a beautiful province and it is going to be a fabulous Expo. However, the people there are also very, very worried about this project to deindex family allowances. I would like to table this petition, Mr. Speaker.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, petitions continue to flood in every day on the issue of having family allowances reindexed to the real cost of living so that children and mothers will not suffer through a reduced family support system.
The first petitions are from Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. The next petition also asks for full indexation of the universal family allowance and for the House of Commons to rescind the unfair tax increase. It is from Calgary, Alberta.
I have another petition on the same subject from Edmonton, Alberta, the land of Conservatives who are telling the Conservatives to reindex the family allowance.
I also have a petition from Saskatchewan with quite a number of names on it, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners are saying that the accelerated cut-backs in child benefits on top of the sales tax changes and excise tax increases are unfair.

December 20, 1985
Petitions
They are asking that those taxes be rescinded and that the family allowance be fully indexed.
I have quite a number of petitions from Ontario. The first is from Kanata, Kingston, and Gloucester, Ontario. It protests the deindexation of universal family allowances, the massive cuts that this will mean to child benefits, and the unfair taxes. They call for full indexation of the universal family allowance.
Another petition is from Crystal Beach, Ontario, which is near where I grew up. There are quite a number of signatures on it. I am glad that the good people of Crystal Beach, Ontario, realize that the Conservatives are doing a disservice to Canadians, particularly to Canadian families. They are calling for the reindexation of the univeral family allowance and the rescinding of unfair tax increases.
I have another petition which is from the machinists' union, as was the last one. This one is signed by citizens of St. Thomas Ontario. They are opposed to the Government policy and, I am sure they would expect the Government, now that it is saying that the economy is improved, to fulfil its promise not to cut back on social programs if the economy improves. These people want full indexation returned to the family allowance.
The next petition is on the same subject and is from a number of members of the Gray family in Aylmer, Ontario. They also protest the cuts in the family allowance.
Several of the many petitions I have yet to present are from British Columbia. The first one is from Victoria Drive in Vancouver in my riding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the Member is well aware of the rules. If she has more petitions on the same subject, could she please file them with the Table?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I just have two more petitions from Vancouver which I would like to include. They are on the same subject and ask the Government and the House of Commons to reindex the family allowance to the full cost of living and to rescind unfair tax increases before Christmas.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to table a number of petitions against deindexation of family allowances from citizens residing in the Quebec ridings of Sherbrooke, Beauce, Laval, Lotbiniere, Champlain, Saint-Maurice, Trois-Rivieres, as well as in Mississauga-South, Moose Jaw (Saskatchewan), and Vancouver-East.
All these Canadian men and women are asking the Government not to deindex the family allowances.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker,
I have also a number of petitions against the Government's plan to deindex the family allowances. These petitions are from the Quebec ridings of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, Quebec East and Rosemont.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a number of petitions that deplore the fact the Government intends to deindex family allowances.
The petitions are of course from several different ridings, and I am told that some were sent to Conservative Members, who refused to table them in the House, so that with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a number of these petitions to the attention of the House. They all have one thing in common and that is that they deplore deindexation of family allowances.
First, 1 have one from the federal riding of St. Catharines. I have another one from the federal riding of Manicouagan. I have another one, Mr. Speaker, from the riding of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. I have another from the federal riding of Trois-Rivieres. Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition, this time from the federal riding of Jonquieres. And 1 have another one from the federal riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, where people wrote to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that their Member refused to table petitions, and they are insisting on full indexation of family allowances.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a number of petitions sent to me by constituents in a number of ridings in this country who are asking the Government of Canada to reinstate immediately full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
These petitions are from the federal riding of Brome-Missis-quoi, from the City of Toronto-it is hard to tell exactly which riding-but in any event, they are residents of the City of Toronto. I also have petitions from residents of the federal ridings of Sudbury and Windsor West in Ontario, and finally from Ottawa-Carleton in the National Capital Region.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: I too have hundreds of extra names to add to the pressure that we hope will lead to the Government making some shifts in its policy. The first petition protests the budget hand-outs made in the past Budget, such as half a million dollars in tax-free capital gains, greater RRSP deductions for high-income recipients, plus the $9 billion in hand-outs to the oil companies and the billion dollar bail-out of the banks. This petition comes from Nova Scotia and such towns as Enfield, Windsor Junction, Milford, Dartmouth, Halifax, Milford Station, Wellington, Sackville, Fall River, Nine Mile River and Oakfield.


Steven W. Langdon: The second petition I wish to present is in protest to the changes in the child tax credit which will lead to a decrease for even the poorest
December 20, 1985

families by 1990. It comes from the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work here in Ottawa.


Steven W. Langdon: The third petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from Quebec. It opposes changes to family allowances, and the petitioners humbly ask for full indexation of family allowances.
Those petitions come from Westmount, Dorval in Montreal, Saint-Eustache, Lachine and other parts of the Province of Quebec.

My final petition is from North York in Downsview. It is signed by several hundred people who are making, as strongly as they possibly can, the demand to restore indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit system in this country.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions. The first is from the Women Against the Federal Budget. It states that we, the undersigned, believe that children are everyone's responsibility and that all parents should receive Government assistance whose value is at least as high or higher than present family allowance values. We therefore strongly oppose the budget proposals to reduce the cost of living protection of family allowances and demand that this proposal be withdrawn as soon as possible.
I am sure that citizens from the Toronto-St. Paul area who wrote this petition were referring to the family allowance Bill. [Translation]
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from the riding of Longueuil, in Quebec. It submits that the family allowances and the child tax credit, which are Government programs, are an essential help for families with children.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could I ask the Hon. Member to summarize and not read the petition?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this petition deals with family allowances, and those families ask that they be reinstated at their proper level. Those petitioners are from Longueuil.
I have another one from the federal riding of Quebec East asking for the reinstatement of full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. It says $55 million will be cut from support to families if the Government does not reconsider that measure.

You may be uncomfortable but these people are the constituents who voted for the Members opposite. They have a right to speak their mind and be heard.
Introduction of Bills
The last petition comes from the riding of Richelieu. It is my pleasure to speak on their behalf and tell the Government that they would like to see the Bill withdrawn and indexation restored as soon as possible.

They are signed by both English and French-speaking people, which means that both-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, when the little boys across the way come to order I will present a petition which comes from the liberated riding of Spadina-liberated from the two old Parties. The people of Spadina are stating that the 3 per cent deindexation of the family allowance and the other cut-backs to the child benefits, too numerous to mention in the reading of a petition, are very unfair to families with children, especially in light of the very large hand-outs to those who already have more money than they need. Therefore, your petitioners are requesting the House to ensure that the Government will withdraw its legislation which is chopping family allowance and is making poor families poorer, and also will rescind the unfair tax increases and unfair tax give aways to the large corporations.



IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINALS ACT


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-260, to amend the Identification of Criminals Act (publication of cards).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to protect the reputation of people who are wrongly charged with an offence and who are therefore subject to be fingerprinted and to have a police record established, by forbidding publication of this record in case of acquittal or withdrawal of the case.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 20, 1985
Motions
[ English)



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (child abuse).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, this Bill, if passed, will provide for legislation that I believe will further protect children under the age of 16 from abuse, both sexual and non sexual.
Several new non-sexist offences will be created to prohibit physical contact with children for the purpose of sexual gratification or stimulation. In addition, Criminal Code provisions have been strengthened for assault against children under the age of 16.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Layton:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for the permission of the House to revert to the introduction of Bills later in the day for the purpose of introducing a Bill to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal The Canadian Oil and Gas Act?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Agreed and so ordered.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
December 18, 1985-the President of the Privy Council:
That the document entitled "Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists, A discussion Paper", be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization;
That the Committee consider and report upon the issues discussed in the above-mentioned documents; and
That the Committee report its findings and recommendations no later than March 30, 1986.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are two such motions standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Which is the one transferred, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Both motions will be transferred.



PERMANENT AND PROVISIONAL STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1985-the President of the Privy Council: That the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, December 18, 1985 (Sessional Paper No. 331-7/37) be adopted and made provisional Standing Orders of the House.
Provided that, unless otherwise ordered;
1.	the said provisional Standing Order shall be enforced from the first sitting day in 1986 until the House adjourns on the last sitting day in December of that year;
2.	and further to the Order made on June 27, 1985, the provisional Standing Orders thereby adopted shall continue in force during the same period; and
3.	the Clerk of the House shall be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the Standing Orders integrating the provisional Standing Orders and making any necessary amendments in consequence thereof or relating thereto in respect to the Standing Orders concerning Private Bills, and to make such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move concurrence in the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments presented to the House on Thursday, October 17, 1985.
Before hearing the question put, I would like to say a few words about this report.
I am the joint chairman of this Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. To appreciate the nature of our report and the significance of our all partisan and our bicameral criticism of the oil carriage limitation regulations, it is important that I tell the House something about our committee concerning its mandate and its composition.
This committee is not one of the oldest in the House of Commons or in the other place. It is a committee which has an important job, although it is a job which, in my brief time of
December 20, 1985

service and some association with the committee in the past, has never been at all in the public limelight. The limelight does not assist this committee in doing its work. Remarkably, over the past years we have been able to operate, 1 believe, almost completely by unanimity, not only unanimity among all Parties in the House but unanimity among members of the committee and the other place.
I want to pay tribute to members of the committee, who have served without very much public attention over the years, in keeping this important committee going. I want particularly to refer to my predecessor, the present Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) who was a distinguished House Chairman of that committee for several years.
The practice has always been that the House joint chairman should be a member of the opposition Party. During the time when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was Prime Minister, the House chairman was Mr. Ken Robinson, a former colleague of ours, a former Liberal Member of Parliament who also performed a distinguished function as joint chairman of the committee.
I want to say a few words about the composition of the committee. More important, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you about our mandate and what it is that has brought us to our criticism of the oil carriage regulations to which I have referred and which our report addresses.
The committee's mandate has developed over the near decade the committee has been in existence. The mandate has been developed in consultation with interested parties across the country and in consultation with other democratic parliamentary institutions around the world, which have also been developing a form of review of the regulations and other statutory instruments generated pursuant to statute and pursuant to prerogative in those countries.
I wish we had the time to look at all our criteria, but the criteria have developed. There are 15 of them. I would like to tell the House something about each and every one of the 15 criteria that we use in examining regulations and other statutory instruments, particularly those criteria having to do with the oil carriage limitation regulations, the subject of this report.
Some of our criteria are very obvious. We are first mandated to examine regulations and other statutory instruments to see whether or not they are authorized by the terms of the enabling statute. Or, if there is no enabling statute, if such regulations are an exercise of the royal prerogative, that the terms of the exercise of the royal prerogative are in conformity with the common law. We have added to that first of our 15 terms of reference the additional observation that we expect the regulation or other statutory instrument to state clearly the precise authority for the making of the instrument.
That is the weakness of the regulation which is before us, Mr. Speaker. The regulation is purported justified by a section of the Canada Shipping Act. In the unanimous view of our committee, it is bolstered by the very competent legal advice we received from the Library of Parliament, for which we are
Committee Reports
most grateful. Those regulations are not justified by the section of the Act which the regulations claim justify their creation.
We also examined regulations and other statutory instruments to see whether they complied with the Statutory Instruments Act in respect of transmittal, recording, number or publication. 1 remind the House that the Statutory Instruments Act was a great step forward in the development of this area of public policy. It established tight criteria, designed to ensure that, almost like legislation itself, regulations and other statutory instruments would come to the attention of the public, particularly those affected by them. Also it would ensure that by looking at them, they would be able to understand them, where they come from and what they were intended to do. As I indicated, that is one of the failings of the subject of the fourth report on which I am moving concurrence.
Our third criterion is to require-and this is another requirement of the Statutory Instruments Act-that the instrument with which we are dealing has complied with any tabling provision or other condition set forth in the enabling statute. This criterion was needed because very often-In fact, more often than one would expect or more often than was really required-a particular statute sets out its own internal code for regulations which are to be created and are to emanate under the statute. We want not only to ensure that the regulation complies with the Statutory Instruments Act as to those formalities-1 call them "formalities", but they are important for the citizen; that is the whole object of our efforts-but to ensure that it complies with any requirements of a similar sort which may be put out under its enabling statute.
Under the third of our 15 conditions, we want to assure ourselves, in doing our job as a joint committee, that the time and manner of compliance with the enabling statute are clearly set out.
Our fourth criterion is somewhat more controversial. It is that in doing our work, and eventually making our reports, we seek to ascertain whether the regulation or other statutory instrument makes some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling statute or by the prerogative. Mr. Speaker, you and other Hon. Members might think that this criterion could give rise to partisanship and to some criticism based upon ulterior motives by one or another of the members of the committee. That has never been the case. When the royal prerogative or the legislative authority has been used in some unusual or unexpected manner, there has been unanimity within the committee that it ought to be brought to the attention of the Minister responsible and that hopefully the concern of the committee can be allayed by some action which the Minister might take.
For example, we have been occasionally concerned when fees have been increased by a very substantial amount. This can be done under the regulation. The regulation authorizes

December 20, 1985
Committee Reports
the Minister to set fees but we, as a committee, have always felt that, if a fee is quadrupled or multiplied by 10 or 20 times, that is the sort of initiative under a regulation or other statutory instrument on which we ought to focus the attention of the Government and ask it to take another look at it to see whether the enabling authority or prerogative, whichever of the two it is, might be used in a more expected and defensible manner.
Our fifth criterion calls upon us to ascertain that the regulation or other statutory instrument does not trespass unduly on the rights and liberties of the subject. This can happen sometimes. We are now looking at some regulations under the postal Act which allow, or appear to allow, very abrupt rights of entry to officials working for the postal corporation, to ascertain whether the stamping machines are being used properly, whether the fees have been paid and so on. We are focusing on that in our committee to try to encourage the post office to develop more normal, usual and safeguarded methods of providing for entry, which could sometimes take place into someone's home, as the Act is presently written and as the regulations presently provide.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why don't you use the telephone book, Bob?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is not the criticism that we have of the regulation which is the subject of this report.
Our sixth criterion is one to which we have very frequent recourse in our committee. It is the criterion by which we criticize regulations and other statutory instruments that tend, directly or indirectly, to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts without explicit authorization therefor in the enabling statute, or that make the rights and liberties of the subject dependent upon administrative discretion rather than upon the judicial process.
This is an area in which I should like to congratulate those responsible for the production of regulations and other statutory instruments. Over the last few years there has been a considerable decline in the use of phrases like "in the opinion of the director", "in the opinion of the officer" or "in the opinion of the Minister". Leaving those expressions out gives the citizen more rights, because the citizen can go to court and ask it to determine whether the interference with his decisionmaking or his conduct is justified or unjustified.
I will give an example. The regulations which govern cemeteries in national parks have been before our committee on several occasions.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Earth shattering.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I hear the Minister's observation. In those circumstances we have seen a discretion awarded to an official with which we happen to agree. We looked at it and decided after some consideration not to criticize giving the official discretion. Because the Minister has expressed interest in it, I should like particularly to tell him what that discretion was. The regulation provides that tombstones have to meet the test
of the discretion of the director as to whether they are in good taste and not offensive to people who have their loved ones buried in the cemetery and might be visiting. We could have written to the Minister responsible and told him to set out criteria on how large the tombstones have to be, what shape they have to be, what colour they have to be and what sorts of language on them would be acceptable or unacceptable. If we had been doing that, we would have been rigorously applying this criterion. We decided not to do that, because it struck us that such discretion of a director of a cemetery would likely be used in a reasonable way and that it would be justified to allow him some type of discretion, because we were told stories about people who wanted to mark their graves by planting an automobile on its side or some marker which they might consider to be appropriate but which would be found offensive to other persons who had their loved ones buried in the cemetery. However, it is an important criterion.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) had the floor.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 know I only have another four minutes left today-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I had many criteria to discuss, and out of the 15 I had only managed to cover six. I am uncertain that I would receive unanimous consent to continue if I sought it, but I hope that the few brief remarks 1 was able to make this morning gave Hon. Members of the House a-

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, what we do in our committee is not an examination, it is not something we do because we are personally motivated, but it is very important because, just as laws can even prescribe death and restrict the rights and privileges of the citizens, so can regulations and other initiatives taken pursuant to the royal prerogative have similar implications. It falls within the responsibility of our committee which, as I said, is an all-party committee with representation from all House parties and both sides of the other place. We do our best to correct the Government and other authorities which do have legislative powers, indirect though they may be, through authority granted pursuant to the statutes and the royal prerogatives.
December 20, 1985

In the few seconds I have left I would like to comment very briefly on the subject-matter of our report.
Our committee unanimously concluded that the Government does not have the right to pass a regulation, under the Canada Shipping Act provision it has chosen, to restrict the access of "potentially" polluting ships to New Brunswick's Harbour Head Passage.
The Government has passed a regulation which would prevent ships carrying oil from entering Head Harbour Passage, New Brunswick. In our opinion, with that regulation as enacted, if a vessel were to enter Head Harbour Passage, the regulation would not stop it because that regulation has been passed without any authority whatsoever under the article of the Statutes to which reference is made in the regulation. It is a very important legislation. That is a part of New Brunswick where fishing is important and Head Harbour Passage is one of the most beautiful passage in our country.
When the regulation was introduced, it was designed to combat a very serious evil but the regulation does not work. In this report, all the members of the committee are urging the Government to rewrite the regulation in accordance with the rule of law so that the people from Head Harbour Passage will be genuinely protected.
There are a great many other things I would like to say, but I think that those who want as well to speak for the first time on a report of the Regulations and Statutory Instruments Committee should be given the opportunity to do so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Parliament, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member who chaired this very important committee. Because of my area of responsibility, I have to deal with questions referring to housing and labour. Most recently I discovered to my dismay that under the regulations that relate to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Conservative Government, without going to Parliament, has decided that it will not longer allow handicapped persons to be eligible for the same kinds of grants for the purposes of residential reconstruction as are made available to every other Canadian. This particular discrimination against the handicapped was not brought before the House of Commons but was done solely by regulation. The result is that many people in the community do not realize that the Government is introducing by regulation elements which discriminate against the handicapped, particularly in the area of housing, something which is so crucial to them.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he examined the under-the-table regulations which allow this type of discrimination to take place. What suggestions does the Hon. Member have to ensure that this activity which goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Abella Commission Report and the Equality Now Report, does not slip through by regulation without even having the Government go to Parliament?
Committee Reports


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the question the Hon. Member has asked touches on the outrageous use of the power of regulations to deprive citizens of rights which they might have been given under the regulations and to discriminate. Unfortunately, and I say this with considerable regret, it is not within our mandate to deal with or criticize regulations on the basis of the impact that they might have on less fortunate members of Canadian society. That is regrettable because I know that particularly under the new Government, regulations are being used to take away many of the benefits for which groups have fought and which the former Government has established. This is the stuff of politics and it is the stuff of debate.
The Government is obsessed with the deficit and is delivering benefits to the better-off in society at the expense of people in the middle and at the bottom. That is what we in this House debate. Unfortunately, the mandate of the commitee does not open the door for us to deal with such egregious matters, but all of the regulations that we criticize could probably be passed and made acceptable if they were simply put in some other form.
Although we protect the rule of law, we tend to deal with technical problems that have arisen. The Bill with the regulation which we brought before the House in this report is one on which the Government has held an opposite view from that of all the members of the committee. The Government feels that the regulation is valid and we feel that it is invalid, but we do not feel that it is a bad regulation. After all, its object is to protect Head Harbour Passage from pollution by vessels that are not safe or by vessels that are too large. This is a very desirable object, but as much as we wish we could accept the regulation, we are obliged to reject it because the Government has put it forward under a section of the legislation which it does not have the authority to use for that purpose.
I must say that I was disappointed by the letter the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) wrote to our committee. He refused to tell us why he rejected our advice. I am worried that Minister after Minister will simply draw the line as this Minister did and say that the matter should be settled in court. What the Minister meant by that is, "We should let a boat go into Head Harbour Passage. Let that boat get into some difficulty. Let us try to prosecute under the regulation. Let the owners of the boat go to court to fight for their right to use the passage and their right to disregard the regulation". That is an uncivilized thing to do, which invites disrespect for the law. I would have hoped that a Minister as enlightened as the present Minister of Transport would have paid more attention to this piece of advice which was unanimously given with respect to the regulation being invalid. For him to say: "Let the courts settle it" is almost a challenge which could be regarded as being irresponsible.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Member comment with respect to whether or not the recent amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, which I believe were presented in the

December 20, 1985
Committee Reports
form of Bill C-54, would legalize the particular legislation which is referred to in this document?
Also, could one not conclude that if this regulation which covers a zone within the area so covered by the said regulatory authority in the Act, were improperly passed that, legally, by singling out a portion of that area one would in fact have passed a regulation covering the entire area, as is the case under the Act and as is prescribed in the regulation?
Does the hon. gentleman know about what I am talking with respect to the second question? I am not sure that he does.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to pull out the minutes of the committee meeting which were taken before we decided to table the report. The issues raised by the Hon. Member are precisely the issues which preoccupied the members of the committee for the time in which we studied the regulation. We were very concerned about the exact points which the Hon. Member mentions. However, we were able to resolve them.
The Hon. Member has asked whether or not the regulation could be legalized by the Act which is presently before the House. 1 suppose it could, if it contained a provision stating that all ultra vires regulations which have been put out before are now legal. However, it does not do that, of course. All it does is to give a fresh and more enlightened regulation-making authority to the Minister and to certain officials under the Act. It does not validate an existing regulation which was not valid under the statute under which it received its generation. No, the existing regulation is still a bad one. That is why we took the trouble of putting it into the report. It is not an easy thing to ask Conservative members of a committee to sign a report which criticizes the Minister of Transport. Yet they were prepared to do that because they recognized the importance of trying to get the new Government, as we did with the former Government, to comply with the rule of law.
The Hon. Member's second question is an interesting one. It is one on which we spent a great deal of time. It dealt with whether or not a court might give life to that invalid regulation by removing the portion of it which accounts for the invalidities. The section in question, in effect, says to the Minister: "You can put forward a regulation banning ships from the whole of the area south of the 60th parallel but you cannot ban a little piece of it". What the Minister tried to do here is ban the boats in a little zone. The Hon. Member is saying: Why does the court not just read away the reference to the small zone, because without it it would be perfectly valid regulation? That was not done because, in our opinion, and our law officer conforms this, the limited zone was the essence of the regulation and there was no interest at all on the part of the authority to ban such vessels from the whole of Canada. After all, we need those vessels. They bring us oil and they take oil out of the country. We need them but we do not want them to go into the ecologically sensitive areas of Canada where they can damage the shoreline or fisheries and compete in that way with other economic and ecological interests. The court will not allow that. The only real way out is for the Minister of Transport to take the advice of the committee. He does not
even have to rescind the regulation because, in our view, it is invalid. I would like to see Head Harbour Passage protected, but I would like to see it protected by valid legislation.
[Translation)
Several attempts were made to convince various officials of that department. One does not begin by writing directly to the Minister. One begins by making representations to the department's counsels. Now and then they are invited to appear before our committee to listen to our arguments and give us their views because, obviously, lawyers are there to advise department officials whose opinions differ from ours. But just the same, when in the end the Minister says something like "I'll see you in court", that does not appear to us to be the proper way to proceed!


Robert E.J. Layton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we might revert to the introduction of Bills, I could introduce a Bill on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, we will now revert to the introduction of Bills.



CANADA PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT


Robert E.J. Layton: for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an Act to regulate interest in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the House with respect to the report which has been
December 20, 1985

put forward by the committee. It is important to note the work which this committee has done, especially when we consider how long it has been in the process of preparing its report.
In order to set the stage, because I do not think we are trying to find fault with any particular Minister in terms of the report, a suggestion was made during the course of remarks that it was unfortunate that the Minister would not take advice. I think it is important to note that this type of committee report should be above partisan remarks and that perhaps remarks such as the one I have just mentioned were unintentional. If the only point of our debating the motion was to blame the Minister in question, then it would naturally come to the attention of the House that the Minister in question was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who was then Minister of Transport. The regulation about which we are speaking was passed in 1982. Due to the excellent work of the present Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), who was one of the joint chairmen of this committee, and a gentleman from the other place, it was found that the regulation was perhaps in contravention of the law under which it was passed.
I think it is also important to note right off the bat that this should not be treated as a partisan matter. We should view the committee as having tried to do everything properly. We should concern ourselves with the fact that laws which are passed by Governments, whichever Party is in power at the time, and when they provide for regulations, are proper. In trying to understand the thinking behind the Government of the day let us take a look at exactly why the regulation was made. On March 10, 1982, regulations were made under Part 20 of the Canada Shipping Act stipulating that no oil tanker may carry on board oil, either crude or product oil, in excess of 5,000 cubic metres in the waters of Head Harbour Passage, New Brunswick.
For those people who are not as familiar as I am with the geography of New Brunswick, I will tell you that Head Harbour Passage Lies between Deer Island and Campobello Island in New Brunswick.
These regulations were made in an effort by the Government of the day-and we concur with that effort-to control shipping where the product in question may be a danger to the environment. I believe all Hon. Members of the House understand the importance of regulations which are there to protect our environment, whether it is shipping, as in this case, or other dangers with hazardous products which are shipped by railway lines. That is something with which, in terms of the chemicals we are shipping these days, there can be quite a problem environmentally.
In any event, there was a proposal to build a marine oil terminal and a refinery at East Port, Maine. The only way one can get to East Port, Maine is through the Canadian waters of Head Harbour Passage. It is my understanding that the waters of Head Harbour Passage are extremely hazardous and that officials of the Coast Guard were concerned about the safety
Committee Reports
of regular super-tanker traffic through the area. There are navigational problems within these waters including not only strong currents, but rip tides, whirlpools, fog and, in time of winter, vessel icing.
So it was recognized by the Government of the day-the Liberal administration-that there was a potential for casualties involving the large and less manoeuvrable vessels and that the clean-up of any oil spills, should they occur, as a result of a collision or damage to a vessel, would be almost impossible because of the strong currents. The other problem is what type of fish are found in the waters which would be affected by this kind of oil spill? It is my understanding that the area is the production ground for one of the world's largest herring population, and we must be concerned about the livelihoods of people in the Fishing industry. There are some 5,000 fishermen, fishplant workers and families who are dependent on the area for their livelihood.
Something else that should be recognized is that the Fundy Isles, which are very close to Head Harbour Passage, are recognized as one of the most important tourist designated areas of the province. For example, when I explained to the House exactly where Head Harbour Passage is, I mentioned Campobello Island. That is the location of the Camp Roosevelt Campobello International Park, a bi-national memorial to the late President of the United States. So we have not only an environmental problem which the Government of the day tried to address but we also have a problem with the tourist industry if we had any oil spills which would damage the environment.
We also have navigational risks and environmental problems, which is the reason the Government of the day promulgated these regulations which led the committee to examine whether or not this regulation was in fact proper under the law under which it was passed. There was some doubt. The committee expressed the view that there was no authority to act under the relevant provision of the Canada Shipping Act so as to limit the application of the regulation to a particular body of water, in this case Head Harbour Passage. And, as I said, the Department of Justice, which was consulted prior to the making of the regulation, believes that there is sufficient authority under the Canada Shipping Act.
I should point out that this is the result of a move in 1977 whereby the then Minister of Justice arrived at an arrangement with the committee that officials should provide explanations to the committee regarding the making of the regulations. This was done but it was understood, however, that the explanations would not include the legal advice given by the Department of Justice.
The committee now has requested that it be provided with the legal reasons which support the opinion of the Department of Justice. The concern of the Department of Justice is that these reasons would fly in the face of the previous arrangements and if this is the intention, it is suggested that the committee take this matter up with the Minister of Justice

December 20, 1985
Committee Reports
(Mr. Crosbie) so that we can work on a new policy which would apply to all regulations, not just this regulation.
What we are saying is that we are, under the Minister of Justice, open to suggestions which will improve the process. We, as much as anyone, want to have regulations which will stand up under the laws which are passed. However, if we need a new policy, then we are suggesting that the committee might sit down with the Minister of Justice to see if we cannot work out an arrangement which would be satisfactory to all Parties.
The House will also know that this particular matter is being reviewed because of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which the Minister brought forward and which were first debated in this House on Tuesday, October 15, 1985. 1 know that in the regulations the committee made reference to the fact that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, was before the House. So we have amendments to the Act before the House, and there is every intention that the concerns of the committee, as put forward in its report, will be addressed.
In his remarks on that Bill, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) put great emphasis on environmental problems. Our Government has always had an immense interest in conservation of the environment. We know this is of concern to all Canadians and that is why we brought forward these amendments. I understand the Bill has gone to committee and I am sure the work that the committee has done will be helpful in the debate. There is a lot of interest in this issue on our side. Our Members represent all 10 provinces and the Territories, which is not the case with the other two Parties, unfortunately. Members of the NDP and Liberal Party are rather restricted because of the narrow geographic scope of their membership. The Liberals have some Members from Newfoundland but not too many. When we talk about the Arctic, there is no one from the NDP or the Liberal Party with that familiarity with those areas and their waters. There is only one Liberal from the West Coast as well. Therefore, the committee work will be carried by our Party with its 211 Members representing all parts of Canada, and doing very well at that.
As I said, the Minister of Transport has shown great concern for problems in this area. For example, at page 7620 of Hansard he points out the problems which would occur, for example, if a 60,000-tonne laden tanker importing crude into Canada experienced a spill. He says as well:
Improvements are to be made to the maritime pollution claims fund, which will be renamed the ship source oil pollution fund, whereby small claimants, such as fishermen and resort owners, will in future be able to claim directly against that fund.
As well, earlier in my comments I referred to the tourist industry. We are concerned that should an oil spill occur, we will be able to compensate the many people in that industry who would suffer. We are also concerned about the regulations dealing with the carriage of dangerous goods in bulk.
In bringing my remarks to a close, I would just point out that some comments by members on the other side were partisan in nature. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) got carried away, as she often does, and tried to bring some extraneous issues into the debate. Her colleague, quite properly, made a good summation of the committee's position. It is unfortunate that in the middle of a discussion on shipping regulations we had this extraneous interjection by a Member who did not understand the process and who was trying to be partisan. I know that is not the nature of the chairman who brought forward this report. We cannot erase those remarks from Hansard but I would hope that anyone who reads the record in future will understand that perhaps the Hon. Member got a little excited and tried to start a debate on something that was not before the House, namely regulations promulgated by the CMHC.
Just to put that in perspective if I may, there is no question about this Party's efforts on behalf of the disabled. The House will know that the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) brought forward new regulations for the disabled dealing with transportation. This is part of our ongoing effort to try to right some of the wrongs which exist. It is hoped that in the future people reading Hansard will understand that that was an unnecessary intervention on the Hon. Member's part, and perhaps in due time the member will find another vehicle for venting her spleen.
In any event, I think it is very important that we have these reports considered. I appreciate-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I had to come back immediately I saw the Hon. Member denigrating the fact that my remarks about the disabled were not relevant to the debate and dealt with another problem. However, he demonstrated the poor logic of his argument by going into a long comment about his Government's record vis-a-vis the disabled. If we accept his first argument that my intervention regarding the disabled was out of order, then why does he buttress my intervention by commenting further on the record of his Government in this area? It is totally illogical.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that this was an attempt at a point of order which was not a point of order, but that is all right.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is the first time I have ever had a question in a point of order. We appreciate the Hon. Member is having some difficulty adjusting to this House. We are very much behind her under the circumstances. I think it was very kind of the Chair to let her go so far while trying to bring in a question on a point of order in this very important debate. I think she will find, as time goes on, that she will become aware of when to ask questions and when to make points of order.
In any event, I wanted to close by making direct reference to the comments of the committee chairman who pointed out the
December 20, 1985

very important work this committee has been doing. 1 just want to compliment the committee members on their efforts to make sure, regardless of who is in power, that the regulations promulgated are in order under the law that was passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he feels that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), about which he just commented, were more or less out of order than the speech he made in the House last week on the subject of the committee's third report.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: More or less.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I entered that debate on patent law with very little knowledge of patent law.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We know that.


Philip Derek Lewis: And I managed to prove it. Any hope I have for a position with Gowling, Henderson as a patent attorney is gone, in the same way that our QCs went last week.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) how much time he had for preparation and how frequently this House is asked to take part in these types of debates. Under what circumstances do we usually have to debate on concurrence in these reports. As I understand it, this came upon him somewhat by surprise and I would like to know exactly the length of time he had to prepare before standing up in this House and giving a speech, which I thought was excellent.


Philip Derek Lewis: I will do this as modestly as I can, Mr. Speaker. Although I did not have an awful lot of time, I would have wished that the chairman had given me some time. However, we all jumped into the breach and did the best we could to put those very important remarks on the Patent Act on the record. I am sure posterity will give them the credibility they deserve.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, having advised the House that he has been denuded of his Q.C., the Member is, nonetheless, still a lawyer and is fairly familiar with the high cost of taking people to court. The Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) pointed out very succinctly that the Governement is avoiding the all-Party resolution which points out the difficulties that the Government is going to have if it forces a company to take it to court on the issue of the specific regulation dealing with this specific geographic location.
How much does the Hon. Member think it will cost the taxpayers of Canada to fight that issue in the courts? Does the Member not believe that it would be easier if the Government would accept the recommendation of the all-Party committee, which would prevent any future legal action by any person or persons who have a direct interest in this particular legislation?
Committee Reports


Philip Derek Lewis: That is very easy, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Member was not here when her colleague discussed the regulation. The regulation is to prevent a ship going through a passage. It is awfully difficult to imagine that there would be an awful lot of litigation arising from that. Mind you, lawyers are inventive and there is often a way to find litigation where others may not.
I might point out that this was an initiative of the former Liberal Government, so I would not get partisan on this. This is in the interest of the country. We put the interest of the country above partisan politics, which is advice that I might address to my hon. friend. There are more important things than scoring cheap political points. My colleague has brought forward an important matter which we are trying to deal with.
I hope that the committee will address itself to this very important matter.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) on his excellent presentation. I realize, of course, that he did hot have a great deal of time to prepare it, but I would like to bring to his attention the fact that he said that this is a big country and that we have a lot of water to the east, to the west and to the north to look after. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that one of our busiest waterways is to the south. I live in the riding of Essex-Kent beside Lake Erie, which is part of the Seaway system. I was wondering whether the Member left that out on purpose or whether his research notes did not bring that to his attention.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the speech I made was strictly a saltwater speech. I have another speech 1 make for waters that have no salt in them. That may have escaped the attention of a lot of people, but this was definitely a saltwater speech.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we all know that this report was tabled in the House on October 17, 1985, so the Parliamentary Secretary has had two months in which to prepare his speech. I listened to him very attentively. I see that in the Statutory Instruments Act and the Oil Carriage Limitation Regulations which are before us there is reference to the 60th parallel. I know that the Member is a good lawyer and a good accountant, but I wonder if he is a geographic expert as well. Can he tell us exactly where the 60th parallel is?


Mr. Frith:: It's 11 degrees above the forty-ninth.


Philip Derek Lewis: I have done a lot of research into that. You will find that the 60th parallel is directly above the fifty-ninth and below the sixty-first.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Member has commented that we should approach this in a very non-partisan fashion. On the eve of our Christmas break it is certainly incumbent upon all of us to approach this issue in en extremely non-partisan fashion. That is why I am a little confused. In his speech the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) made it quite clear and plain that an all-Party committee composed of Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats had made certain recom-
9686

December 20, 1985
Committee Reports
mendations to the Minister with respect to the wrong-headedness and wrongfulness of this specific regulation. In fact, the Member will be aware that the concern was that the regulation was directed toward a specific body of water rather than dealing with bodies of water in general across Canada.
Could the Member clarify for the House how he sees this as a non-partisan issue when the Minister has in fact rejected the recommendation of an all-Party committee which has put its collective wits together to come up with a recommendation endorsed by all the political Parties? That particular recommendation has been ignored, abused, and rejected by the Minister.


Philip Derek Lewis: It has not been ignored, abused, or rejected by the Minister. The Minister is simply making the point that he has advice that the regulation is in order. I do not see that as ignoring and abusing anything. The regulation was promulgated when the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was the Minister of Transport. As I keep trying to tell the Member, this is not always a partisan place. This is not always a place where people are trying to score cheap political points.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Or even expensive points.


Philip Derek Lewis: We are trying to do the best we can in this place. I know that is what the Hon. Member did. We put the environment far ahead of anything the Hon. Member does. We put the environment ahead of cheap political points. We put the safety of the Canadian people ahead of cheap political points.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is a cheap political point.


Philip Derek Lewis: It may be. We put the tourism industry ahead of cheap political points. I think we have all tried to avoid making cheap political statements today. If we carry on as we are-as I am, anyway-in the interests of this debate, we will be able to make definite progress on other things.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for some time for this report to come forward. I did not expect it to come forward today, but I am pleased that it has. I would like to say that I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary that this is really not an essential part of that issue. However, this is a very important parliamentary issue. I know that if the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) were here, he would be interested in this parliamentary issue. I would like to direct my comments to that particular point. This report has nothing to do with pollution or the control of shipping, but has a great deal to do with the way in which Parliament does its work.
I would like to begin by saying that it is rather shocking for a Member of Parliament to realize how much careless drafting of legislation goes on. I had the privilege to sit on a parliamentary committee which recently did a clause-by-clause study of a Bill on another subject. From that it became abundantly evident that Members of Parliament cannot simply assume that there is good drafting on all legislation. I do not want to
be at all unfair to the drafters who work for the Government in the Department of Justice. I do not want to bring any dishonour or disrespect on those public officials. It is probably true that they are overworked. It is probably true that they are pushed too hard to get Bills done in a relatively short space of time. However, Mr. Speaker, it is the case that errors are made and that mistakes occur. It is the case that mistakes occur.
The second point is also well known by Your Honour. We have a great deal of legislation these days and in days gone by called enabling legislation, enabling Bills. What enabling Bills do is to give the Government very broad, let me say even sweeping authority to take certain courses of action. In order to determine how those courses of action will be carried out, there has to be drawn up a whole host of regulations, sometimes extremely detailed. These regulations have the force of law. They can sometimes be unfair, unjust and punitive. Sometimes they can impact upon a citizen, an organization or a business in our society, which is very unfair. What recourse do these citizens, organizations or businesses have?
It is absolutely necessary that someone peruse and examine these regulations with the utmost care. If we fail to do that, we are going to have something which may be like bureaucratic totalitarianism. That is why Parliament, not so very long ago in the period of time I have been in this honoured place, being aware that there was a danger to democracy under this process, a danger to the liberty and freedom of our citizens, decided that there ought to be a very special joint committee of Parliament called the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. It is a mouthful to say. Many Members of Parliament are not even aware that it functions. This committee does some of the most important work of Parliament that can be done, Mr. Speaker. The committee works quietly. A report like this was almost neglected and overlooked. What this committee does is to take a very careful and detailed look at regulations promulgated under one of these enabling Bills passed by Parliament.
I have seen their work with respect to an Act with which I am most familiar, namely, the so-called Indian Act, which is one of the worst pieces of legislation to be found anywhere in the democratic world. In this case, the committee looked at the Canada Shipping Act. The committee found that there were certain regulations that had been promulgated under that Act. After careful study and after seeking expert advice, the committee came to the conclusion that these regulations were ultra vires. They cannot be in effect legally. Very quickly I will deal with the regulations so that everyone is made aware of what we are talking about.
The purpose of the regulation was to restrict the quantity of oil that may be carried on board an oil tanker. The regulation said that this specified quantity of oil in an oil tanker applies to those ships operating in one body of water, namely Head Harbour Passage, New Brunswick.
December'20, 1985

On the surface that does not sound like a very earth-shaking thing. So diligent is this committee, Mr. Speaker, that it looked at the validity of the regulation and said that it was wrong and illegal to make a regulation apply only to a particular body of water.
The Act is so worded that any regulation made under the authority of the Canada Shipping Act must apply to all waters. The committee had quite a lengthy debate about one phrase or clause within the Canada Shipping Act. It reads:
Except where otherwise provided or in any regulation-


Dave Nickerson: That is a very important point.


B. Keith Penner: The committee wondered whether this was a door that could open the way for the regulation to apply to only one body of water. The committee went further into the role of regulations and the validity of regulations. It drew attention to something that ought to be of interest to all Members of Parliament. When a Bill is drafted, great care must be taken especially if it is an enabling Bill, because every single clause can open a door and, therefore, every word must have a meaning and be given all due importance.
To illustrate how well done this report is, the committee went back to a very old precedent, a precedent that was made by Viscount Simon in a court case about parliamentary legislation. If Members have the report with them, they can find it on page 2. Let me quote very quickly:
-it is to be observed that though a parliamentary enactment (like parliamentary eloquence) is capable of saying the same thing twice over without adding anything to what has already been said once, this repetition in the case of an Act of Parliament is not to be assumed. When the legislature enacts a particular phrase in a statute the presumption is that it is saying something which has not been said immediately before.
That cannot be accepted. It goes on:
The rule that a meaning should, if possible, be given to every word in the statute implies that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the words add something which would not be there if the words were left out.


Dave Nickerson: Do you agree with that, Keith?


B. Keith Penner: They have to look at every single word. That is why Members of Parliament do not always get the credit that is due to them for the work they do. All the work does not go on in this Chamber. The most important work goes on in the legislative committees which study the Bills clause by clause.
This Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments Committee concluded that the regulation, which prescribes the maximum quantities that may be carried on board ships of a designated class, must apply to all Canadian waters, except- and the Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) who is very, very attentive this afternoon will know that-it would not apply where there is already a shipping safety control zone. Where is that? Right north of 60. It would not apply either in waters that are under the fishing zones of Canada. They are otherwise protected.
Now I come back to the work of this Parliament. Not long ago in this House we were dealing with Bill C-75. I think the
Committee Reports
Hon. Member for the Western Arctic participated in that debate.


Dave Nickerson: I certainly did.


B. Keith Penner: This was the Canada Shipping Act. It was an Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. When this Bill was in the House being debated, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) knew that Bill C-75, under instruction from the Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments Committee, should have been amended to take into account this problem of a regulation that was too specific and did not have the authority of the Act.
I am sad to say that the Minister-although I want to repeat that this is a parliamentary issue, not a partisan issue- did not even feel the need to do so. He simply stated that the committee had all the explanation necessary. Further, he went on to say that the Department had had legal advice proferred, given by the legal advisers to all Government departments, namely, the legal advisers in the Department of Justice. The Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments Committee wanted to have this legal advice. They said: "Show us this legal advice and maybe we can be persuaded otherwise". What was the response to that? The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) knows the answer.


Dave Nickerson: Do I?


B. Keith Penner: Yes, he does. They said: "We cannot release that information because it is confidential". Confidentiality is something about which we hear too much in the House. For "confidentiality", read "secret". There is too much secrecy.
I will make a small point as a diversion for a moment, but I will not belabour it. I really hoped that we would have much more openness from the new Government. I believe in openness from any Government. Those fellows over there promised that Parliament would be supreme and that we would have the information we needed to do our job. There was to be a new openness. My gosh, I listened to those arguments and I almost voted for them myself. However, sanity took over before I went into the polling booth and I withdrew from that temptation. We do not have that. It is another example of confidentiality and secrecy.
Would it be too strong for me to say that this simply disregards the rights of Parliament?


Don Boudria: No, go ahead and say it.


B. Keith Penner: Is it all right?


Don Boudria: Sure.


B. Keith Penner: Then I will say it. It disregards the rights of Parliament. Once again it overrides the rights of elected Members under the guise of executive privilege. How often have we heard that?

December 20, 1985
Committee Reports
The Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has not accepted the response from the Minister. In relation to the responses which it received, on page 3 it said the following:
In consequence of the Minister of Transport's refusal to provide the explanations it requested, your Committee requests the Government to table a comprehensive response to this Report in accordance with Standing Order 70(16) of the House of Commons.
That is the response we want; that is the purpose of the debate this afternoon. All we want is an adequate response from the Government. On July 4, 1984, the committee brought the matter to the attention of the then Minister of Transport. At that time one of the joint chairmen was the Hon. Member of Parliament (Mr. Beatty) who is now the Solicitor General of Canada. As the Parliamentary Secretary has already mentioned, the Minister at that time was the Minister under the previous administration. Between July and the time of the election, there was no correspondence and no action taken. It became a problem passed on to the next Minister, the present Minister of Transport. When he was sworn in and assumed his duties, he replied to this request by saying: "Departmental legal advisers say that there is sufficient authority under the Canada Shipping Act". Then he went on to make an astounding assertion which really bothers me more than a little. He said: "If there is any dispute, then take it to court".
Whatever happened to the idea or principle that this is the highest court in the land? Have we abandoned that principle, idea and concept? Is that old fashioned? Has it gone out the window? The Statutory Instruments Committee took it to court; it took it to this court, the highest court in the land. The committee wants a response and it wants action.
Also in the letter to the committee the Minister promised that consideration would be given to amending the Canada Shipping Act appropriately. Without repeating what 1 said earlier-and the Hon. Member for Western Arctic knows it- when Bill C-75 came before us, there was no such amendment. There was nothing in it to change the Act to give those regulations validity.
Now I go to April 3, 1985. The committee wrote to the Minister stating that his response was not adequate. This was a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament; they were all Members of Parliament and it had joint chairmen. In that letter the committee made the following very telling comment:
The Committee cannot accept as sufficient a mere statement that a conclusion supporting the validity of an instrument has been made.
In other words, the committee said that it was not good enough, that the Minister could not just send it a letter and say that it was valid and that was the end of it. These Members of Parliament deserve some special recognition, they are that diligent. The committee wanted a substantive response, and the Minister and his Department failed to provide it.
I conclude by saying that this is a parliamentary issue. This is a question of the rights of the legislature versus the power of the executive branch of Government. That is what the issue is all about, plain and simple. The entire purpose behind the McGrath committee report and all the work it did, which I
applaud with all the enthusiasm I can muster, was to redress a long-standing grievance of Members of Parliament that there was a shocking imbalance between the legislature and the executive, that is, the Cabinet and the bureaucracy.
Will Parliament be satisfied with a report like this? Will it get the satisfaction it deserves? We want a response and we want it now. So far we have failed to get it. That is why this is not in any way a partisan issue. It is a very key and central parliamentary issue. I hope it will be adequately addressed and met so that the Members of Parliament, who were elected by their constituents, will get the satisfaction they deserve.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) a question. I listened very attentively to his remarks. 1 think you would want me, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate him on his excellent expose this afternoon on this very important issue. It is really a fundamental issue for all Members of Parliament sitting on every side of the House-the respect which individual cabinet Ministers must display not only to opposition Members of the House but indeed to the House itself and to all Members collectively.
Does the Hon. Member remember during the election campaign that the new Government made several promises? Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the Conservative Party made 338 such promises. I just happen to have a copy of the book of those promises. If you want one, Mr. Speaker, or anyone out there, you are welcome to write to me and I will gladly send you a free copy. Does the Hon. Member remember promises on Government processes, in particular the first four promises? First the Government promised:
Return Parliament to the forefront of legislative activity.
That was a solemn commitment made to the people of Canada. As the Hon. Member said so eloquently, that promise was not only made to the people of Canada, but to the Parliament of Canada, to opposition Members and to Government back-benchers. Does he recall their second promise? It read:
Improve the parliamentary committee system for a better and more independent review of legislation.
Their third promise was:
Amend parliamentary rules to make full use of the skills and potential of all Members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation.
We can see how it is very important. The last one read:
Respect ministerial responsibility for the actions of Government and its Departments and agencies.
I am sure you have identified, Mr. Speaker, by now that all four promises relate directly to the issue at hand. Would my good friend and colleague comment upon those commitments?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, let me say briefly that we have the recipe for what was promised. As enunciated by my hon. colleague and friend, the recipe is now in the possession of parliamentarians. The McGrath committee report is a radical
December 20, 1985

report. Before anyone becomes too upset by the term "radical", 1 am using it in the best sense of the word. That is to say that this report goes to the root of the problem, as the word "root" is the origin of the word "radical". What is the root of the problem? It is that there is a serious imbalance between the work that Members of Parliament are supposed to do with the authority that they have and the power and authority of the Cabinet or the executive branch of Government. We see evidence of this all the time in Parliament. We have what can only be described as periodic impasses in the work of Parliament because the executive attempts to use its power and Members of Parliament take recourse in all that is available to them, the provisions of the Standing Orders.
Obviously something is terribly wrong. Our main interest ought to be serving the people of Canada. Our main goal ought not to be to perpetuate ourselves in power or to further a political Party although I know that that is always part of it but it ought to be to make this country better and stronger and to make sure that citizens are well served. We spend 175 days per year in this place and what is our productivity? To what extent does that which we produce benefit citizens and to what extent does it merely cause them more grief, agony and trouble?
I say that we have the recipe. The question now is are we going to bake the cake. When the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) spoke that evening we devoted to the entire question of parliamentary reform, I think he put it very succinctly by saying that this is not simply a matter of changing Standing Orders, but what is really required on behalf of all of us is a different attitude and a different approach to the reason we are here and what we are supposed to do. The problem is as much or more attitudinal than it is simply with the Standing Orders or any specific rules that govern our lives in this place.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I think the level of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) have done him credit. He has discussed the subject matter which is before us in a fashion which I think is constructive. I wish I could say the same of some of the other remarks 1 have heard in this House from his Party confreres but unfortunately I cannot.
Today, we in the House are involved in a process which perhaps derived from an example set in years gone by and 1 must say that opposition Members have graduated from that training summa cum laude. They certainly have shown what can be done, whether it be credible or otherwise.
I do wish to say to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior that some of the tactics which have been used in the House have certainly caused grief, agony and trouble. There are 450 people who are improperly out of work in my constituency today and some are not yet eligible for unemployment insurance benefits in the Christmas season. I have heard a great deal about the Christian spirit which exists in the House at this time of the year but it certainly has been lacking in the
Committee Reports
last three months. Repeating as nearly as 1 can the words of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, we are going to cause more trouble for Canadians than we correct by some of the work we do in the House and by the pursuit of the perpetuity of power. Certainly that is what we have seen in this process.
I am thoroughly in support of the concept that this committee should indeed have an opportunity to express itself and that it should indeed consider the regulations. However, with all that holier than thou atmosphere which we have perceived as supposedly being created by this opposition-generated discussion of the subject matter, I would like to recall to you, Mr. Speaker, that I once sat on this committee and only once. It was during a discussion of a totally illegal expenditure which was, 18 months after the fact, supposedly legalized by a regulation passed by the then Government. 1 must say that the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) was probably a member of the Cabinet at the time that regualtion which in fact spent money illegally was passed.
When an effort was made by myself and other members of that committee to have some consideration in the House of that particular report, we were thwarted. As a matter of fact, when the report was tabled in the House, it for some reason or other barely mentioned the subject matter of a totally illegal regulation. When it was pursued in the House privately and publicly, no redress could be obtained. 1 say to all members of the Opposition that it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black when members of the Opposition call for information and correction of items which may have been improperly addressed through regulation.
1 suppose 1 feel very strongly on this subject matter. I do not believe that I can find words within the vocabulary acceptable to the House to express myself. May I simply say that as I listened to the remarks made here by those who would now want to be perceived as being holier than thou, I certainly found it to be a disgusting performance. Proclaiming the sanctity of what has happened before without giving much consideration to the damage, grief and trouble which they may cause people in the pursuit of selfish political reasons, they are certainly not admirable.
If there is one think which this debate has emphasized more than another, it is that we should not try to govern by regulation but we should instead try to govern by legislation. This House should be able to work in such a fashion that urgent legislation could indeed be passed. If at the time these regulations were passed it had been the choice of the Government of that day to introduce a Bill into the House to accomplish what these regulations were supposed to accomplish, I do not believe that it would have taken 15 minutes to consider that piece of legislation in all its phases within the House. We would have had the unquestionable support of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Perhaps I am making an assumption which I should not make, but I believe that the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) would have supported it, knowing her environmental concerns. The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 20, 1985
Committee Reports
Darling), to name Members from all sides of the House, would have been totally in support of the Bill and would have encouraged immediate consideration of legislation rather than the adoption of these regulations behind the curtain of the secrecy of Orders in Council.
A regulation is the wrong vehicle for Government. Whether or not there is legal basis for it is in question and obviously the report carries contradictory legal statements as to whether or not the committee should in fact have made the report that it did with the finality of the type of comment it made.
There has been a discussion of secrecy in today's debate. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker) that he sat on the Fisheries Committee with me on many, many occasions since 1972. Among other requests that were made by the Fisheries Committee was a list of licensees in certain areas of the fishing community of eastern Canada. My motion was seconded by a Liberal Member, the then Hon. Member for South West Nova, I believe, but that information was never forthcoming and has not to this day been received. I am again making efforts to get it. I find that the bureaucratic rigmarole which exists is denying me that information to this day. So there are items in this structure which should not be confidential which, in fact, remain as confidential, to the detriment of the better Government of this nation.
To a degree, secrecy is imperative in Government. For instance, when we talked about the expropriation or creation of Crown corporations, such as de Havilland, there was no information available to the House of Commons about the terms and conditions under which that was taking place. There was no notice given to the Government of Canada, or to the people of Canada, that this would take place. It was not given the consideration which the sale seems to require by members of the Opposition. We have a total situation of inconsistency. There is a time and a place for items to be placed before the public. To request some of the information which the Government is declaring as excessively secret is just not in the best interests of Canada. It is pretty nearly time that the people of Canada recognized the false pretenses which are being put forward by the Opposition when they were the artists of secrecy and those who denied us information, even under the Access to Information Act, and under other sources through which Members of Parliament should have been privy to information.
I wish to discuss the regulations with which we are presently dealing. During the debate there were two former cabinet Ministers sitting in the House who also participated in the debate and whose names should appear as having attended cabinet meetings when these regulations were created. They were created for environmental purposes of national and international consequence. I am just not sure what the long-term effect of a greedy Opposition using this as a subject matter for discussion in this House at this point or at any point in time will be. This is a subject matter which could have been
discreetly and properly discussed by conscientious Members of Parliament with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney), the Attorney General (Mr. Crosbie) and Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), or with whatever source this should have been discussed. However, under any circumstances, this should not be the discussion of a debate, as it is presently taking place.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not serving Canada well. I hope the consequences which might flow from this do not, in fact, result. I hope that it may be so far back in the past that it is no longer consequential. However, this is an abuse of the education which they received when they were in Government as they are trying to stall. This is a weak excuse for the absorption of time at this or any other moment in the House of Commons. It serves Canada very poorly, as poorly as they are now held in the opinion of the 450 people who are out of work at Christmas for no valid reason.
For instance, the regulations were presented to the House and should have been enacted. As I said before, they were presented to Cabinet and passed by Cabinet in the best interests of 5,000 Fishermen, fishplant workers and families who depend upon the fishing industry in that area for their livelihood, which was threatened if these regulations were not effected. They were made to protect a unique ecology of an area which favours more marine biological research. It is one of the areas in the Atlantic Ocean which is a source of information unlike any other within another 1,500 miles of that location-the Bay of Fundy. It has a proliferation of marine species which is just unheard of along most of the Atlantic Coast of North America. The Deer Island archipelago was designated as a natural area of Canadian significance. That is why those regulations were passed. It is one of the most important tourist areas in eastern Canada. Campobello on Campobello Island and the Roosevelt-Cam-pobello International Park represent a bi-national memorial to the late U.S. President. The regulations dealt with the degree of navigation risks associated with the continuous year-round supply of crude oil and product distribution from the proposed refinery which was seen to pose a serious threat to the ecology of the region, not to mention anything about the livelihood of it.
This is what we are putting before Canada as an example of a regulation which was approved by a Cabinet in which two former cabinet Ministers were members and who are still present in the House, one of whom was the Solicitor General and who should know better. He is the proponent of this debate. I have no objection to bringing important matters of Canadian Government before the House and debating them publicly. However, I do object to bringing any subject matter before the House which may be of major detriment to Canada in the long run. That is precisely what those graduates of delay are using as a subject matter for further delay in the House and for which they should be condemned publicly and privately.
There are Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, such as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. December 20, 1985

Boudria), who has a right to speak of secrecy, but I think he should consider the consequence of a discussion of this particular subject matter as an example to put before Canada and the international press. It does a disservice to Canada. I say to the Hon. Member for York Centre that he should know better. We should not be engaged in this debate today.
I do not believe there is much more than can be added. I support the concept that secrecy is too prevalent in too many of our dealings with Government. I support the concept which I wish had been pushed a little harder by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, namely, that there should be more Government by legislation and less Government by regulation. Until that takes place, debates of this type will be prevalent in the House for a long while. It is simply government by secrecy; it is not government in public.
I regret the fact that some of the legislation which is being discussed here today was considered by committee and recommendations were made for amendment and those recommendations were not accepted. I agree with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior who said that we need to have more capability in terms of drafting legislation and that draftsmen may need more time to draft it and they may need more staff.
If this regulation is ultra vires, as the committee contends, and as the legal advice from the proper Canadian Department denies, then it is certainly an example of why we should have better draftsmen, and better planning and less regulation- much less reglation. I wish to say personally to members of the Opposition, and to the Hon. Member for Davenport in particular, that nobody would have supported these regulations, or would have more quickly supported an amendment to the proper Act to make it legislation, than the Hon. Member for Davenport or others whom I have earlier mentioned. It is an example of an unnecessary regulation. With a little bit of negotiation in the House it would have passed as law in 15 minutes in all three stages. However, here we chose to regulate. We have now chosen to place an unfortunate example of the frailty of regulations in a legal sense and of the unnecessary nature of regulations in the broad sense as an instrument of Government before the House.
I sincerely hope that the motion will now be dropped and that the report of the committee will be treated as any other committee report would be treated. I ask this of a former cabinet Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, who should be a responsible man looking after the best interests of Canada. Drop the cheap political advantage. Let's get on with the business of this House. Use another subject matter but do not belabour this one any longer.


Mr. Caccia:: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his last intervention, the Hon. Member made reference to the Hon. Member from Davenport. I want to make sure he was really referring to the Hon. Member for Davenport and not to another Hon. Member.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will take that as a question or a comment with respect to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in response to the question, Mr. Speaker, that I have respect for his interest in the environment. This is an environment-related subject matter. I said we had something in common.


Mr. Speaker:: I will interrupt questions and comments for a point of order by the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
* * #


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations between House Leaders and I think you will find a disposition at this time for unanimous consent to have the following Order presented and accepted without debate or a vote. The Order is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the House shall immediately proceed to the consideration of Government Orders provided that the motion presently before the House shall be transferred to Government Orders;
That the first item of business shall be the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-79, An Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits and the second item of business shall be the consideration of report stage of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act.
Provided that;
1.	During the consideration of the said bills not more than two Members from each Party shall speak for more than 15 minutes.
2.	At not later than 4:45 o'clock p.m. this day, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the Report Stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-79, An Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, and of the Report Stage and the third Reading Stage of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act.
3.	If a recorded division is demanded on any of the above-mentioned questions, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded once for not more than fifteen minutes.
4.	When the House has concluded its consideration of the above-mentioned Bills, the Speaker shall suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair.
5.	The provisions of the Standing Order 70(1) shall be deemed suspended with respect to the membership of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
6.	When the House takes up consideration of the Report Stage of Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, not more than four sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the report and Third Reading stages of the said Bill provided that, at not later than fifteen minutes before the end of the time provided for government business on the fourth such day the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the said stages of said Bill.

December 20, 1985
Depositors Compensation
7.	When the sitting is resumed for purpose of witnessing the Royal Assent
once that proceeding has been concluded, the Speaker shall adjourn the House
until 11:00 o'clock a.m., Monday, January 13, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: May the Chair have clarification of point No.
1?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The intention, Sir, is that with respect to each of the Bills there will be two speakers per Bill on all stages, that is to say, notwithstanding our normal rules with respect to 10-minute speeches. It is understood, I believe, that the remarks can be general with respect to the legislation and not specifically on the-


Mr. Speaker:: It is just a straight mathematical question. Is it intended that there would be two speakers from each Party on each Bill or two speakers from each Party in total?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Each Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. That is something the Chair needed to be clear on.
Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the Order?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being such consent, shall the Order carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 18, 1985 consideration of Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 2 (Miss Nicholson (Trinity)) (p. 8737) and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Riis) (p. 8738).
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I must tell Hon. Members that in my nearly 18 years as a Member of Parliament, Bill C-79 strikes me as being the most objectionable and unacceptable piece of legislation I have ever seen. It will not take me a full 15 minutes to summarize once again my objection to this Bill. I will be much briefer than that.
1 do want Members of Parliament to know why I feel so negative about this Bill, and I want to assure my constituents that, as they have instructed me to do, I will fight with all the vigour I can muster as a private Member of Parliament against this piece of legislation.
1 will begin by saying, first, that we were misinformed about the circumstances surrounding the Canadian Commercial Bank. In fact, I would go so far as to say we were fooled when the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) assured us that if the Government of Canada participated in a bail-out package, it would put the Canadian Commercial Bank back on its feet and that the taxpayers of Canada would receive back the amount of money they had contributed to that bail-out package. We were assured of that.
The Minister made the prediction that if we in this Party supported her in that bail-out package that all would be well. I believe that will go down in the history of Canada as one of the world's worst predictions. In fact there is a little volume which has been published called "The World's Worst Predictions". 1 think the Minister of State for Finance will find that her statement about the importance and success of that bail-out package will be listed in that little volume.
Hon. Members might be interested in knowing another prediction which comes out of that little volume. In 1868, Congressman Ferris was talking in the U.S. Congress on the subject of the purchase of Alaska: He said: "The possession of this Russian territory can give us neither honour, wealth or power but will always be a source of weakness and expense without any adequate return". The Minister of State for Finance has made herself famous in the assurance she gave to the House that the bail-out package would work and it will go into this volume of the world's worst predictions.
This bank fiasco, in my view, reveals two things, and 1 will not dwell on either because the point has been made repeatedly. However, the bank fiasco does reveal that there is continuing incompetence within this Government. The Government has not yet got its act together. It does not know where it is going and when it started messing around in the money markets, it got its Fingers badly burned and it took all of us with it, including a lot of dollars from the Canadian taxpayers. So I must say that Bill C-79 is a demonstration of Government incompetence.
I would also like to say that Bill C-79 does not have anything at all to do with justice, be it natural justice or otherwise, but has everything to do with face-saving of a Government which is deeply embarrassed because it made a prediction which was wrong and it now wants to save its own face and it is doing that at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.
My second point is that I object as strongly as 1 possibly can to the secrecy surrounding Bill C-79. I know this is being done under the very high-sounding principle of confidentiality. However, I ask again, as my leader asked when this debate started: How can we approve unspecified ex gratia payments
December 20, 1985

to persons unkown. That offends everything Parliament stands for. That is why my leader put forward an amendment at the very beginning of this debate which said tell us who these depositors are and then we will consider approval of such a Bill. We never got those names. In fact, before we had even finished debating the amendment, time allocation was imposed and debate was cut off.
We have heard pleas to pass this Bill because credit unions and municipalities are hurting, and that we in the Opposition are being unfair in debating this Bill because those organizations are suffering. Let me say that these organizations could be easily not ashamed to make themselves know. They have said they made a mistake. They put money into badly managed financial institutions. Their ratepayers are unhappy and their credit union members are unhappy. Well, we should pay them because we know who they are. The principle of confidentiality does not apply. Disclosure of the beneficiaries of these payments should be a minimum requirement of this Bill. They are benefiting at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer and we ought to know who they are. Remember, Sir, that nothing in Bill C-79 will help the Surrey Credit Union in British Columbia. Why not? That credit union was not a depositor in either of the two banks. They purchased debentures from the Northland Bank and there is nothing in Bill C-79 which will help them at all.
The Dupre Report was commissioned by the Government of Ontario because that province has had to deal with failed financial institutions which cost people many millions of dollars. That report makes it very clear that there should not be any back-stop legislation for financial institutions. That is to say, above and beyond what we already have, such as deposit insurance up to $60,000. The report says that is adequate. In fact, it argues that it is more than adequate. Why does the report not want back-stop legislation? Because it simply encourages inefficient, sloppy management. That is exactly what we had with the Canadian Commercial Bank. Perhaps what we really ought to be doing at this time is bringing in a law which makes such gross mismanagement an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.
My final point is that my constituents find this Bill to be outrageous and unwarranted. It is dipping into their pockets for money they can ill afford. The people I represent work very hard for their wages and salaries.


Mr. Oostrom:: So did the depositors.


B. Keith Penner: People in the pulp and paper plants, in the bush, in the stores, in restaurants on the road all work very hard for their dollar and they get few if any tax breaks. On May 23, for example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought forward a modest tax relief measure dealing with loans for houses granted to employees by their employers. It is a good tax relief measure. However, as I have told this House before, in my constituency there is a company which grants such loans to its employees and they have a divided house; those who got the loan after May 23 get tax relief. Those who got their loan before do not. They work for the same company
Depositors Compensation
and live in the same community. I pleaded with the Minister to incorporate a grandfather clause to correct this injustice but what did he say? He said: "I am sorry but if we did this it would increase the deficit in an unacceptable way". Increase the deficit! It is such a modest expenditure in the name of fairness and to say it would increase the deficit is totally unacceptable. Here we have a Bill which will cost taxpayers of this country $875 million and they give me that kind of argument where there is a genuine case of injustice.
Another example is that of prospectors, some 4,000 of them, who go out under the most adverse conditions to locate new mineral deposits. In many instances these prospectors exchange their claims for property. In due course they sell the property. The Minister of Finance brought in a new tax measure involving an exemption for capital gains in a certain amount over the lifetime of the taxpayer. Whether that is a good measure or not has yet to be debated in the House. However, the curious thing is that a prospector who wants to take advantage of that measure is denied the right to do so. He does not qualify when he sells that property which he exchanged for claims. That is considered to be income and 1 say that is an injustice for that category of person. Finally, Sir, dealing with unfairness and injustice, when family allowances are distributed next year what will the increase be? A ridiculous 31 cents. That is why my constituents object and object strongly to this Bill.
Although we are going to divide on this Bill today and the Government's majority will certainly carry the Bill, this issue of bank failures, bail-outs and payments to unknown persons in unspecified amounts will not go away. The Estey Commission has yet to be heard from. The names of those depositors will eventually come out. We will know who they are. This bank fiasco will have a serious negative effect on this Government and there will be a fall-out for a long time to come.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect.


B. Keith Penner: I oppose the Bill. The debate is over. 1 rest my case.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making quite clear something 1 am sure is not misunderstood by anyone in the House or the country, and that is that we have opposed this measure from the start. We continue to oppose it. It was wrong when it was first conceived. It was conceived as a result of either misinformation provided to the Ministers, or because they did not understand the information given to them. I want to make it clear that there is absolutely no justification for dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to pay uninsured depositors' losses. Those depositors in this instance put their money in this bank because they felt they could achieve a marginally greater rate of return than they could have got from any of the other financial institutions available to them. In doing that they knew they were taking a risk. They knew full well, right from the very beginning, that the insurance limits established by law on deposits in financial institutions in Canada were $60,000. So I say people who put their money in these banks, whether they be institutions or

December 20, 1985
Depositors Compensation
individuals, were fully aware of the insurance limit in place and there can be no justification for the Government of Canada now moving in and using taxpayers' dollars to bail those people out.
I want to ask other Members to go back with me to the early part of the 1980s when farmer after farmer was losing his farm because they could not meet their mortgage commitments. It was not possible for them to work out an arrangement with banks not unlike this bank. Where was the Government of Canada when it should have bailed out those farmers? I ask you to consider the small-business people who could not afford the debt load that was imposed upon them by banks that were charging 20, 21, and 22 per cent interest and who lost their businesses as a result of the banks' usury. Where was the Government when it should have bailed out those people?
I ask Members of the House of Commons to think about homeowners in the country in the early 1980s who, when faced with the requirement to renew mortgages, found themselves unable to meet the exorbitant rates that the banks were foisting upon them. They, therefore, lost all the equity they had in their homes. Where was the Government to bail them out at that time? If we could not afford to do for the farmers, the small-business people, and the homeowners of this land what was required to be done by way of support during periods of grave difficulty, how in heaven's name can we justify doing it now for those who had money to put into a bank and took a higher risk which caught up with them?
I want Members to think carefully about that reality. Who are we giving the money to? We are about to decide that we will hand out $875 million to unsecured depositors.We are not to know who they are. No one is going to tell us. We are not entitled to know. How in the name of heaven can we be prepared to hand out almost $1 billion that could have been used for so many other worth-while purposes to people whose names we are not permitted to know? I have an obligation, to the best of my ability, to ensure that the Government spends the taxpayers' dollars wisely. It is a difficult enough job given the rigmarole that we have to go through on a daily basis. However, to ask me to approve an expenditure in the order of $1 billion, and to allow those tax dollars to be handed over to unnamed people, whether corporate or private, is both unfair and wrong.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: And foreign.


Ian Deans: My colleague says "and foreign", and I think that is another point which must be made at this time. Almost $112 million of this $1 billion is to be paid out to foreign banks. They are to be given Canadian taxpayers's dollars under circumstances in which, if they were to occur within the jurisdiction where they have a head office, they could not claim, nor would they get, the kind of largess that is being offered by the Government at the expense of the people of Canada. Not a single solitary one of those foreign banks could go to the Government of the United States, where most of
them come from, and ask that Government to bail them out because another bank in which they had deposits failed. There is no such law, provision, or intention. The same thing is equally true in every other country. It makes no sense.
To allow this to happen in the face of all the problems that we are confronted with on a daily basis does draw into question the sense of Members of Parliament with regard to their responsibilities to their constituents. Not to cast aspersions, it is understandable that Members on the Government side would want to support their Government, whether it is right or wrong, and would feel the necessity to rise behind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and support them in the endeavour.
Surely, however, deep down in their hearts when they think about it they know that the measure being proposed is inappropriate and wrong and that there can be no justification for providing for those who determined that they would speculate and for providing that that speculation be ensured beyond that which was available to all others operating within the same area across the country. I suggest, therefore, that we could and should be finding alternative uses for the money that is to be sent out by cheque in the new year to a lot of people who are, no doubt, very nice, but who, in fact, have no business expecting that the Government of Canada will bail them out.
What could we have done with the money? We could have built 21,667 new non-profit housing units, or we could have created 100,000 new day care spaces, or we could have provided 300 shelters for battered women, or we could have given each single mother in Canada $2,000, or we could have created over 100,000 jobs for people who are now unemployed, or, if it was ever the desire of the Conservative Government, we could have raised all GIS recipients above the poverty line. That is what we could have done with the nearly $1 billion which we are about to give out, improperly and without justification in my opinion, to people who chose to seek a somewhat higher rate of return than that which they could have received from the larger institutions and other sources of investment.
We are now prepared to deprive the country of those benefits by taking $1 billion out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians to give to those who sought a little more rather than being satisfied with what was available. That is exactly what the Government is doing and that is what makes it so wrong.
We have made the case time and time again, and there is no point in remaking it every day, that the Government has, for one reason or another, failed to provide the kind of leadership necessary to bring about fiscal responsibility. When the Government was in Opposition and sought power it claimed that it would operate in such a way that the deficit would come down through some mystical, magical means. This year we will see the highest deficit in the history of Canada. We will have the highest deficit in history because the Government is prepared to take the inopportune and improper steps which this Bill exemplifies.
December 20, 1985

I cannot help but feel that the arguments being made to us with regard to necessity are wrong even from the point of view of the people who will get the benefit. I have listened to representatives of the credit unions, many of whom are my friends, as they have argued that they need the money. However, the fact is that through the credit union centrals a protective mechanism was put into place many years ago to guarantee the assets of member credit unions at the local level. There is already an umbrella operation which covers losses of individual credit unions in the extent of bad management or bad luck with investment. To suggest that the credit unions are faced with dire consequences unless this Bill passes is not true. The facts are clear that the credit union movement is solvent because it is prudent and it is prudent because it has been managed well. It has put insurance in place to cover the possibility of losses. It does not need, nor would it have asked, the Government to provide this kind of support. The only reason why we are now being lobbied to pass the Bill quickly is because the Government rushed out like Santa Claus in the middle of the year and said not to worry because it will pay it all off. It did not consider for one minute where it would get the money.
I suggest that it is time that we drew the line and said, no, we will not do it because it is wrong. It is wrong because it does not reflect the kind of attitude that we want Canadians to have toward the Government. If I were a Tory I would be rising and saying that people cannot expect the Government to do everything for them. That is the attitude we hear from the Tory benches whenever I want to raise the issue of giving unemployment insurance for people whose benefits have expired and are still without jobs. The Conservatives say: "The Government cannot do everything for you". When I raise the question of people who are being ripped off by exorbitant rents and cannot find sufficient social housing to accommodate themselves and their families, the Conservatives say: "The Government cannot do everything for you".
Now we see a situation where a few of their good friends, hidden somewhere in the list of names, want to get a few more dollars from the system. The Conservatives, always ready, come forward to make sure that they are bailed out with taxpayers' dollars. I say that this will be done over the most strenuous objections of the New Democratic Party. It will be done in spite of what is right. It will be done only because the Conservative Party enjoys the largest majority in Canada's history. If it were in any other Parliament, it would not and could not be done.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this-


Philip Derek Lewis: Wait. The third-


John Napier Turner: I am sorry.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary is recognizing that I was in difficulty as a result of one Conservative Member
Depositors Compensation
and the Right Hon. gentleman rising at the same time. In that context I chose to recognize the Right Hon. gentleman, unless he chooses to wait and let the Conservative speak.


John Napier Turner: I am not depriving the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Not at all.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 had the opportunity to address this issue at second reading and put an amendment, against which closure was applied. That is becoming a newly contagious habit of the Government. It enjoys the largest majority since Confederation yet it is unable to process its Bills through the House without using the hammer, without abusing the free flow of debate and without applying a guillotine to virtually every measure that comes into the House. I can say quite categorically that we are against this legislation because it is bad legislation which should never have been brought into the House.
I want to congratulate my colleague, the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who spoke earlier and set out the arguments very well this afternoon. I also want to pay tribute to my colleagues who have followed this matter through the committee, particularly the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), who has been the official critic on this issue and has been very penetrating indeed in her analysis and questioning. I believe that her questions to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have been beautifully crafted and an example to every other Member in the House as to how to put a Minister on the spot.
I also want to reinforce my congratulations to her by paying tribute to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gar-neau) and the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who supported her in the committee very effectively.
The bank failure fiasco that led to this Bill is an incredible tale of ministerial incompetence and deception.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is not what the Senate said.


John Napier Turner: That is exactly what the Senate said. The other place divided on the issue of ministerial responsibility because they wanted a unanimous report and we could not persuade the Conservative members in the other place to give full vent to their feelings as to the ministerial incompetence that took place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when the original bail-out came before the House in March we in the Liberal Party supported it on the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on the word of the Minister of Finance and the word of the Minister of State for Finance. Let me quote the Minister of Finance when he said on March 25 that: "We are satisfied that this bank is now a viable bank, that it will be profitable in the future, that we will

December 20, 1985
Depositors Compensation
be repaid as will other members of the support group out of the future profits of the bank".
What a pathetic prophet the Minister of Finance turned out to be. Just six months later, having induced Parliament to dedicate $255 million of hard earned money from the Canadian taxpayers, not one bank went belly up, the Canadian Commercial Bank, but the Northland Bank as well because of the ineptitude of the Minister of State for Finance when she linked the Northland to the Canadian Commercial Bank in her press release of September 3. These two banks were the first banks to go bankrupt in this country in 60 years.
We agreed to the original bail-out because we were impressed with the Minister's arguments that the bank would remain solvent and because we wanted to endorse confidence of Canadians in our banking system. We felt that it was important to maintain confidence in our banking system because of the indebtedness around the world, the large indebtedness in the farming community, the indebtedness in Latin America and the indebtedness in corporate North America.
We believed in the flexibility and decentralization of our regional banking system which was introduced into western Canada by the previous Government under Mr. Trudeau. It allowed citizens of British Columbia, Alberta and other western provinces to deal with their finances closer to home rather than having to go on bended knee to central Canadian bankers in Montreal or Toronto. For those reasons we agreed with the Bill. We did not know at the time that the two Ministers involved were shamefully incompetent. We did not know that under their direction no audit had been requested of the loan portfolio of the Canadian Commercial Bank and that no one had done their homework.
According to the testimony before the Finance Committee and the evidence coming from the Estey Commission, the Canadian chartered banks suggested that they should look at the loan portfolio before investing their money. They offered to have officials review the situation over the weekend to determine the facts.
Rather than $255 million in loans being sour, it turned out that $600 million to $800 million of loans in the loan portfolio of the Canadian Commercial Bank were rotten. The bail-out did not have a chance of succeeding.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance brought a measure before the House that was absolutely incapable of succeeding. The reason for that legislation was that the Ministers went to the Prime Minister during the weekend of that national economic conference. The Prime Minister said that he did not want to know the facts because he did not want a bank to go belly up under a Conservative administration. He said: "I do not want a Conservative Government to be responsible for the first bank failure in over 60 years. I do not care what the facts are, save the bank".
The Government was flying blind. During second reading of this Bill I said that it was amateur night on the Rideau River. Parliament was conned and we were misled. The Minister did
not know what they were talking about. Incidentally, neither the Minister of State for Finance nor the Minister of Finance who are defending this legislation have the courtesy to be in the House to see that this Bill is passed at third reading. At one time Ministers who were responsible for legislation before Your Honour were here for the debate. They were here to listen to the opinions of Members of Parliament. However, that is not the case with these Ministers and the Government. It relies on the blind majority of those silent, anonymous, invisible surfers, to use the eloquent words of some of our junior Members. They do not come and face Parliament on the last day before the House rises to defend this legislation, listen to what Members of Parliament have to say and justify the expenditure of $875 million. They are not here.


André Ouellet: There is not a single Minister in the room.


John Napier Turner: There is one.
Parliament was conned and the commercial banks were fooled. This is an example of shameful incompetence on the part of the Government. We are being asked to approve a cheque for $875 million without knowing to whom the Canadian taxpayers' money is to be paid. 1 do not believe there has been a precedent for that.
Members of our caucus had to swallow hard before agreeing to the arrangement we have today to allow this Bill to go through. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said that we had to hold our noses. The Prime Minister need not do that because he does not have a sense of smell. However, I can tell you that we do. This Bill stinks. Here we have another example of the lust for secrecy which the Government has. We finally got the documents on de Havilland, thanks to the tremendous efforts of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-a tremendous victory for what an individual Member of Parliament can do in his riding if he persists hard enough. We finally got the documents. We may have got an undertaking from the Prime Minister that a parliamentary committee will be given a chance to review Crown corporations if they are on the block, up for sale, and that all Members of Parliament will be given a chance to look at them. But we have this blank cheque. It is virtually unconscionable to ask Members of Parliament to authorize this amount of money when we do not know the recipients of it.
Of course, the Minister of State for Finance said to know is illegal under the Bank Act. We do have a tradition judicially in force, legally in force, statutorily in force, of the confidentiality of our banking system, but that does not apply. This bank is under the Winding-Up Act. This bank had a curator appointed to it and then a receiver. There is no way under the Winding-Up Act that creditors can be kept secret. They have to declare themselves. This Parliament has been persuaded and bludgeoned to preserve the veil of secrecy over these depositors.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: For good reasons.
December 20, 1985


John Napier Turner: There may well be good reasons. The facts will come out. We have the inquiry under Mr. Justice Estey. We have the lists in the hands of certain people. The names will come out. I cannot understand the Government. We will find out the real reason the Government is withholding the names from us.
This was a political decision. It was not an informed economic decision. The incompetence of the Government failed to stem the haemorrhage of the Canadian Commercial Bank. I admit the bank was badly managed. I will admit the bank overconcentrated its loans in real estate, in oil in Alberta, California and Texas. It may be that other consequences will flow from the report of Mr. Justice Estey. The way the Government handled it sapped a good deal of confidence from our banking system. So much so, Mr. Speaker, that when the Mercantile Bank was finally saved, Ottawa was irrelevant. The banking system put the deal together in Montreal and Toronto and told the Minister of Finance after it had been put together that it did not have confidence anymore in how Ottawa was conducting its affairs.
What is the final cost, Mr. Speaker? The traditional historic first right of Parliament is to raise taxation and to spend the people's money. That is why we are here. Nothing is more important. This is why we would not knuckle under to closure on the budget Bill.
What is the final cost? We have tried to estimate it. Sixty million dollars was the Government's share of the original bail-out, $875 million to be authorized today before Your Honour for uninsured depositors, whose names we do not know; $75 million was the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation's portion of the original bail-out; 250 million for the insured depositors for the Canadian Commercial Bank and $170 million for the insured depositors of Northland.
How much money was the Bank of Canada forced to print in order to add to the liquidity of those two banks? Two billion dollars? We do not know. In any event, the total amount of money contributed by the Central Bank and by the Ministry of Finance is somewhere in the range of $3 billion.
Yet a measure of this importance was subjected to closure at second reading. Why the big rush? Why the anonymity? Why the secrecy? Why this blank cheque from Parliament for almost a billion dollars? A billion dollars is about $20,000 per taxpayer.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, one billion dollars means $20,000 per taxpayer in Canada. It will buy 100,000 automobiles or 8 million bicycles or 8,000 or 10,000 housing units for the poor and the needy in our country. One billion is a lot of money! We say the words "one billion dollars", and it may not mean much to the Minister, but this is 1,000 times one million! Who are these depositors? We know that two individual depositors are going to receive $3.5 million. We don't know them. They are ghosts. Who are these people? Well-
Depositors Compensation

We accept the inevitable, Mr. Speaker. We put all the issues we could before you. This is a result of Government incompetence. It involves ministerial responsibility of two Ministers who do not have the courtesy to appear in the House on third reading when this measure is being put before Your Honour.
We are talking about a huge amount. We are talking about something, perhaps you in your greater wisdom can, Mr. Speaker, but I can never remember a blank cheque being issued by the Parliament of Canada to men and women in institutions whose names we are not given. We are paying out over $1 billion to anonymous depositors, a delicious Christmas present for people we do not know who they are. I venture to say that we will find out some day. Why? We are doing it at the expense of the poor and the disadvantaged who could use the money at this time. We are arguing about family allowances. The farmers in western Canada wonder why there cannot be a more generous drought program and why there cannot be a more generous program of financing and rescheduling of debt. The farmers of western Canada wonder why their banks are being saved at their expense. People risked depositing in those banks for a high rate of interest. We are not talking about the uninsured depositor of $60,000 or less, but those depositors over $60,000.


Lloyd Axworthy: The greedy ones.


André Ouellet: The rich.


John Napier Turner: We have money for them, Mr. Speaker. The Government endorses that payment by way of a blank cheque, yet we do not have any money for the western farmer, for family allowances, the disadvantaged or the unemployed. We gulp. There it is, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your giving me the generosity of your attention and your time.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I may say that I was very happy, and with me I suppose all the Members of this House, to see a new spirit, a Christmas spirit, a holiday spirit had pervaded the House this afternoon to help us agree on the menu for this last day, so that we can look forward to spending some pleasant holidays at home with our families.
Around Christmas time, we all have a tendency to look back over the years, and that is what I would like to do in connection with Bill C-79. And considering the spririt of openness shown by the party whips, and the atmosphere of generosity that pervades this House, Mr. Speaker, I will of course refrain from saying anything that might spoil the new ambience we sense in Parliament today.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may point out that if we go back to 1925, there was a Bill at the time referred to as Bill 182-

December 20, 1985
Depositors Compensation

-an Act for the relief of the depositor of the Home Bank of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, history can teach us a number of things, and first of all, that it tends to repeat itself, but it can also repeat itself in reverse. And after listening to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), followed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) and finally the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), I would like to quote the Hon. Member for Halifax at the time, a Mr. Black, who said the following about the disastrous circumstances of the failure of the Home Bank:

The Home Bank failure is one of the greatest "black marks" which banking in Canada has ever experienced ... The principles of good banking were ignored; deception and fraud were practised; so that in the end shareholders, depositors and others suffered severe loss. There was a period when this government could have saved heavy loss to those interested parties, the depositors and shareholders, without costing the country a dollar... Now the country is called upon to provide some five and a half millions to reimburse the depositors who unfortunately made bad investments by placing their savings in that bank-
Mr. Black continued as follows:
This is a dangerous policy, forming a precedent and opening the door for further claims, past or future, of similar character.
Mr. Speaker, today, history repeats itself with Bill C-79. In 1925, Le Devoir printed the following headline: "Nearly five and a half million for Home Bank customers". And who led the federal Government in 1925, Mr. Speaker? It was none other than the Right Hon. Mackenzie King! The motion presented by the Liberal Government at the time was adopted with 100 in favour and 20 opposed. I may add that in 1925, which was 61 years ago, five and a half million dollars was .. . Index that at 8 per cent with compound interest. How much would that be today, in 1985? Since I am not a financial expert, I'd rather not figure it out, but it was an astronomical sum for 1925.
And to continue this digression into history, what were the motives that brought the Members of the House to adopt this measure? There were two. People mentioned patriotism. In fact, it was said that the failure of a Canadian bank would be a disaster for Canada's prestige. That was one of the arguments. Our national credibility was at stake. And it was also said that this fiasco was due to World War I, which, it seems, had ravaged our economy. And, Mr. Speaker, even though I can feel this atmosphere of optimism and warmth, consultation and brotherly love, was it not the Liberal Government that went out to the West with its energy policy, and are not the results of that policy very similar to the economic devastation brought about by war? Those were the motives mentioned at the time for supporting this measure.
As the Hon. Member for Halifax, Mr. Black, said: We have created a precedent. Today, probably for the same reasons, we are faced with a disastrous situation, and this Government has decided to protect the interests of depositors and protect Canada's credibility by introducing a measure that is not necessarily a reason for rejoicing. Nobody likes to mop up the other guy's mess. It is not with overwhelming enthusiasm that we use public funds today to come to grips with a critical situation.
You know, we must put the fire out, and a fire is red, like a Liberal. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have to do it because we are in office and we are stuck with the same Canadian reality.
History usually repeats itself, Mr. Speaker. The then Government had also appointed a royal commission of inquiry to study the matter. Now we have the Estey Commission, but then Mr. Harrison A. McKeown was the commissioner. And of course, throughout the inquiry, much had been said about the enormous difficulties experienced by the management of the institution which handled a lot of venture capital in certain cases. Some Members at the time had expressed reservations about inquiries made by a few public officials.
It would seem that this institution, the Home Bank, had certain guarantees in British Columbia and that the Government could not very well ignore them. As a result of a thorough investigation, however, they had given rise to some questions, and properly so.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the Members who rose in the House earlier should have refreshed their memory about history. At least two of them forgot something, particularly the Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) when his own party at one time was forced to take similar steps in nearly identical circumstances. The same arguments had been used then, of course. A Member at the time, Mr. Kennedy of Glengarry, had stated that the amount involved was to be used to repay other depositors as well. Other institutions had been mentioned, like Banque Ville-Marie, Banque du Peuple, to mention Quebec banks, of course, and Banque Saint-Jean which had been unable to qualify for the same kind of generous assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Government had to intervene, however regretfully, and Members should not attempt to indulge in petty politics with this matter which happens to be a reality, the result of a declining economy in Western Canada, the aftermath of incidents over which this Government had no control. The Government did so with generosity, undoubtedly inspired by the principles which had guided this Parliament in its decision in 1925. We are showing that this Parliament can be generous towards destitute people.
And at the time, Mr. Speaker, the Government did not reveal the names of the Home Bank depositors either. At the time, they respected the privacy of these depositors. And of
December 20, 1985

course the Opposition pointed out all the precedents this would create.
However, I think that with this spirit of generosity, we also have a duty as Members and as Parliament to cope with difficult situations and of course, these are extremely difficult choices to make, but we wanted to protect the broader interests of Canada vis-a-vis the world community, and we also particularly wanted to protect the interests of the neediest in our society, small depositors, municipalities and small- and medium-sized businesses.
And if a few big fish who perhaps should not benefit from our generosity get through the net as well, 1 think that our democratic system and our system of freedoms is structured in such a way that, to save the greatest number, we unfortunately have to let a few profiteers through as well.
Mr. Speaker, it is with very little enthusiasm that we are supporting this measure, but at least we can rest assured that it will benefit Western Canada and the country as a whole.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there is a lessen of history to be learned for many of us. Perhaps one of the lessons of history that is most important to learn is that when it comes to helping the large corporations, the big companies that go bankrupt and those who are already rich and wealthy but run into trouble, scratch a Conservative and you will find a socialist, Mr. Speaker. Conservatism in this country as indeed Liberalism has often meant, when it comes right down to it, is socialism for the rich and dog eat dog for the poor. That is what has been demonstrated by this Bill.
If Hon. Members of the House, like me, have held community meetings in the small towns and villages of their constituencies and if they have talked with people from the different cities that they represent, they must have heard the one particular question I heard from people who voted Conservative, who believed in Conservative members and who felt that the election of a Conservative Government somehow represented a new step in this country's history. That question was how could this kind of giveaway from the poor and ordinary Canadians to the rich possibly have taken place?
At the community meetings I have held in my constituency in recent weeks, person after person has risen to ask me why this $1 billion is being given to the banks. Frankly, it is a difficult question for me to answer even if I am able to put on my partisan hat.
The questions the people ask are very tough and hard questions. First, they ask why this large giveaway is being handed out at a time when the Government says the country faces near bankruptcy because of the size of the deficit. They also ask why it is that this money is being given in a secretive way to people whose names we do not even know. Having heard some of the details, they ask why we are not prepared to give help only to individuals because it could well be that there
Depositors Compensation
are individuals who are hard up and for whom the loss of more than $60,000 would seriously damage plans for retirement or the future. However, that cannot justify the giving in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank $108 million to foreign banks, over $65 million to other banks, over $56 million to investment dealers and brokers and over $51 million to large corporations. In the case of the Northland Bank, it is a further $4 million to foreign banks, $20 million to the rich existing banks in Canada, $54 million to investment dealers and brokers and $90 million to other corporations.
If we were giving money to those who deeply, desperately needed the resources of the taxpayers, then there might be some justification for this. However, to give this money to those who are already rich and wealthy is something which my people simply cannot understand. My people see around them people hurting badly, farmers in Essex County going bankrupt, small business people going bankrupty, women needing help for retraining to go back into the workforce with equity and fairness, young people such as those we have met recently through the youth task force who are looking for special help and umeployed people of whom there are still far too many in our community. They see for each of these groups a desperate need for help and they hear in response to the demands each of these groups make for help the same answer from the Government: we cannot afford it because the deficit is too high and becasue we do not have the money. Yet when the banks come begging, socialism for the rich becomes an historical reality once again. The banks get what they want and the people are left facing insecurity, difficulty and a sense of unfairness that to them is simply overpowering. The people simply cannot see the justice in powerful individuals, corporations and banks being helped despite the law while poor people do not get the valid assitance to which they feel entitled.
I appreciate the history lesson given by the Hon. Member who spoke earlier. It is a lesson that shows that socialism for the rich has a long, dishonourable tradition in Canada, a tradition that harks back to the Home Bank. It is a tradition which we see today being carried on by the Government for the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank. It was always so and that is what makes this country so cynical about our politics and the fairness of our governmental system.
We cannot practise socialism for the rich and dog-eat-dog for the poor and still claim to be a country in which fairness rules. I will be proud to vote against this Bill today along with the remainder of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I will do so out of a sense of equity and fairness and out of a sense that the socialism that we need in Canada is socialism for ordinary Canadians and not a socialism for the rich like that we see being perpetuated in this Bill and that we have seen in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There being no further speakers on Bill C-79 I take it that it was the intent of the House in this situation, pursuant to the order which was adopted earlier.

December 20, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
that I would now defer all votes with regard to Bill C-79 until five o'clock.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are now about to proceed to Bill C-83.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I am.


Ian Deans: I would simply like to ask that all the motions which are on the Order Paper be deemed to have been moved for the purpose of the debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: We are in agreement with that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will have to deal with that in a minute.


TAX REBATE DISCOUNTING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: 1 am prepared to deem the motions which are in order to have been moved. However, I must indicate to the House the following. In my view, Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which are in order, will be grouped for debate. Motion No. 1 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 3. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 will require the question to be put on Motion No. 3. Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are out of order, since they attempt to introduce in the parent Act a definition which was not contemplated in the Bill at second reading and, therefore, are beyond the scope of the Bill. I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition Citation 773(1).
Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are in order and should be debated and voted on separately. However, for the purpose of this understanding I suggest that we simply deem all the in order Motions, that is Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10, to have been moved and to be before the House and grouped for debate for this Special Order.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 15 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"ninety-nine per cent of the refund of'.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 16 to 22 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"tax,
(b) where the refund of tax is greater than three hundred dollars but less than nine hundred dollars, two hundred and fifty-five dollars plus ninety-five per cent of the amount by which the refund of tax is greater than three hundred dollars, or
(c) where the refund of tax is equal to or greater than nine hundred dollars, eight hundred and twenty-five dollars plus one hundred per cent of the amount by which the refund of tax is greater than nine hundred dollars;"


David Orlikow: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 19 at page I and substituting the following therefor:
"dred and eighty-five dollars plus ninety"
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 2 the following:
"(4) A person using a discounter for the preparation of income tax under the Income Tax Act shall be entitled to the rights of information, impartiality, courtesy and consideration and presumption of honesty as stated in the Revenue Canada document. Declaration of Taxpayer Rights."
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-83, be amended in clause 2 by striking out line 28 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"client's return of income tax to a standard deemed acceptable by generally accepted standards of professional tax preparers or for any other".
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 28 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) a".
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 18 at page 4 the following:
"including the discount rate as an annual rate, calculated as a percentage for the following time periods: four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, twelve weeks;"


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I propose to recognize the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the Conservative Government one last time to accept two amendments to the Tax Rebate Discounting Act.
First of all, I want to thank the Hon. Members for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), Grand Galls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) and Laurier (Mr. Berger) for their contribution to the work and proceedings of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-83.
1 regret the absence of the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), the official critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who I am sure would have liked to take part in the debate on this Bill. I hope she was able to notice that the Members who took over her responsibilities in connection with this Bill fought vigorously on her behalf and on behalf of the needy families in this country. This fact should be of some comfort to her and help her get well soon and come back to the House at the beginning of 1986.
Mr. Speaker, the work done by my colleagues and myself has demonstrated our desire to serve this institution and especially the neediest families in Canada. The important thing, to us, is to make an effort to show that we are on the side of the little man. It is quite obvious that the Bill does not at all meet the expectations of the neediest families in Canada.
December 20, 1985

And because we were very serious about this issue, we presented two amendments. First of all, I want to express my profound regret that the Government Members on the parliamentary committee refused to accept those amendments. We, in the Opposition, had opened the door to a compromise by presenting an initial amendment prohibiting the discounting of child tax credits. This amendment was to have been complemented by another amendment that would have given the Minister a chance to choose the right time to adopt the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, now we all know the truth about the tax rebate discounting industry. We know that only 11 per cent of their clients earn $20,000 or more. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post (Mr. Cote) says that he wants to ensure this consumer group has a choice. 1 think he is referring to the group that earns more than $20,000, because how can anyone claim that people earning $20,000 or less can see the loss of a substantial sum of money as an alternative?
The problem, the real problem is with the time it takes to process income tax returns from those in the low-income bracket.
This Bill does not do anything about that, yet the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), who was supposed to change everything during his mandate at Revenue Canada, did not do anything at all to improve the situation in that respect. More significant still, the Bill does not deal with Canada's ever worsening poverty problem. In fact, the proposed measures will only take more money out of the pockets of the most needy Canadians. We deeply regret the fact that our country is witnessing the further impoverishment of its most destitute citizens, whereas the Government is trying to help shaky financial institutions with an ardour which, had it been applied to the discounting problem, would have led to a much more constructive and much more equitable solution.
The coincidence of the two measures we are forced to adopt today reveals the true face of the Conservatives: on one hand, generosity towards wealthy bank depositors and, on the other, stinginess towards the poorest families in this country. For instance, the Government did not hesitate to abolish quotas on shoes, thereby eliminating many thousands of jobs in Canada to please a few major import companies, but then it simply will not abolish tax discounting, which indeed would benefit Canada's most destitute families.
There is a second amendment which would enable the clients of discounters to pay no more than $75 for this service. In other words, we are proposing that this $75 ceiling be enforced. I would also like to express my regret about the fact that this amendment was defeated in committee. My only satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, is that a Government Member did support our amendment. I hope that now the Government has a last chance to adopt at least two decent amendments to make the legislation more acceptable, it will take advantage of this opportunity to let the neediest families in Canada have the full
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
amount to which they are entitled, because this money is actually an income tax overpayment. The full sum should go back to them, to pay for clothing or furniture or dental bills for a child or another family member. Since the Government has once again demonstrated it is oblivious to the plight of the neediest in our society, 1 would invite them, now we are getting ready for Christmas, to show the neediest in our society they have some heart and some generosity and accept these two amendments.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) will agree with me that the changes which we have made to the child tax credit have little to do with our national footwear industry.
I would also point out, in contradiction to one of the statements made by the Hon. Member, that what we are trying to do with respect to Bill C-83 is two things. First, we are trying to address the needs of the needy and not remove the service from those who need it most. At the same time, we are realizing that there is a service supplied by the discounters. It is not merely a commission or an interest paid. If that were the case the banks would be performing this service. I suggest to the Hon. Member that the banks are not in the least bit interested in supplying this service.
I would also remind the Hon. Member that it was his Government, the former Liberal Government, which introduced tax discounting. It did this for the purpose of supplying a need to the needy. Unlike that administration, in comparison with this administration, the turn-around time from the time of filing to the time of receipt is much less now than it was under the former administration. The Minister says: comme ci, comme fa, but I remind him that the time in some cases is as little as four and one half weeks if filed on time and with the proper information.
I would also like to ask the Hon. Member to think about what would happen if he was in the money lending business, January 15 rolled around, he wanted to get his money in advance and he was offered a rate of 1 per cent or $75, which the Minister suggests is the maximum for discounters, and the amount which was to be received by that client looking for money in advance was $900. Would he lend $900 at 1 per cent or $75 for up to three months? We must be realistic and we must appreciate the fact that when the money is requested from the discounter on January 15, it is physically impossible, since we do not even turn on the computers until February, to refund that money within a four-week period. Therefore, what the discounter is doing is preparing the income tax form for a fee. In addition to that, he is charging what we consider to be a more reasonable rate because of these amendments. We recognize the need for that service, as did the former Government. The only thing we are saying is that it needs to be less because of the shorter turn-around period.

December 20, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
What we have in effect done is said to the people who would like their cash in advance that they can now go, with the passing of Bill C-83, to a discounter, receive their money in advance and have their income tax form filled out for a fee or 15 per cent on the first $300. There is no interest charged. It is just a 15 per cent fee on the first $300, which is $45. That includes the average cost of preparing income tax forms. The discounter then borrows the money in order to pay that person his money in advance and waits until the federal Government makes the refund.
I am sure the Hon. Member will agree, as well as the New Democratic Party, that the odd person in Canada files their income tax and there is a follow-up. There is a change, adjustment or request for further information by the Revenue Canada people. This delays the payment back to the discounter, and we have now reduced the 15 per cent down to 5 per cent on all funds advanced by the discounter in excess of first $300.
To indicate how the consumers feel about this, I would like to read a letter which was sent to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) by the Consumers Association of Canada. It says in part: "In particular, we note that you have agreed with the Consumers Association of Canada's position on the need to lower discount rates and proposed a maximum allowable charge of 5 per cent on any amount over $300". The letter goes on: "You have also accepted CACs view that tax return processing has been too slow and have acted decisively to remedy this situation". This is the paragraph which should be noted: We applaud proposals to pay child tax credit periodically which is in the same piece of legislation by intent in the new tax year to simplify procedures for getting advance loans from financial institutions and to improve the Tax Rebate Discounting Act making it easier to detect and prosecute violators". I feel that Bill C-83, having gone through a series of hearings from interested groups and individuals and from the Consumers Association and the tax discounters that a compromise has been reached. Yes, the discounters would like to make more money and, yes, the consumers would like to get their tax refunds without any cost. However, I respectfully submit that 5 per cent for an advance payment on an amount in excess of $300 is a reasonable charge for the service rendered. I refuse to accept the arguments of the Official Opposition and of the other Opposition, the New Democratic Party, that 5 per cent is an unreasonable rate to charge with the risk involved and the delays which can occur. The delays are caused, as I have explained before, in some cases because there is extra information required and there is no guarantee to the discounter that that tax refund would be returned within four weeks or five weeks. It is a fact that the return time for income tax returns today is quite a bit shorter than it was in 1978 when the Act was first passed allowing the legalization of discounting for those in need.
I refuse to accept the argument that it is only the poor who require money. I do not suppose there are very many Hon. Members sitting in this House who at some time have not asked for money in advance on a promise to pay from a
banking institution in order that they could meet current costs. Discounting is necessary and this legislation is a fair way to approach it.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we oppose this measure not because we think what is now in place is acceptable but because we believe there ought not to be the option to charge people who are in need for the money they have coming back from the Government of Canada.
We want to put on the record that it is the responsibility of Revenue Canada, and if there is the need to advance additional moneys forthwith to those who are in the greatest need, then that should be done through the auspices of Revenue Canada. I want to say that this Bill fails to deal with the question of ripping off the poor. There is close to unanimous opposition to what the Minister has brought forward by the majority of those who understand its implications. The Bill legitimizes the exploitation of the poor in a way in which the original legisla-ton had not envisaged. The growth of the business of exploitation has been phenomenal over the last few years, with kiosks springing up in every shopping plaza, and the vast majority of those who undertake the measure are the representatives of a major corporation, in fact two major corporations which operate within the field from the United States, and it is wrong. Those who are doing in Canada what they are doing could not do the same thing in the United States where they come from and they ought not to be allowed to do it here.

Mr. Speaker, the present situation is unacceptable. Adopting this Bill will not change it. Parliament must immediately put a stop to this practice.

I ask this Parliament to consider the necessity to stand up and admit that it is not enough to say you can charge a little bit, that it is absolutely essential to say that we are going to make Revenue Canada operate effectively and efficiently, and we are going to make sure that those who need the rebates get them without having to pay exoribitant fees.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no further debate, and it being, for the sake of argument, five o'clock, pursuant to the Order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Bill C-79 and Bill C-83 respectively. I propose to commence with the deferred votes with respect to Bill C-79.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DEPOSITORS COMPENSATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Cor-
December 20, 1985
[Stage Direction]
poration and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 2 (Miss Nicholson (Trinity)) (p. 8737) and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Riis) (p. 8738).
Depositors Compensation
Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Mr. Speaker:: The first vote will be on Motion No. 2. Miss Nicholson (Trinity), seconded by Mr. Riis, moves:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-79, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 35
at page 6 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding the Bank Act, the Minister shall cause to be published in this year's Public Accounts a list of all depositors to which a payment was made under this Act."
Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House order allows for one bell. Does the House prefer that we deal with the reading of all of the motions and all of the voice votes and defer all the standing votes until the end?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that with respect to all report stage votes, I think the voice vote would apply. If you want to call the third reading vote at this time and then call Bill C-83 and deal with it in the same way, we will then ring the bells, get everyone in, and we will know what we are voting on. Is that reasonable?


Mr. Speaker:: It is reasonable. There may be one technical difficulty in that we have to re-read the motions at that time. However, I suspect we can handle that. Therefore, a standing division being required on that amendment, I shall defer that division and proceed to the next amendment. The next vote will be on Motion No. 3. Mr. Riis, seconded by Mr. Keeper, moves:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-79, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 35
at page 6 the following:
''(3) Notwithstanding the Bank Act, the Minister shall cause to be published in this year's Public Accounts a list of all depositors to which a payment was made under this Act."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. Accordingly, that division shall stand deferred for the moment.
The Anal matter would be the motion to concur standing in the name of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall). Here is the technical difficulty. It is difficult for me to put the concurrence motion until the divisions have been taken on the amendments.' Therefore may I suggest we revert to the second amendment where 1 have seen sufficient Members rising.
Therefore, call in the Members.
The first question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion will dispose of Motion No. 3.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, I declare the motion lost.
According to my notes, I suspect that we will be trying to apply votes. I take it that the Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) is now here. The Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) wish to be included with their Parties in future votes. The Hon. Member for Calgary North says no.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that the vote on the motion we just dealt with apply to this one. However, I am sure the Government House Leader will insist that it be in the reverse. I would ask that the individual votes be recorded in the same way, except in reverse.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that is a request to apply the same recorded vote in reverse?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If the Government House Leader wants to change his vote and that of his Party, of course we will accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Motion adopted on the reversed		
recorded division, with the addition in		the affirmative of the
Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) and the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), and with the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) in the negative. Is		
that correct?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed. Mr. Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a		point of order. 1 would
like to abstain	from this vote on the	CCB and Northland
Banks.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for Athabasca shall not be recorded with regard to the motion to concur, nor with third reading I take it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, Mrs. McDougall (St. Paul's) moves that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be now read a third time and do pass.


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-79, An Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I take it that it is the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion on a recorded division, reflecting exactly the same vote as occurred on the concurrence motion just taken?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


TAX REBATE DISCOUNTING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the ruling I gave earlier this day, the first vote will be on Motion No. 1. Mr. Orlikow
moves:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 15 at page 1 and substituting the following therefore:
"Ninety-nine per cent of the refund of'-
Shall I dispense with the bells?
Tax Rebate Discounting Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 2. Mr. Ouellet moves:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 16 to 22 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"tax,
(b)	where the refund of tax is greater than three hundred dollars but less than nine hundred dollars, two hundred and fifty-five dollars plus ninety-five per cent of the amount by which the refund of taxes is greater than three hundred dollars, or,
(c)	where the refund of tax is equal to or greater than nine hundred dollars, eight hundred and twenty-five dollars plus one hundred per cent of the amount by which the refund of tax is greater than nine hundred dollars;"

December 20, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
Do I sense that there is consent to apply exactly the same recorded vote to that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost Motion No. 3. Mr. Orlikow moves:		. The next vote is on
Motion No. 3		
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 19 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor: "dred and eighty-five dollars plus ninety-"		
Do I sense that there is consent to apply the same recorded


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion	lost. The next vote is
Motion No. 7. Mr. Orlikow moves:		
Motion No. 7		
That Bill C-83 be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 9 at		
page 2 the following:		
"(4) A person using a discounter for the preparation of income tax under the Income Tax Act shall be entitled to the rights of information, impartiality, courtesy and consideration and presumption of honesty as stated in the Revenue Canada document. Declaration of Taxpayer Rights".		
Do I sense there	is consent to apply the same recorded vote	
vote to that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
to that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Orlikow) which was negatived on the following division.
December 20, 1985

(Division No. 160)
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
Foster	Members Johnston	NystromFrith	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	OuelletGauthier	Kaplan	ParryGray	Keeper	Penner(Windsor West)	Langdon	PepinGuilbault	Mitchell	Prud'homme(Saint-Jacques)	Nicholson	RodriguezHeap	(Trinity)	TurnerJewett	(Vancouver Quadra)-30.YEAS Members	Althouse	Gray	NicholsonAxworthy	(Windsor West)	(Trinity)Benjamin	Guilbault	NystromBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	OuelletBoudria	Heap	ParryCaccia	Jewett	PennerCassidy	Johnston	PepinDeans	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	Prud'hommeFinestone	Kaplan	RodriguezFoster	Keeper	TurnerFrith	Langdon	(Vancouver Quadra)-30.Gauthier	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Andre	Hawkes	NielsenBeatty	Hnatyshyn	NowlanBernier	Hudon	OberleBlais-Grenier	Jacques	O'NeilBourgault	James	OostromBoyer	Johnson	PaproskiBrightwell	(Bonavista-Trinity-	PetersonCadieux	Conception)	RavisCaldwell	Joncas	RedwayCardiff	Jourdenais	ReidChampagne	Kelleher	Reimer(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Kempling	RicardClark	King	Schellenberg(Brandon-Souris)	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clifford	Leblanc	SchellenbergerCollins	Lewis	(Wetaskiwin)Cote	MacDonald	Scowen(Langelier)	(Kingston and	ShieldsCrofton	the Islands)	SiddonCrouse	MacKay	SpeyerDaubney	Mailly	TardifDick	Mantha	(Charlesbourg)Domm	Marin	ThackerEdwards	Martin	TowersElzinga	Masse	TupperFennell	Mazankowski	TurnerFerland	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fontaine	(St. Paul's)	ValcourtFriesen	McGrath	VankoughnetGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGormley	McKnight	WilsonGreenaway	McLean	(Etobicoke Centre)Gurbin	Moore	WinegardHamelin	Murta	Witer-91.Hamilton	Nickerson


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Orlikow moves:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-83 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 28 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Hawkes	NielsenBeatty	Hnatyshyn	NowlanBernier	Hudon	OberleBlais-Grenier	Jacques	O'NeilBourgault	James	OostromBoyer	Johnson	PaproskiBrightwell	(Bonavista-T rinity-	PetersonCadieux	Conception)	RavisCaldwell	Joncas	RedwayCardiff	Jourdenais	ReidChampagne	Kelleher	Reimer(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Kempling	RicardClark	King	Schellenberg(Brandon-Souris)	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clifford	Leblanc	SchellenbergerCollins	Lewis	(Wetaskiwin)Cote	MacDonald	Scowen(Langelier)	(Kingston and	ShieldsCrofton	the Islands)	SiddonCrouse	MacKay	SpeyerDaubney	Mailly	TardifDick	Mantha	(Charlesbourg)Domm	Marin	ThackerEdwards	Martin	TowersElzinga	Masse	TupperFennell	Mazankowski	TurnerFerland	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fontaine	(St. Paul's)	ValcourtFriesen	McGrath	VankoughnetGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGormley	McKnight	WilsonGreenaway	McLean	(Etobicoke Centre)Gurbin	Moore	WinegardHamelin	Murta	Witer-91.Hamilton	Nickerson


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Orlikow moves:
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 28 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) a".
Do I sense there is consent to apply the same recorded vote to that motion?
"client's return of income tax to a standard deemed acceptable by generally accepted standards of professional tax preparers or for any other"
Do I sense there is consent to apply the same recorded vote to that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council), moved that Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, be concurred in.


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

Shall I take the vote as recorded in reverse on that matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 10. Mr. Orlikow moves:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-83, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 18 at page 4 the following:
"including the discount rate as an annual rate, calculated as a percentage for the following time periods: four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, twelve weeks;
Do I sense there is consent to apply the same recorded vote to that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, dispensing with normal procedures that vote shall be applied in reserve and is agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Michel Côté: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we by consent apply the vote we applied on concurrence?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore 1 declare the motion adopted. Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a		point of order. May 1
record my vote on the main motion as a vote of abstention?


Mr. Speaker:: That will be so arranged.		
May 1 wish all	Members, all . pages	and all staff a very
Merry Christmas.
May I also thank the House Leaders for their co-operation on all matters. May I remind all Hon. Members that there is a certain tradition that will now occur behind the Chamber.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise very briefly to join with yoyi in extending our sincere appreciation to all employees of the House of Commons, particularly to Max Guitard who is spending his last day in the Chamber and was recognized earlier today. To the pages who have served us so well and to the many hundreds of employees who work for all of us in the House of Commons, to all Members of the House of Commons the best of the holiday season. We look forward to coming back and all of us sharing the common desire to serve Canada's best interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I should like to extend the very best wishes of the season to the staff of the House of Commons who serve us so well, as well as to the entire staff of the various Departments who work on the Hill and help us to do our work in an effective fashion. Also, to you, Mr. Speaker, to my fellow House Leaders and to all Members of the House of Commons, I should like to extend the very warmest wishes of the season.

December 20, 1985
Royal Assent
I look forward to us being back here on January 13, to carry on further constructive work in the interest of the people of Canada, despite the efforts of the Government from time to time to have things turn out the other way.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues, I want to join with the Government House Leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition in extending the compliments of the season to Hon. Members and of course to all staff, and to say to Burger King: 1 know where Herb is.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 6.41 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
At 8.40 p.m. the House resumed.

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 the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and the Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits; Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, lotteries; and Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa, December 20, 1985
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 20th day of December, 1985, at 8.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Leopold H. Amyot Secretary
to the Governor General
[DOT]	(2050)



[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 the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(2100)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation-Chapter No. 49.
Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution)-Chapter No. 50.
Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits-Chapter No. 51.
Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (lotteries)-Chapter No. 52. Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act-Chapter No. 53.
Bill C-89, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1986- Chapter No. 54.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I was delegated by all Members present to wish you a very merry Christmas and to give your charming wife our best regards. Together we will sing:
[Editor's Note: Whereupon Members of the House sang. ]
We wish you a merry Christmas, we wish you a merry Christmas, we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thank the Hon. Member and all Members present and I wish all of you and all of yours a very merry Christmas and a happy, safe, and wonderful Christmas season.
The House stands adjourned until Monday, January 13, 1986 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.04 p.m.