1985-12-09

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) (p. 9037).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), seconded by Mr. Gauthier moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"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, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


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. I therefore declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) rises on a point of order referring to the Special Order, which will be dealt with and adopted by the House later. It will come up when we finish with this matter. The Order which is before the House at the moment for decision reads: "and referred to a legislative committee". We will cope with the procedural issue after the vote has been taken.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It had been my intention to arrive here at eleven o'clock in order to speak on Bill C-84. However, for one reason or another the bells were not working on the seventh floor of the Confederation Building, at least in the part of the building in which my office is located. They were fixed last week and they are not working again.
It is bad enough to have time allocation with respect to this Bill in order to limit debate but in a situation like this, many of
us-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker.
Many of us who wanted to speak on this Bill were prevented from doing so because the bells were not working.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I would ask Your Honour to see that something is done about this. We are losing important points with respect to legislation such as this because it is being rushed through quickly, but if the bells are not working, then we are put at a still greater disadvantage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member makes the point that the bells on the seventh floor of the Confederation Building are not working. Of course, I would be happy to look into that matter. They should be working.
I remind the Hon. Member that the bells are a reminder that the House is sitting and that the sitting of the House
commences at eleven o'clock regardless of whether or not the bells ring.
I see the necessity of having all the bells working as best they can. We will be happy to check into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by Special Order, referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Prud'homme (p. 9258).
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak on third reading of Bill C-74 since this Bill is an important one to every Member of the House of Commons regardless of the constituency he or she represents.
This is a Bill which will affect all provinces in one way or another. In some cases it will provide a floor with respect to the number of seats. In other provinces there will be an actual increase in the number of seats. In fact, the Government brought in one amendment, and I also have an amendment on the table relating to removing the cap with respect to the number of seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. However, the second amendment is of equal importance.
In this Bill the Government adopts a policy of providing a floor for the number of seats which will be provided to provinces such as Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Of course, the Senate floor does exist at present for other provinces in Atlantic Canada, namely, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
This Bill tries to restrict the growth of the House of Commons and does this by using a much higher quotient of 87,000 persons per riding whereas, under the existing amalgam program, at least in Ontario, we would have a quotient of some 80,000 or 81,000 persons per constituency. The net effect of that change for northern Ontario, I am sure, will be to reduce the representation by at least one seat in this redistribution, and as we go forward into other redistributions, it will have the same impact. That is why I proposed an amendment which would provide a floor of 11 seats under the representation which we receive for northern Ontario. It is a vast geographical area, comprising 88 per cent of the land mass of the Province of Ontario. Surely, a minimum of 11 seats out of the Ontario allocation which, under this Bill, with the amendments which have been introduced, will be increased to 99,
December 9, 1985

would be something that is not harmful to the more rapidly-growing areas of the province, yet would provide us with the kind of representation we have had for the past 10 or 12 years.
I was really disappointed when all Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, including the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais) and the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher), voted against the amendments, one of which was presented by myself, the other presented by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). We will now likely see in the next redistribution a loss of at least one seat and perhaps more. The problem with that is that we have five large cities in northern Ontario. They are very easy to serve in terms of geographical area, but it is a problem with the other six cities which represent the vast far flung regions of that area of Canada. If we try to expand those constituencies in the rural areas, we end up with an unmanageable size of constituency.
There are other problems with the Bill as well. With the existing amalgam formula we have legislation which is all but complete. Certainly, it is 90 per cent complete. All that remains is to have another debate in the House of Commons to hear objections of various Hon. Members to that redistribution. The commission would obviously want to do some fine tuning of the recommendations which will be made by various Hon. Members of the House and then we will be able to proclaim the Bill. The existing amalgam formula sets out a larger House with more Hon. Members from across the country. Certainly, this will provide additional Hon. Members for the new committee system we have, committees which at present are not well manned.
If the amendment to Bill C-74, put forward by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), is defeated and the Bill is not sent back for further investigation and review, it would result in at least $6 million being spent for the establishment of new commissions for representation in each province across the country. The impact of that, for instance in Ontario, would be to reduce the number of Hon. Members under the existing redistribution from 105 Members to 99 Members.
Quebec will be reduced from 79 seats to 75 seats. Nova Scotia will be reduced from 12 seats to 11 seats. Manitoba will be reduced from 15 seats to 14 seats. The floor would apply in the case of Saskatchewan. Newfoundland would be reduced from eight seats to seven seats. Of course, the impact of that will be to cause a great deal of confusion because most constituencies across the country have already been through the redistribution process and they will have to go through it again if this Bill carries. We will spend another $5 million or $6 million to carry out a new redistribution.
I suppose the most difficult problem is that the impact of Bill C-74 would be not only to reduce the amount of representation in the country, but that the redistribution will come into effect sometime in the summer of 1988. No one knows when the next general election will be. However, there is a good chance it will be sometime in the spring or fall of 1988. So we face the prospect of seeing the redistribution take place during the summer of 1988, and if an alection is fought in the spring
Representation Act, 1985
of 1988, it will be on the basis of the existing boundaries, which means 282 Members of Parliament. If it is fought in the fall of 1988, it will be fought on the basis of 295 Members of Parliament. If it is fought during the summer, each political Party in the House will have to go through the exercise of establishing new constituency associations. The Government will have to go through the exercise of appointing new returning officers for any election which is carried out in the fall of 1988. We will see mass confusion during the summer of 1988 if an election is not carried out on the existing boundaries.
So we have to ask ourselves why, with the redistribution almost complete under an existing law which was agreed to by all Hon. Members, we are seeing this redistribution being brought in now. Is it the case of a desire of the Tories to gerrymander the riding boundaries? Is it an attempt to have new electoral redistribution commissions appointed by the Government? We really do not know the answers to those questions. We have many questions to ask of the Government with regard to the legislation which is now before the House.
Members on the Government side will have to ask the questions relating to the large northern ridings because they have often spoken in principle about having adequate representation from those constituencies. Yet, when the Bill was before the House with amendments last week, Members on the Government side voted against those amendments. In the next election campaign it will be very interesting to see how the Government justifies that action by its own Members.
Those are a number of the factors which must be taken into account when considering the amendment of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis which reads:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-74, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 2".
The Member is, of course, referring to the formula section of that Bill. The Bill also provides that debate by Members would take place in committee rather than in the House. It can be argued that the committee has a more casual atmosphere in which it is easier to argue the amendments. On the other hand, the individual Member does not have the advantage of being able to put his case to the entire House, but only to a committee of the House of Commons.
Those are some of my thoughts at third reading stage of the redistribution Bill. I am very disappointed that government Members were not willing to consider a floor for the number of ridings to be provided in northern Ontario. If we lose one seat in this redistribution and perhaps another one in the redistribution after the 1991 census, I know that municipal associations, political Parties, and many people in the North will be very disappointed and concerned that the Government

December 9, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
voted against the amendments which would have provided for a floor in the number of seats.
The population of northern Ontario is approximately 780,000 people. The average population per riding in New Brunswick is 69,000. New Brunswick is being guaranteed 10 seats. The principle of a floor has been adopted by the Government for a number of provinces. It seems to me that that same argument could be applied to northern Ontario which takes in most of the geography of the province. Yet the Government saw fit to turn down that argument in the vote last week.
I know that other Members want to speak on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, to argue that the Bill should be returned to committee for further debate and consideration. I hope the Government will give all possible consideration to that. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make a few additional comments on Bill C-74.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). He has taken the lead in the Liberal caucus in studying this legislation and has, of course, been involved in the Committee on Privileges and Elections for many years. He, therefore, knows that we did a prestudy of this legislation in committee last June, that we heard witnesses in October, and that we started a clause-byclause study of the legislation in November.
Did he not, at report stage, agree with the Government amendment which would take the cap off and allow Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia to receive the full number of seats they were entitled to under the Government's formula? Would the Member not agree that he proposed an amendment very similar to that himself when the legislation came back to the House for report stage and that members of all three Parties agreed to that change at that time? We allowed it to pass without a recorded division.
Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why, at third reading stage, the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and others started to talk about the possibility of providing more seats for the Province of Quebec. I am wondering why that presentation was not made at report stage, during committee, or at some other time by the Liberal spokesman.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was not here to listen to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), but I know that he makes very good arguments in any debate.
I am sure that when he spoke on Friday afternoon he made some very, very good arguments. I am sure he was arguing that the formula which the Government has proposed to the House is simply not as fair to the Province of Quebec as was the existing amalgam formula.
When you look at the figures you can see that under the new formula Quebec will lose four more Members than it would have under the amalgam formula. It is obvious that the Hon. Member would come to the conclusion that that is not very fair to Quebec. After all, Quebec has a special position in Confederation because of the linguistic aspects. In previous
redistribution formulas Quebec has often had a base of 74 or 75 seats.
I do not find the arguments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis to be wrong in any way. I am sure he put them very well and argued them very effectively. If he says that the new formula adopted by the Government contains inadequacies, then 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) would agree. He supported my amendment for a floor in the representation of northern Ontario. I believe that all of the arguments from this Party have been completely consistent, very well reasoned, and very well argued.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from Quebec I want to tell the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) that these proposals with respect to redistribution have had many changes. First there were the proposals which were made last year, then the Government issued a paper and subsequently a Bill. Changes to that Bill were made in committee.
Unfortunately, because there are so few Opposition Members who must be in so many committees and try to be in so many places, it is very difficult for us to keep up with every change in every Bill. That is my situation and, as a Quebecer, I am disturbed that there is no increase in seats for the Province of Quebec.
The Government says that the proposals in its Bill, compared to the proposals of the former Government, will result in important savings. Since the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has been actively involved in this legislation, will he tell us whether there are any cost benefit studies with respect to this version of the Bill which will indicate where those savings will be? Second, does he believe that this question of redistribution should be decided on a cost benefit basis alone? Are there not political reasons which go beyond cost savings in questions such as this?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) because he makes some very pertinent arguments.
In its brief presented to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission, the CLC criticizes the 57 per cent growth of the Prime Minister's Office within the past year as well as the addition of electronic mailing equipment to the Prime Minister's Office at a cost of approximately $8.9 million. Arguments certainly were put before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections about those costs. Clearly there are additional costs associated with additional representation. Surely, however, the Parliament of Canada is an important institution and an increase in costs on a percentage basis would not be as great as the increase in costs that the Prime Minister's Office experienced in one year.
Furthermore, it seems to me that we should not consider these costs solely on a cost benefit basis but we should also take into account the over-all adequacy of representation in the Parliament of Canada. I believe that the committee did not
December 9, 1985

question in great detail the Government's figures with respect to cost benefit.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was thinking about the whole issue again on the weekend. In fact, my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) gave a very clear picture of what parliamentarians are thinking. This morning, I would like to ask my hon. friend from Churchill (Mr. Murphy) again to consider what third reading means as defined in the new Standing Orders. It means that Members are supposed to have more input in the business of the House. As I said earlier, in the House our court of last resort is the third reading stage. My hon. friend will have to agree on that point. After reviewing what was done in the past, as did the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, I reached the conclusion that we should give this matter further thought, and that is why I moved my amendment, requesting that Clause 2 be referred back to committee for reconsideration, which would also give us time to reconsider the issue of Northern Ontario.
If the Hon. Member thinks this legislation works well in Manitoba, that's fine, but I say to him that the people of Northern Ontario do not believe they have been well served by this legislation. In fact, you moved amendments that were voted down. I think this is a way to go over the entire debate on Clause 2.
At this point, I would ask my colleagues from Quebec, and I see there are some in the House, the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis), the Hon. Member for Mont-morency-Orleans (Mrs. Blouin), and I would like to draw their attention to this issue, and I wish they would take a minute to consider what exactly will happen. It is true that we have had some kind of agreement among the parties, that instead of going from 282 Members ... we would not go up to 310.
If we had gone up to 310, Quebec would have had four more Members. We said we did not want the House to increase from 310 to 343 to 369 by the year 2001. That was too much, it was too expensive and it didn't make any sense. The individual Member's voice would be lost in the general clamour. So we were going to try and find a formula that while dealing fairly with the demands being made by the West and Ontario because of their larger population, would also help us reduce the number of Members. That was the origin of the initial proposal to have six Members more, then in the course of the debate we got as far as seven Members, and then on second reading, after hearing all witnesses, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) came in with another proposal, when he said it would not be six or seven but thirteen. So the people said: Why not! Fair enough, 13 will do. But now we are thinking it over, after all that is the purpose of the third reading, I am asking myself why we are here on third reading, Mr. Speaker. To think it over, that is why.
Representation Act, 1985
Upon reflection, we came to the conclusion that, if Quebec were to have four more seats under the previous Liberal formula, four more seats out of 28, it is now rather strange that we should not even get one out of 13. We had all agreed to an averaging formula under which Ontario would have two more Members, Alberta three more, and British Columbia two more. We thought it was fair and reasonable because of the increased population.
But we have to remind ourselves that, according to the Liberal formula boosting representation to 310 Members, British Columbia would have had five more seats. Now it will get four more. According to the previous Liberal formula, Alberta was to have six more seats, now it will gain five new ridings. I can understand that those people-your colleagues, my friends from Quebec-would not disagree today since they get practically as many new seats under the new formula as they did under the other one. But Ontario should feel shortchanged since it was supposed to get ten new Members under the old formula and now it ends up with only four. And again I remind you that the old formula gave four new seats to Quebec, while the new formula of the President of the Privy Council works out to zero.
So it is a matter of equity. That is why I think the committee should reconsider this provision, and we will see what they decide whenever we do get back to third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) wish to reply?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has made some very cogent arguments that the formula has some inadequacies.
It would have been easy to stay with the 310 seats as proposed in the existing amalgam program. That redistribution could have proceeded and been completed within the next year. It would have given the constituency associations across the country enough time to reorganize so that they would be aware of what the boundaries would be if a general election were to be called in the summer of 1988. However, in this case, the existing boundaries will be in place until June or July of 1988, when a redistribution will come into effect. The boundaries will change and there will be that many fewer seats throughout the country. I think the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis has made a good argument for maintaining the existing amalgam formula.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair intends to recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on debate after the recess.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
9286

December 9, 1985


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the poor performance of the Government in administering the Native Economic Development Program. This Program was an initiative of the previous Government. The Program was established to support and promote the economic development of native people. Applicants are becoming increasingly frustrated with the inability of the Minister responsible, the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bissonnette), to deliver. Months go by without any decisions.
One such casualty of this snail's pace decision making is the Yukon Indian Development Corporation. Its application has been in the system for 14 months. It was approved by the program's native advisory board over a year ago. Still, it awaits the Minister's decision.
In addition, Sir, there are over 50 proposals that have been submitted under the community based element of the program. Only two have been approved. Now we learn that this entire element in the program is being frozen.
I call upon the Minister and the Government to make up their minds. Do they want this program to continue? It could be the vehicle for moving forward native-operated businesses in the country, if the political will is there.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess to a deep sense of shame that I have sat in this House of Commons for over five years and never once have I raised the subject of East Timor. Neither has any other Member of my Party, of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party.
Ten years ago, with no advance preparation, Portugal withdrew from East Timor, a colony it had occupied for over 400 years. Indonesia moved into this vacuum and invaded. Since that time one-third of East Timor's 650,000 people have either been killed or starved to death.
East Timor has the highest infant mortality rate in the world. Of every 1,000 babies born, 211 die before their first birthday.
In 1978, Glen Shortliffe, Canada's Ambassador to Indonesia was given a conducted tour of East Timor. He was shocked by the desperate need for food, clothing, and basic medical care. His report to the Canadian Government has never been released.
In spite of this genocidal oppression, the East Timorese have continued guerrilla warfare against the Indonesian occupation. Canadian officials have regarded the Indonesian takeover as a fait accompli. They do not think this slaughter on an isolated island is important enough to disrupt our growing trade relations with Indonesia where Canada is now the third largest investor and where last year we hosted-


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the Hon. Member to advise him that his time has expired.



PUBLIC OPINION POLLS


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, recently I distributed some 57,500 copies of a questionnaire throughout my constituency of Calgary East dealing with matters of concern to most Canadians. Approximately 5,400, or some 9.5 per cent, were completed and returned. Since this is a very gratifying and representative return, 1 now wish to share the results with all our Members.
The questions, with the results, are as follows: Do you think free trade should exist between Canada and the United States? Answer: 73 per cent, yes; 13 per cent, no. Are you in favour of Canada participating in the Strategic Defence Initiative, SDI that would shield North America from any external missile threat? Answer: 73 per cent, yes; 17 per cent, no. Should the federal Government sell part of its shares in Petro-Canada to the Public? Answer: 73 per cent, yes; 17 per cent, no. Should shares in Petro-Canada be given free of charge to Canadians? Answer: 29 per cent, yes; 61 per cent, no. Are you in favour of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler being extradited back to the United States? Answer: 93 per cent, yes; 4 per cent, no. Are you in favour of capital punishment being fully restored in Canada? Answer: 83 per cent, yes; 10 per cent, no. Are you in favour of abortion on demand? Answer: 47 per cent, yes; 41 per cent, no.
I hope the Government takes note of these figures and acts accordingly.
* *
*



THE FRANCHISE


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a recent federal court case involving the rights of prisoners to vote in the Quebec election has reopened the issue of granting
December 9, 1985

prisoners the right to vote. I believe, for the sake of law-abiding citizens everywhere, that we should not allow convicted prisoners in federal penitentiaries the right to vote in federal elections.
Our society is built on the rule of law and adherence to a set of fundamental principles of justice and order. Therefore I find it incomprehensible that an individual, who has violated the rights of others and has clearly disregarded the responsibilities of citizenship, should be given a right so fundamental to the duties of good citizenship.
Surely we put people in jail to punish them. Surely that punishment involves denial of the very rights and privileges these people choose to abuse by committing a crime. I believe it offends every Canadians's sense of justice and morality to consider even allowing a convicted murderer like Clifford Olsen the right to vote.
We must take a stand now to uphold the values and principles of law-abiding Canadians and say no to the granting of voting privileges to convicted criminals.



AGRICULTURE


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, Canada's tobacco farmers have waited long enough for the Government to make a decision to proceed with the establishment of a national marketing agency which will help producers get a fair price from the multinational corporations which deal in tobacco.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) says that he does not want to lose his job by setting up an agency. In response, I would remind him that in the 1984 election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to establish a board. More recently he advised a tobacco farmer from Port Burwell that the Government would act quickly to establish a national tobacco marketing agency.
The Government must start making decisions and must start soon, or the continuing uncertainty will not only affect our tobacco farmers but all other farmers and businessmen who are waiting to make important business decisions.
The bottom line is that the Government promised to establish an agency for tobacco farmers. Where is the action? In June, 1984, the Conservative Party, when in opposition, prevented the Liberal Government from passing legislation which would have allowed this issue to be resolved long ago. The Tories caused the delay then and they are causing the delay now. Without immediate action we could see 600 tobacco farmers going out of business in the very near future.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of all Canadians the contract held by Greenwich Canadian Testing of Western Ontario, from Government of Canada file reference No. 27ST; March 1985, and the research and development publication entitled Canadian Probes in Space: New Instruments Developed for Space Research. This contract for $6,600 is for the following:
Research relating to the development of methods of testing and analysis of pencils.
No doubt the method of testing pencils is something the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has long cherished learning more about. Our national pencils should no doubt be of the highest quality, easy to sharpen, capable of going up and down on paper, as well as leaving clear lines when going in circles. The eraser, of course, should be well attached to ensure that no time is lost in correcting Government errors. For a Government so set on red ink and red circling, one would hope that some of the 66,000 pencils to be tested will be red.
To be serious for a moment, for a Government which is prepared to slash pensions and family allowance, for a Government set on selling out our country to the lowest bidder, as in the case of de Havilland to Boeing, for a Government which will allow tainted tuna and buffalo onto our kitchen tables, let us hope that the Prime Minister is having these Government pencils tested to get the lead out and do something good for Canada.
 * *



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, during the questioning on buffalo meat, and again this morning, the Chamber and the people of Canada witnessed an attack on the meat inspection system of Canada. The attack was fuelled by a desire for political gain, but was based upon ignorance of the disease tuberculosis and of the meat inspection system.
The meat inspection service of Canada has handled thousands of similar cases in cattle herds in its history. Meat inspectors, many of them veterinarians, have applied their judgment to decide when meat from animals exposed to any disease is fit to eat. When tests are ordered, they are conducted primarily for disease control reasons, not for meat inspection purposes. Through this scheme, the meat inspection system has played a large role in nearly eradicating tuberculosis in cattle and, as a result, in much of the human population.
I agree with Dr. Brian Wurtz, President of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, who has publicly aired his support of the meat inspection service. Why should a different

December 9, 1985
system be proposed in this case? Our system is successful. It is renowned around the world. It is a crime against every Canadian to smear a good service and to spread false rumours about such a fine system, for purely political reasons.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian mining industry produces some $45-billion worth of mineral products each year. This represents about 11 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product, and the sale of these products accounts for some 30 per cent of Canada's exports. Despite this, the mineral industry has experienced more difficult problems in the last four years than at any time in the last 50 years.
The Government has been doing much to help the industry through this difficult period. Federal-provincial mineral agreements have been signed with nine provinces, including recent agreements with Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia. The capital gains tax exemption and the fuel tax rebate have been very beneficial. Most beneficial, however, have been the mining flow-through share arrangements for exploration expenses which have stimulated exploration all across Canada, and in particular in the Province of Quebec.
In the past year the federal Government provided over $1.3 million to Canadian universities for crucial research in the earth sciences. Work by the Geological Survey of Canada has identified the biggest offshore coal field in eastern Canada, and stimulated a major gold exploration program in northern Saskatchewan. Unique solutions were found to assist production at Faro in the Yukon, and the construction of a new lead smelter at Trail, British Columbia. These and other measures have considerably improved conditions for the Canadian mineral industry during one of the most difficult periods in its history.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to protest changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which will come into effect on January 1, 1986. These changes will cheat Canadian workers of benefits for which they have paid and were expecting. On that date, early retirement pensions will be counted toward reducing the granting of unemployment insurance benefits even when the individuals involved are ready and willing to work.
I would like to protest these measures not just because of the unjust principle on which they are based but also because this action was taken unilaterally by a Government which said it was going to consult. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has stated repeatedly that consultation took place before these measures were introduced. These changes were certainly not endorsed by the participants in the Government's economic summit which took place last March. In fact the only clear agreement which came out of that summit was a petition signed by two-thirds of the participants calling on the Government to revoke these changes. No studies were conducted to determine the impact of these changes on older workers and on the different regions of the country.
The Government has turned a deaf ear to the many protests which were made against these policies. On January 1, older workers will be dealt a serious blow unless the Government listens to reason. I am asking the Government to withdraw this foolish policy before it is too late.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, despite often publicized difficulties facing Saskatchewan agriculture, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the general state of the economy in my home Province of Saskatchewan. The economy in the province has been improving since the election of this Government. Employment continues to climb. A total of 17,000 new jobs were created since the election of the Government. Bankruptcies were down 10 per cent in the first 10 months of this year. Business investment intentions are up 9.6 per cent over last year's levels. Housing starts in October alone were up a whopping 237 per cent.
In the energy sector, in the first 10 months well completions totalled 3,085 compared to 2,420 over the same period last year. This represents an increase of almost 28 per cent since the election of the Government.
There is also the energy Accord and what it has done for western Canada. Oil trade has been freed up to provide strong encouragement for investment. The Western Accord recognizes Saskatchewan's desire for a policy relying less on Government handouts and intervention and more on the opportunities of a free market-place. It is measures like these that have led to a growing, vibrant, improving Saskatchewan economy.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ZIVORAD KOVACEVIC, MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of Members of the House the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Zivorad
December 9, 1985

Kovacevic, Member of the Federal Executive Council and President of the Government Committee for International Relations of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. JERRY DINN, MINISTER OF MINES AND ENERGY AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING, GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

Mr. Speaker:: May I also draw to the attention of Members of the House the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Jerry Dinn, Minister of Mines and Energy and Minister responsible for Housing of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, who is just taking his seat.
Some 4,500 Canadians work in my constituency at the de Havilland plant. They want to know the truth, as do the rest of us, about the proposed sale of this company to Boeing of Seattle. Instead of being given the facts and documents to examine, all we have been given so far have been press releases and statements, such as the statement made in the House last week in which the President of the Treasury Board said that de Havilland was projected to lose $200 million in 1986. Is it not a fact that the Burns Fry prospectus commissioned by the Government and circulated to possible purchasers of de Havilland projected a loss of $14 million-not $200 million-for 1986, and profitability for the following years?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from our projections that de Havilland would have been in a loss position for 1986, depending on the source of the estimate, of between $50 million and $75 million, and it would have required an additional $125 million of cash injection. One has to add those $200 million to the $800 million of taxpayers' money which has already gone into de Havilland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO BIDDERS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between a development investment and a loss. Why
Oral Questions
did the Minister say in the House that the loss would be $200 million, which he now admits is wrong? I ask him again this very simple question. Did not the Burns Fry prospectus project a loss for the company of $14 million in 1986 and profitability thereafter? Will the Minister not admit that it was $14 million that was projected to bidders?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when $200 million has to be taken out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that fund which is the money of the taxpayers of Canada, and put it into de Havilland, that is $200 million which cannot go for other purposes of policy which this Government is pursuing.


REQUEST FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think we have a neat admission that the House was misled-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -last week over the statement that the loss would be $200 million.
In view of that, and in view of all the other questions which are being asked about this deal, why will the Government not agree to give us the facts before it is too late? As an official of Boeing said over the weekend, the deal is still open, it is not signed and they can still walk away from it. Why does the Government refuse to allow the Canadian people to look at this deal and also look at the other options which are available?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the options. We are satisfied that this is a great deal for Canada and we have announced it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: I would like my hon. colleague across the floor to remember the statements made by his own colleagues. I talk about his Leader, for example, who said in May of 1984:
Canadair and de Havilland ... are prime examples of what can go wrong when the Government gets into commercial businesses and fails to exercise proper supervision and control.
His colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount, said very clearly:
I say let's not displace private capital and if we can sell Canadair and if we can sell de Havilland, let's do it as quickly as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TERMS OF SALE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the actual sale price of de Havilland was $90 million. The Government pretends it was $155 million. The remaining $65 million is to be forgiven, according to the Government, if Boeing invests in new contracts to the Canadian aerospace industry, five times that amount over the next 15 years. My question to

December 9, 1985
Oral Questions
the Minister is this. Why was the ratio of five-to-one set so low? Why did the Government of Canada say to Boeing: "Look. All you need to do is spend $325 million over the next 15 years on new contracts to the Canadian aerospace industry and we will forgive $65 million"?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in essence, $325 million to create new jobs, new jobs in the industry and new jobs from coast to coast in this country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, Boeing claims that its major corporate divisions invested, or spent in the last six years, an average of $133 million per year on new contracts to the Canadian aerospace industry. That is a 30 to one ratio. That is $2 billion over 15 years.
Why did the Government of Canada say to Boeing: "Boeing-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Boing!


George Baker: "-you can actually decrease the amount of your investment in Canada by-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question?


George Baker: Why did the Government of Canada say to Boeing: "Boeing-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Boing!


George Baker: "-you can decrease the amount of your spending in Canada by 85 per cent over the next 15 years and we'll still forgive that $65 million"? That is ultra-light bargaining with a 747 company.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to believe that there is only one clause in this agreement. There are a number of other clauses.


James Douglas Manly: Santa Claus.


Robert René de Cotret: We have given them to you. Let's talk about the world product mandate. Let's talk about retaining technology in this country. Let's talk about creating new jobs and let's talk about the new investment which Boeing is going to make.


Mr. Robichaud:: What about Santa Claus?


Robert René de Cotret: Let's talk about the jobs which will grow in Downsview. Let's talk about all the other elements in that deal which make it a great deal for Canada and for Canadians.


CANADAIR-USE OF SITE-FUTURE OF EMPLOYEES' JOBS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week we learned of the Government's intention to get rid of 25 per cent of Canada's aerospace industry in the case of de Havilland. My question today concerns the other major producer of aircraft in Canada, namely, Canadair.
[ Translation]
Does the Prime Minister know about the definitive version of the development plan adopted recently by the Montreal Urban Community, which provides that Canadair's present facilities will be closed?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the Hon. Member that 1 am not aware of any such program or project, and that if one exists, it is not in line with the policies of this Government.


POSITION OF MONTREAL URBAN COMMUNITY CHAIRMAN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the plan which includes reference, not once but several times to the removal of Canadair from Montreal. Considering that the Chairman of the Montreal Urban Community is Pierre Desmarais, the same man who was president elect of CDIC and Chairman of the Board of Canadair, is it conceivable to the Prime Minister that the Chairman of the Montreal Urban Community, who is making the recommendation for the shutdown or removal from Montreal of Canadair, could be doing so when, at the same time, as President of Canadair, he would not have been reporting to the Government of Canada?


An Hon. Member:: It will take you a while to figure that one out, Brian.
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is true that we have managed to persuade Mr. Pierre Des Marais II to become involved at the federal level and take over the responsibility for this major corporation. Mr. Pierre Des Marais II is a man who is very respected in Quebec and in Canada. His duties formerly involved working for the Montreal Urban Community, and Reports on the subect may have been prepared at that time.
However, as far as Canadair and the development of Montreal are concerned, I think the Government's objectives become clear if we look at the announcement made last Friday in Montreal by the President of the Treasury Board, namely, that a departmental committee has been set up to oversee a new dimension of economic recovery in Montreal. That is what we want to do: create jobs in Montreal. We want more jobs, not fewer jobs for Montreal. And that will be the result of this Government's policies.
December 9, 1985


DEVELOPMENT PLAN INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Prime Minister that the plan looks extremely serious indeed. The development plan which has already been adopted includes having the land presently occupied by Cana-dair turned over for the development of a housing project, the complete elimination of runways and, furthermore, refers to two federal Departments having been consulted in the development of such a plan. Has it been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister by the two federal Departments which were consulted in the development of this plan that the idea seems to include the complete shutdown, or removal from Montreal at least, of Canadair and the 5,000 jobs that go with it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is false and my hon. friend knows that it is false.


John Edward Broadbent: What's false? It's a question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have no plans for removing 5,000 jobs from Montreal. The Member has supported a Government which, in the last five years-


John Edward Broadbent: Deal with the question. Never mind you or rhetoric. That wasn't the question, buster.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -created 600 jobs a month in Quebec, and we have been creating 7,000.


John Edward Broadbent: Deal with the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That's the difference between-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why do you traffic in these falsehoods trying to scare people?


John Edward Broadbent: Listen to the question.


Ms. Jewett:: You're on thin ice.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: He deals in falsehoods.


Mr. Deans:: What are you talking about, Clark? You guys try to find out what's going on around here.


Mr. McDermid:: Who published it?


An Hon. Member:: His hairdresser.


Ian Deans: I'll tell you one thing, my hairdresser has more sense than the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Ian, don't get angry now. Your hair will curl.


Ian Deans: You don't know what you talking about.


Mr. de Jong:: Does he ever?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! None of this is helpful. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the Prime Minister and the Member for Hamilton Mountain could exchange the addresses of their hairdressers at a later date so that we can get on with Question Period.


Ian Deans: I don't have mine travel with me at least.


Lloyd Axworthy: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last Friday he said in the House that our inspection standards for meat are beyond reproach, that, in fact we have the best in the world. Yet, the Minister would know that officials of the European Economic Community have now submitted a report to our Government indicating that our meat inspection practices are, in fact, substantially below standard. As a result, they are threatening to prohibit the export of Canadian meat products to that community.
What action does the Minister intend to take based on that report? What does he intend to do to ensure that we do not lose that $40 million meat export market to the European Economic Community?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the display of ignorance put forth by opposition Members last Friday was shameful, shameful, shameful, and nothing less.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: That display of incompetence has been condemned by the Ontario Veterinary Association, the Canadian Veterinary Association-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Order! Answer the question.


John Wise: -every sector in the food industry, and by the Consumers Association of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: In this country we have the finest food inspection agency to be found anywhere in the world. Its record has been nothing short of excellent. It has been that way for 75 years, remains that way today, and we are going to ensure that it continues that way in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 9, 1985
Oral Questions


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY REPORT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture's defence is laudable but it is not applicable to the question I asked. The fact is that there is now a report prepared by the European Economic Community threatening to prohibit our meat exports to that Community because of our standards.
I will repeat the question which I asked the Minister. What does he intend to do about the report? Does he intend to take some action? Does he intend to assist the meat packing industry to upgrade its standards so that we will not lose a $40 million market to the European Economic Community?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the Hon. Member refers is not unusual. We visit plants in other parts of the world and representatives from other parts of the world visit ours. No final decision has been made. However, I can tell you that if they eventually decide to delist our plants, we will go back over there and apply their standards to their plants. I do not think they will stand up. We will not turn our back on the Canadian beef industry like that Government did. We are going to support it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
 * *
[ Translation]


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister deals again with Canadair. If that corporation is not to disappear from Montreal, could the Prime Minister explain to the House how the development plan which was published last week under the authority of Mr. Pierre Des Marais II, who is also Chairman of the Board of Canadair, some three hundred thousand copies of which were distributed in the Montreal area, clearly indicates that the land occupied by this corporation will be used as residential area for condominiums?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the document in question. It is possible that one of the proposals that have been put forward ... was that another location would be considered, Canadair being situated very close to a growing municipality in the NorthWestern part of Montreal. This being said, however, Mr. Des Marais was not speaking today on behalf of the Federal Government and I can say that the Government's position is that which I announced in reply to a question from your Leader, namely, that we are going to increase the number of
jobs in Montreal and not reduce it, as the Liberal Government did.


FUTURE OF CANADAIR
Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We wonder whether Mr. Des Marais was speaking on behalf of the Montreal Urban Community while sitting on Canadair's Board of Directors. My question is this: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Canadair jobs will remain on their present site and tell us what steps the Government will take to ensure that the Montreal Urban Community will drop its plan to have Canadair transferred or closed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we do not have the authority to interfere with the affairs of the Montreal Urban Community. This is a creature of the provincial Government. We are not at odds or at war with the Montreal municipal government or the Montreal Urban Community. Quite the contrary, we are all working together to attract industries and jobs to Montreal. I suggest that the best indication or confirmation of this is the relatively unusual creation of a departmental committee, chaired by the President Treasury Board, to attract new industries and to reinforce existing ones, including Canadair.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A year ago he promised to establish a national marketing agency for tobacco. On November 6, 1984, he said in part: "I can assure you that our Government will be acting quickly to establish a national tobacco marketing agency". A thousand farmers who are demonstrating on Parliament Hill today want to know why the Prime Minister has broken his promise. Can he explain?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would examine the record I think he would come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister and the Government do not break their promises but keep them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: One of the first pieces of legislation that was passed in the House by this Government amended the National Farm Products Marketing Act to allow the tobacco industry to proceed with the formation of whatever kind of national agency they so desired.

One must remember, and the Hon. Member should recognize, that the companies sought and received a court injunction. Therefore, the court injunction ordered the National Farm Products Marketing Council to reopen the hearings. Unlike some of the cabinet Ministers in that Government, the cabinet Ministers in this Government have respect for the courts. I hope the Hon. Member has some respect for the courts because I am confident that the Canadian people do.


COST OF PRODUCTION FORMULA
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the court injunction relates to the cost of production formula. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency was set up in 1972 and did not get its cost of production formula until 1975. Yet the agency went ahead without that.
Why is the Minister not going ahead to establish the agency in any event? He does not have to wait until that issue is resolved, and he knows it.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that there is a difference between chickens and tobacco and eggs and tobacco.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: I hope he does but I don't know.


John Horton McDermid: Don't bet on it.


John Wise: I wonder if the Hon. Member realizes that the campaign for the national chicken marketing agency began in 1971. We put it into place when we were in Government in 1979.
There is no question that the Minister can proceed to proclaim an agency. However, what would one have other than an empty piece of paper? Nothing happens until you either have the signature of the producing provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec or letters of commitment that they would live under the terms of that agency. That has not happened yet.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: You are too busy writing the question.


Ian Deans: I was trying to think of how to ask the question so I might get an answer for a change. I will ask it as straightforwardly as I can.
It concerns the proposal for the use of the land currently being used by Canadair for the building of aircraft. Will the Prime Minister guarantee us now that he is aware of no plan to take Canadair out of Montreal now or in the future?
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question on three occasions. The objective of the Government is to create jobs. The previous Government created 673 new jobs a month in Quebec, whereas we have created 9,286. In other words, we have beaten the Liberal performance by 14 to 1, and it would not make any sense to reverse that trend. We will co-operate with all authorities to increase, not decrease, the number of secure jobs in Quebec. As to the document mentioned by the Hon. Member, I did say to his colleague that I have not had an opportunity to take official cognizance of it. I will be pleased to have a look at it but, unless I am mistaken, it is not a document of the Canadian Government.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness and the potential impact of such a proposal to build housing on the land presently used by Canadair, will the Prime Minister undertake to refer two matters to a committee of the House of Commons: first, the whole question of the sale of de Havilland which will have an impact on Canada's aerospace industry; second, the question of the possibility of the alternative land use of the Canadair property? Will he refer those matters to a committee of the House of Commons now in order that all of the necessary questions can be asked and all of the necessary answers obtained to assure us that there are in fact job guarantees for the people in both of those plants?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if somebody comes along and makes a suggestion in regard to-


John Edward Broadbent: Somebody? He is the President of Canadair.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If somebody makes a suggestion, representing another agency-in this case representing a municipal agency-in regard to something that is owned by the Government of Canada, it is up to the Government and no one else to make a determination in that regard.
I can tell you that we will make our determinations in the national interest and not pursuant to a request from a municipal body, no matter how important that body may be. We own the land-


Ian Deans: I know that you own the land.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will not turn it over to anyone. It is land of the Government of Canada. It belongs to the Queen and it will remain that way.
You are asking me about de Havilland. On December 9 I received a letter from the President of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada which says that the Board of Directors of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada,

December 9, 1985
Oral Questions
representing 165 aerospace companies and 45,000 employees: "Congratulates your Government for a decision on de Havil-land which we believe will be beneficial to our sector and thus to the Canadian economy".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is the answer.


STATEMENT OF QUEBEC PREMIER DESIGNATE ON FREE TRADE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
1 think the Prime Minister should realize that when the private sector, in casu General Dynamics, left Canadair to Montreal, there were only 700 employees, and the Canadian Government took over the company and raised the number of employees to 7,000. I hope we do not see the same process repeated in the future. I do have a question for the Prime Minister regarding a statement by Premier Bourassa on the weekend, when he declared that negotiations with the United States on free trade... Does the Prime Minister agree with the Quebec Premier Designate who said that these negotiations will necessarily lead to a customs union and, eventually, to a monetary union, which means that Canada will lose its freedom of movement and its political institutions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, again, my hon. friend is raising two points. As for his first one, his reference to Canadair and de Havilland, I would like to draw his attention to one of his own statements made on May 11, 1984, when the Hon. Member said as follows: [English]
In regard to Canadair and de Havilland, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice said:
If they keep losing money and money and money, at one time we'll say, 'that's enough'.
[ Translation]
That is what you said. And now you are changing your mind. That's what Turner said.

When is enough enough?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Eight hundred million dollars; $1.8 billion; $2 billion; $5 billion-bingo? When is it enough?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We campaigned in regard to a proposal in regard to Crown corporations which was clear cut, and we have done precisely that. Those decisions were taken in the national interest to secure jobs in Canadian technology, and that is what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as the second part of my hon. friend's question is concerned ... I beg your pardon?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have to say to the Right Hon. Prime Minister that it is time for a supplementary question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister made a speech. We said we were to sell de Havilland and Canadair, not give them away to American companies. We had a plan to put the two together to sell to the Canadian people. That is a hell of a difference in terms of policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming less a Question Period and more a speech period. I wonder whether we could have a question, please.


FREE TRADE-POSITION OF TWO PREMIERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Does the Prime Minister intend to recognize, before proceeding with negotiations on free trade with the United States .. . does the Prime Minister of Canada intend to meet with the Premier Designate of Quebec, who has now taken the same position as the Premier of Ontario, and before proceeding with negotiations with these two premiers, and with the Americans, does he intend to obtain the consent of these premiers or at least recognize that they have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to meet the new Premier Designate for Quebec again. I read his statement which is certainly not as unqualified as my hon. friend would have us believe, and we intend to obtain the necessary explanations.
As for the second aspect of his question which deals with de Havilland and Canadair, I would like to draw his attention to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, speaking on behalf of his Government in this matter, who said on May 7 of this year, and I quote:

Instead of continuing to underwrite hundreds of millions of dollars in de Havilland and Canadair losses, I'd sell those companies and I'd put the money into education and training-
December 9, 1985

Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
That is what the Member for Westmount said.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not to give away.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what the Member for Westmount said. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Now they have changed their minds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina East.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. As the Minister knows, 10,000 individuals and firms owe the Government, on an average, $155,000 in unpaid taxes.
The Minister of Finance in his May Budget projected collecting an extra $400 million. Last year the amount of uncollected taxes, taxes not in dispute, increased by $400 million. Can the Minister explain this?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. friend opposite that the collection of taxes under present circumstances has got to be tempered with a certain amount of justice and fairness. While there is at the present time a considerable amount of money outstanding, the tax base has also increased.
As the Hon. Member undoubtedly knows, because he keeps himself well informed on these matters, there have been injected into the system a number of collectors who are just now being integrated, and we expect to see an improvement in these outstanding taxes in the near future.


EMPLOYERS' FAILURE TO REMIT EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. In the interests of keeping myself informed-I have given notice of my question to the Minister's office-last year the figures released indicated that some 119 employers failed to remit more than $328 million in deductions from employees to the Government. Can the Minister provide the House with the current figures of the number of employers who have failed to remit employee deductions, and the amount owed?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that I appreciate receiving notice of his question. Members of the Department are presently collating and collecting these figures. They will be available for the Hon. Member and for the information of other Members in the near future.


SELECTION OF NEW HEADQUARTER'S SITE IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It involves the building of a new CBC site somewhere in Metropolitan Toronto.
In view of the fact that the City of Scarborough, the Seventh largest city in Canada, I might add, has kindly offered 11.5 acres of prime downtown land linked by rapid transit to the rest of Metro, and in view of the fact that the utilization of this land would clearly save taxpayers over $100 million, can the citizens of Scarborough anticipate an early positive response from the Minister?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, indeed in early September 1985 I met with a delegation of Members from the Scarborough area who submitted a proposal for the establishment of the CBC Broadcasting Centre in their area instead of Toronto.
As called for by the Act, I forwarded that information and proposal to the President of the CBC. The latter has been considering that proposal and should report in the near future to the Government which will decide accordingly.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that the failure of the British Columbia Government to recognize aboriginal rights in that province is creating quite an alarming situation verging on a crisis?
Could the Prime Minister tell the House what strong action he proposes now so that British Columbia and Canada can get together and settle these outsanding native claims? That is what a majority of the citizens of B.C. and what a majority of members of this House want.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been in British Columbia this past weekend. He has been having additional meetings today, possibly even at this very moment. These issues are high on his agenda. I think it would be appropriate for us to have a personal up-to-date response when he returns.


RECOGNITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
B. Keith Penner: That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

December 9, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: No, it is not. It is not good enough because aboriginal rights are part of the Constitution of Canada.
How long, I ask the Prime Minister, do the Haida people and the other Indian people of British Columbia have to wait before their legitimate constitutional rights can be recognized? How long must they wait? They will not come crawling. They will never do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should bear in mind that the Prime Minister at the last constitutional meeting had a meeting with the Premiers and the meeting with the native leaders of Canada. He put very clearly both his personal imprimatur and the Government's commitment on a resolution of those issues.
As well, additional meetings were agreed to for 1987. I can say from the Prime Minister's point of view and from the Government's point of view that it is an ongoing issue.
On the second question of whether it is not enough, the Hon. Member should keep in mind that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is right now in British Columbia dealing with those issues. That is what the Hon. Member called for. That is what he is doing, and that is enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It follows on the question of the Hon. Member for Algoma, to which the Minister responded that he was constrained in terms of a tobacco marketing board because of a court order. That court order was granted more than a month ago. Will he tell us whether he has instructed his marketing council to reopen the hearings into cost of production formulas so that the process can get under way and farmers in fact can have a marketing agency this winter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Send Svend.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a little clarification; I think there must have been some misunderstanding of my answer to the Hon. Member for Algoma. I indicated that I had the option to go ahead and proclaim the agency. I cautioned, though, by asking what we would have if we did not have participants in that agency. Therein lies the problem. We have to get the signatures, or at least letters of commitment, and the Hon. Member knows that. Also, I wish he would repeat the second part of his question.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I will do that privately with the Minister.


REQUEST FOR IMPORT CONTROLS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Because the court order was attempting to mete out what was called natural justice, in the interest of natural justice is the Government now prepared to put temporary border controls on the import of tobacco so that when the board comes into effect both sides will be on an equal footing?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that was not the second part of the Hon. Member's question. He asked whether or not I had instructed the National Farm Products Marketing Council to proceed. Of course, as he should know, it is not the decision of Agriculture Canada or the National Farm Products Marketing Council to decide whether or not to appeal. It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice. He will know that they have decided to appeal the court injunction. I believe the hearing dates commence in the first part of February. However, we have been cautioned not to proceed with the cost of production hearings pending the outcome of the hearing.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: By whom?


John Wise: By Justice.

[ Translation]


VIA RAIL
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.

Although many of us had hoped that VIA Rail would look favourably upon commuter traffic in southern Ontario, it is distressingly clear that that is not the case and that VIA does not see business opportunity in the Toronto-Guelph-Kitchener region. Would the Minister give consideration to making representations to his provincial counterpart for improved service in that part of Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member knows, after years of Liberal neglect, the Government has taken a number of initiatives to revitalize rail passenger service in the country. A number of steps have been taken, including the restoration of services which were dismantled by the former Government. New locomotives have been ordered. I hope that we will be in a position soon to announce the placement of an order for new

transcontinental equipment as well. The Hon. Member should also be aware that the drafting of the new passenger rail Act is in its final stages. Many attempts are being made to improve the attractiveness and thereby the ridership of VIA Rail. Finally, the Hon. Member should be aware that the mandate of VIA Rail is to provide inter-city services, not necessarily commuter services.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week, after the Quebec election, his Secretary of State stated that because the Liberals were elected in that province there could be reductions in federal programs funding official language minorities, contrary to the promises which he made to the Anglophones in that province during the election campaign. Is the statement of the Secretary of State an indication that the Government is about to renege on another promise to the Anglophones in the Province of Quebec, or was the Secretary of State speaking out of turn? If so, would the Prime Minister please correct him?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know what the Hon. Member may have read last weekend, but I have made no statement whatsoever which could raise any doubt about the assistance to minorities, and this had nothing to do with the election of a Liberal Government in Quebec. In any case, we are now reviewing all these policies. We and the former Government had signed certain agreements and these are still effective. They include $210 million for official languages programs, of which a good part is allocated to the English-speaking minority in Quebec. In addition, we have just approved specific projects, some of which are also for Quebec. This has nothing to do with the elections. I repeat that I would like to know what newspapers the Hon. Member has read. He should perhaps read them more carefully!


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what he said to the press, but the reports of what he said have disturbed many Anglophone groups in the Province of Quebec.
Some Hon. Members:: Where?


Charles Joseph Clark: Did you hear that in Straight from the Heart?


William Warren Allmand: I would like him or the Prime Minister to make an absolutely clear commitment that there will be no
Oral Questions
reductions or no new impediments to the funding of programs for language minorities in that province. That was never done in any other province after an election.


Some Hon. Members:: What is your source?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I myself and the Government are not in the habit of assessing subsidy programs, especially where official languages are concerned, in front of the press. We announce our decisions to the press and comment on them, but that is not when we make the decisions. Certainly not! We have undertaken a review, but this has nothing to do with the election of a new Government in Quebec or with the official languages policies of the Federal Government. What I know is that any reconsideration of our support for the minorities, whether the Frenchspeaking minority outside Quebec, or the English-speaking minority in Quebec, is out of the question.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns a written decision handed down by Associate Chief Justice James Jerome on Friday, indicating that the Auditor General now has a specific right to examine all cabinet documents related to the 1981 purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. Given that judgment, will the Government now be providing complete and total access to those documents to the Auditor General of Canada?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I would advise the Hon. Member, as he is well aware, that the decision has just been received. I am advised that the Legal Branch of the Department of Justice is presently reviewing the decision. The Hon. Minister of Justice will be reporting to the House in due course in respect of that decision.


IMPLEMENTATION OF COURT DECISION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, with respect, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the campaign he promised the complete access of the Auditor General to those documents. In light of the decision by Mr. Justice Jerome on Friday, can the Prime Minister of Canada now say to the House that the Auditor General will have complete and total access to all relevant documents in the purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my earlier answer. The Minis-

December 9, 1985
Oral Questions
ter of Justice just received the decision on Friday. It is a complex matter. Surely we are entitled to have time to study the implications of that decision. We will be reporting to the House in due course.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The current labour dispute involving Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce employees at the Visa Centre in Toronto has become bitter, with tension and confrontation mounting on both sides. Has the Government considered any action to mediate in this dispute and to help find a settlement as quickly as possible?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, it is a dispute which has been going on for several months. At the request of both parties on December 4, last Thursday, Labour Canada appointed a senior mediator, Mr. Henry Bartenbach, to mediate in that dispute. The discussions are resuming between the two parties, and I would like to reiterate that this appointment was made following a request from both parties that a mediator be appointed to assist in the negotiations.
obtaining verbal undertakings. I would simply remind the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Berger:: Is the Minister telling us that he has faith that a multinational company will make the jobs of workers in Montreal its number one priority? Is that what he is telling the workers of Montreal to do, to rely on a leap of faith by this Government?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite. It is not a leap of faith, it is a leap toward the future and a very great leap for that industry. I would like to quote very briefly from the letter of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, which reads as follows:
Boeing's commitment to assign the world product mandate for commuter/STOL aircraft to de Havilland is particularly encouraging, for this will mean ongoing and a potential increase in research and development with de Havilland. Very positive effects will also be felt throughout our industry from the additional commitments made by Boeing to increase the level of Canadian content in its products, and to proceed with development on the new 50-scal version of the Dash 8.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Minister that the time provided from Question Period has expired.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my question also relates to the Canadair file, and it is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Canadair is one of Boeing's major subcontractors in Canada, and now the sale of that company or of de Havilland threatens a number of jobs in Montreal. Here is my question to the Minister: Why does the Minister jeopardize the existence of more than 325 Canadair jobs by failing to exact contract guarantees whereby Boeing will continue to award sub-contracts to Canadair and in Montreal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is false. The agreement concluded or being concluded between Boeing and de Havilland does not in any way jeopardize jobs at Canadair. Quite the contrary! Canadair will develop new markets as a result of the deal and, as in any other aerospace industry, it will create new jobs.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, December 6, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]

David Berger: The Minister has said that he has received verbal assurances. This Government is expert in


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House petitions from people in various parts of Ontario. The operative clause is that the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions to present signed by residents of the Churchill riding and also of other parts of Manitoba expressing their concern with the federal Government's decision to deindex the family allowance. Among the groups that have presented petitions to me are people from the St. Joseph's Ukrainian Church, the First Baptist Church of Thompson, the St. James Anglican Church of Thompson, the reserve community of Shamattawa and the community of South Indian Lake, the community of Leaf Rapids and the community of Thompson.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker,
I rise again today to present a number of petitions in support of the CN shop workers in Moncton. Those petitions are from citizens of Haute-Aboujagane, Cap-Pele, Pointe-du-Chene, Moncton, and Riverview. Those petitioners are quite disappointed about conditions prevailing at the CN shops in Moncton and ask the Government to assure those people that the jobs will be protected.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a series of petitions to the House from constituents residing in the Moncton federal riding as well as the neighbouring riding of Westmorland-Kent expressing their concern with the eroding work base and the future of the shops in Moncton.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present from residents of British Columbia concerning the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, asking that the agreement be made public, and asking that the procedures for and results of radiation-monitoring tests of these waters, be made known. The petitioners are concerned that the naval policy of the United States which neither confirms nor denies the presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. vessels is unacceptable, and the call for a public inquiry before the present agreement is renegotiated.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to table today a petition from a group of citizens from Verdun-Saint-Paul who are asking the Government to restore full indexation of family allowances and to withdraw the Bill amending the 1973 Family Allowances Act.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a number of petitions from Debden, Saskatchewan, Edmonton, North Battleford and Prince Albert, all of which call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table a petition signed by approximately 90 Canadians who feel that they are shareholders in de Havilland and they call upon the Government of Canada to cancel the proposed sale of de Havilland to Boeing. Incidentally, 90 per cent of these petitioners are involved in the aviation industry in Thunder Bay.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and an honour to present a petition from citizens of the community of Thunder Bay, some 150 persons, protesting the deindexation of the family allowance, protesting that the deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credits so that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990, and calling upon the House of Commons to re-establish full indexation of the family allowance.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present to the House a petition from residents of York West who are calling on the Government to take another look at its regressive decision on deindexing family allowances to the tune of some $55 million and calling on the Government to maintain the promise it made during the election campaign so vividly and candidly not to touch the family allowance or the senior citizens' pensions. The deindexation moves of the Government are simply shocking and it should be ashamed of itself. Canadians from York West are asking the Government to be sensitive to the needs and aspirations of people from one coast to the other.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition which I am pleased to present from people in Essex-Windsor stressing their opposition to the cut-backs in child benefits, to the reductions in family allowances and to the increase in tax breaks for people through capital gains tax changes. This particular petition has been organized by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House

December 9, 1985
Order Paper Questions
that the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 439 and 442.
[ Text]


Mr. Althouse: 1.	Since the June 14, 1985 deadline for repayment of cash advances, how many producers have been deemed to be in default?
2.	What is the estimate for producer defaults for the 1985 crop year?
3.	In (n) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d) 1984, how many producers defaulted and what was the deadline for repayment in each year?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: 1. As of June 14, 1985, there were 2,392 producer accounts placed in default. These producers had over 40 per cent of their advance outstanding on May 15, 1985, the date the letter requesting repayment within 20 days was sent.
As of July 12, 1985, there were 1,090 producer accounts in default. These producers had under 40 per cent of their advance outstanding on May 15, 1985. Producers who had selected barley permits were excluded from the first two deadline dates.
As of July 31, 1985, there were 217 producer accounts placed in default. These producers held selected barley permits.
2. It is estimated that interest imposed on accounts placed in default for the 1984-85 crop year will total $2.5 million.
Crop Year	Deadline Date	No. of Producers1980-81	June 17, 1981	189July 8, 1981	337July 14, 1981	454July 30, 1981	2Total	9821981-82	July 5, 1982	3,227September 15, 1982	90December 31, 1982	169Total	3,4861982-83	July 28, 1983	134September 15, 1983	463November 8, 1983	1,131December 31, 1983	204Total	1,9321983-84	June 14, 1984	417July 31. 1984	4,822Total	5,239


Mr. Althouse: 1.	For the crop year (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (<r) 1983 (d) 1984, what amount of penalty interest was collected from defaulters for repayment of cash advances?
2.	For the same years, on the average, what portion of the original loan was left outstanding when the penalty interest was imposed?


Charles James Mayer: 1. The amount of interest collected from producers whose accounts were placed in default, for the crop year,
(a)	1981-82
(b)	1982-83
(c)	1983-84
(d)	1984-85

1.356.214
836.755
952.569
102.635
2. The portion of the original loans left outstanding when the interest costs were imposed, for the crop year,
(a)	1981-82
(b)	1982-83
(c)	1983-84
(d)	1984-85
30.17 per cent 39.68 per cent 32.98 per cent 45.67 per cent


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, again 1 rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the Government intends to reply to the very embarrassing Questions Nos. 450, 451, 452 and 453 standing in my name and relating to the travel expenses of the former Minister of the Environment who is now the Minister of travel-I'm sorry, the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do you want the Taiwan trip or just the one-


Don Boudria: I'll exchange bills with you. Mine cost nothing.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably the Hon. Member who is embarrassed because Questions Nos. 450 and 451 were ruled out of order by the Table Officers. I would tell the Hon. Member that Question No. 452 has been allowed to stand and is being worked on at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) rising on a different point of order?


Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary should know obviously that those questions were not ruled out of order. They were simply renumbered. I want to ask him again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I specifically asked the Hon. Member if he was rising on a different point of order. I take it he is now attempting to engage in debate with the Parliamentary Secretary about facts as opposed to questions.


Don Boudria: I rise on a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the Government will answer Questions Nos. 486 and 487. These are questions relating to the expenditures of the former Minister of the Environment, the present Minister of State for
December 9, 1985

Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), concerning her travel expenditures.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, certainly Questions Nos. 486 and 487 are the Hon. Member's reworded questions which were originally ruled out of order. We are taking a hard look at his second effort.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 31,1 ask leave to move that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the proposed sale of de Havilland by the Government to Boeing of Seattle.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) gave me the required notice of his intention to request an emergency debate under Standing Order 31. The purpose of that order, as I think all Hon. Members know, is to provide a means of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. One of the conditions laid down in the Standing Order is that the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration. The matter proposed by the Hon. Member as a subject for emergency debate is certainly an important one. However, I do not think that it conforms to the concept of a genuine emergency as envisaged by the Standing Order.
Furthermore, this important matter was debated very recently and was taken to a vote. It was the subject chosen for an allotted day on Tuesday, December 3, and the House, through its vote, has already expressed a view on the matter. The Hon. Member is, in fact, asking for another debate on the same issue in the form of an emergency debate. In the circumstances, I cannot find that the application meets the requirements of the Standing Order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution
Representation Act, 1985
Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial cencus, be read the third time and passed, and the amendment of Mr. Prud'homme (p. 9258).
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, this debate is about representation and how the people of Canada can have their views put forward, how decisions can be made and how the country can be run. Today, in the House, we have seen evidence of how difficult it is to obtain information from the Government and how unwilling it is to provide us with the necessary documentation so that the House can review the sale of de Havilland and matters referring to Canadair. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are resuming debate on Bill C-74 which is a matter that has received much consideration in the House. Unfortunately, the House Leaders of the Parties have been unable to reach an agreement with respect to the completion of this debate.
I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among representatives of the Parties in the House and it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 82 or Standing Order 83 with regard to the allocation of time at third reading stage of Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census.
Therefore, at the next sitting of the House, it is my intention to propose the following motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84:
[ Translation]
That, in relation to Bill C-74, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in
relation to the 1981 decennial census, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day. any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Railways-Carriage of dangerous goods through Toronto; the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Airports-Automobile rental policy, (b) Request for committee hearing; the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Grenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Trade-Canada-United States negotiations-Prime Minister's speech in Chicago, (b) Magazine publishing industry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be read the third time and passed, and the amendment of Mr. Prud'homme (p. 9258).
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard must be one of the most shameful actions taken by the Government to date.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: Let me say why it is so shameful. Redistribution is a matter of great concern to every Member of Parliament. It is not a matter that is central to any policy or platform outlined by the Government of Canada and time allocation ought only to be imposed with respect to matters that are absolutely essential and central to the policy of the Government. Those matters are very rare because as far as I know, the Government does not have a manifesto or policy to lead the country. It is wandering around in darkness, grasping at straws here and there, trying to pretend that it represents
December 9, 1985

leadership. This matter is not central to the Government but one which is of concern to every constituency in this country and to every Member of Parliament.
We know that in theory the readjustment of political boundaries is a purely technical exercise. It could be considered even more so in this day of high technology when all of the necessary information can simply be fed into a computer. However, Members know that this approach is unacceptable. Although no one wants to see constituency redistribution dealt with in a partisan fashion, we know that the redistribution of boundaries is a highly political issue and a concern to every Member of Parliament. It is of concern to every constituency in this country and an issue that is fraught with many hazards.
I never believed for a moment that the right of Members of Parliament to express their grievances and raise their concerns would be cut off-quillotined-in this objectionable and unworthy fashion. The Government says that it believes in Parliament. Before the Conservatives became Government, I recall when they often talked about their belief in an open Parliament and that Parliament should have the opportunity to express its views. Yet closure is being imposed and debate is being limited on a matter of great concern to individual MPs. The opportunity for Members of Parliament to express their concerns on behalf of their constituents is stifled.
Let me return to the theme about avoiding partisanship in the redistribution of boundaries while at the same time emphasizing that it is a political issue. I use the word "political" in the best sense of the word, being of concern to all citizens. The House will be aware that in 1964 it was the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill who brought in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that we are amending today. When the House resumes consideration of this Bill, I want to begin at that point and tell the House where we have moved from that moment and how we have come to this very dark time in the history of the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on Today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   RAOUL WALLENBERG HONORARY CITIZENSHIP ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business-Public Bills
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration of Bill C-234, An Act to proclaim Raoul Wallengerg to be an honorary citizen of Canada-Mr. Ricard.
Raoul Wallenberg
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to know whether I could have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-234.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) seeks the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the Bill currently standing in his name.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be more than willing to give my consent if I knew exactly what was going to happen later. 1 would like to participate in the debate-

-for a number of reasons on which I will elaborate at that time, and I hope I will have a chance to take part in the debate.
I will give my consent for the Bill to be withdrawn. I would like to know what more there is in stock this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is unanimous consent that the matter standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) be withdrawn.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and Bill C-234 withdrawn.


RAOUL WALLENBERG HONORARY CITIZENSHIP ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business-Public Bills
Second reading and reference to Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration of Bill C-233, an Act to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg to be an honorary citizen of Canada, and requesting his return to freedom-Mr. de Corneille.
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the consent of the House to permit me to withdraw Bill C-233.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I would like to know exactly what is on the menu this afternoon.

I would like to know exactly what is going on. I have given my consent to withdraw the Bill of the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) and I have given my consent to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) to withdraw his Bill. I would have preferred to have a package deal and to know exactly what is going on.

Raoul Wallenberg


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence to withdraw his Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and Bill C-233 withdrawn.


Guy Ricard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether I could have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with Motion No. 248.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) seeks the unanimous consent of the Chamber to move Motion No. 248 on the Order Paper.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, with your great patience, I will be helpful this afternoon. Again, I would like to know what the full package is that is being proposed to the House. We have given consent to one Member to withdraw a Bill, and we have given consent to another Member to withdraw a Bill. Now we are giving consent to a Member to introduce a motion. Is there something else, Sir? I give my consent so far.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Am I correct in assuming we now have Motion No. 248 on the floor, that the House will proceed to debate the said resolution and that any Member can participate?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to be a joint mover of Motion No. 248.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that Motion No. 248 be put to the House at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At long last we know what is the package deal. First, is that what will be debated this afternoon? Second, will the rules apply, meaning there will be speeches until six o'clock? Or, perhaps we may consent to terminate before six o'clock. Most likely I will give my consent even to terminate before six o'clock. However, I would like to participate in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: With all respect, the Chair is trying to deal with this matter in the order in which the motions are sought.


Marcel Prud'homme: Unusually.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it there is unanimous consent for the introduction of Motion No. 248 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard). I see there is a technical difficulty. I must propose the question.
I take it the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to be indicated at this point as the joint mover of the motion. Is that correct?
December 9, 1985


Roland de Corneille: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give its consent for that procedure?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CITIZENSHIP ADVISABILITY OF PROCLAIMING RAOUL WALLENBERG AN HONORARY CITIZEN OF CANADA
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval) and Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence) moved, seconded by Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain), that:
Whereas during World War II millions of Jews were exterminated in death camps at the hands of the Nazis in then occupied Europe;
And whereas hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were facing extermination in 1944 through deportation to Germany under the orders of Adolf Eichmann;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg as Secretary of the Swedish Legation went to Hungary in the summer of 1944;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg, with extraordinary courage and with total disregard for the constant danger to himself, saved the lives of almost one hundred thousand innocent Jewish men, women and children, a considerable number of whom now live in Canada;
And whereas the Soviet Union, in violation of Raoul Wallenberg's Swedish diplomatic immunity and of international law, seized him on January 17, 1945, with no explanation ever given for his detention and subsequent imprisonment;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg has been a prisoner in the Soviet Union since 1945;
And whereas reports from former prisoners in the Soviet Union, as recently as January, 1981, suggest that Raoul Wallenberg is still alive and remains a prisoner;
And whereas history has revealed that heroic acts of salvation were tragically rare during the massacre of millions of innocent human beings during World War II;
And whereas the significance of this symbol of humanity's concern for its fellows has been reduced by the wall of silence that surrounds the fate of Raoul Wallenberg;
Now therefore the	House of Commons resolve that the said Raoul
Wallenberg is hereby declared to be an honorary citizen of Canada;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the said Resolution by filling in the blank with the words, "Senate and the".


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to shepherd the motion to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg to be an honorary citizen of our country, the legendary hero who, jeopardizing his own safety, saved the lives of more than 100,000 Jews towards the end of World War II.
December 9, 1985

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Eglington-Law-rence (Mr. de Corneille) who, like me, worked long hours to introduce this motion. I am particularly grateful to him for agreeing to withdraw his own Bill so as to rally the general support for this new motion. Finally, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who, as spokesman for his Party, supports this motion so that we have unanimous agreement to acknowledge the humanitarian deeds of this heroic man whose exact whereabouts are unknown.
For many of us who did not live through the sufferings of that war and whose knowledge about it came from books or news reports we may have read or seen on this subject, the name of Raoul Wallengberg may wery well be lost in the utter desolation of that tragic conflict. Any yet, to those thousands of Jews who owe their lives to his personal interventions, as to thousands of others, Raoul Wallenberg has always been the epitome of determination, tenacity, courage, stamped with the seal of heroism.
Mr. Speaker, all the merits which Raoul Wallenberg righfully deserves have long since been acknowledged. As early as in 1945, a Svenska Daqbladet editorial writer had this to say about Raoul Wallenberg:
An eternal glory surrounds his name and his memory. The refugee organization of the United States has also expressed its admiration for his achievement, which is called one of the world's greatest individual performances.

Even more recently, in 1981, Mr. Speaker, he received another honour when the President of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan, granted him honorary citizenship, which honour had only been bestowed once before in 200 years of American history, when honorary citizenship was granted to Sir Winston Churchill, during his lifetime.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to give a detailed list of all the acts of bravery of Mr. Wallenberg. Everyone has seen the televised series or read the book.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the House so wishes, I would like to move the following motion:
That:
Whereas during World War II millions of Jews were exterminated in death camps at the hands of the Nazis in then occupied Europe:
And whereas hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were facing extermination in 1944 through deportation to Germany under the orders of Adolf Eichmann;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg as Secretary of the Swedish Legation went to Hungary in the summer of 1944;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg, with extraordinary courage and with total disregard for the constant danger to himself, saved the lives of almost one hundred thousand innocent Jewish men, women and children, a considerable number of whom now live in Canada;
And whereas the Soviet Union, in violation of Raoul Wallenberg's Swedish diplomatic immunity and of international law, seized him on January 17, 1945, with no explanation ever given for his detention and subsequent imprisonment;
Raoul Wallenberg
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg has been a prisoner in the Soviet Union since 1945;
And whereas reports from former prisoners in the Soviet Union, as recently as January, 1981, suggest that Raoul Wallenberg is still alive and remains a prisoner;
And whereas history has revealed that heroic acts of salvation were tragically rare during the massacre of millions of innocent human beings during World War II;
And whereas the significance of this symbol of humanity's concern for its fellow has been reduced by the wall of silence that surrounds the fate of Raoul Wallenberg;
I therefore move, Mr. Speaker:
That the said Raoul Wallenberg be hereby declared to be an honorary citizen of Canada.

This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the end of World War II. It would be fitting at this time to pay tribute to the heroic achievements of Raoul Wallenberg. Modern society has already drawn its lesson from history. Today we should look up to Raoul Wallenberg for our inspiration.
translation]
By granting honorary citizenship to Raoul Wallenberg, Canada would of course be honouring Mr. Wallenberg himself, but by recognizing his work, Canada would also confirm its commitment to protect human rights and freedoms, to which we all aspire.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, it is a very great honour for me to co-sponsor this resolution proclaiming Raoul Wallenberg as an honorary Canadian citizen. It is a great significance that it is sponsored by members of the three Canadian political Parties, and that hopefully it is enjoying the consent of the House of Commons today and will enjoy the consent of the honourable the Senate tomorrow on International Human Rights Day, 1985. I am proud, as a member of the Liberal caucus, to be associated with my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) of the Conservative Party and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) of the New Democratic Party, in sponsoring this resolution. In so doing, we not only enshrine Raoul Wallenberg's name into our Canadian history, but his name will enshrine ours. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it will always remember what Raoul Wallenberg did to salvage the dignity of the human spirit. Still today, much of the world lingers in the darkness of oppression. However, human rights will ultimately prevail and the dawn will surely come. Brightly will it shine upon the tombs of heroes. Thus will shine the dawn.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to join with other Hon. Members of the House of Commons on this occasion. There are occasions recorded by historians when individuals, without regard for personal safety, put everything on the line for their fellow man. The opportu-

December 9, 1985
Raoul Wallenberg
nity for adequate recognition of actions such as these are few, and the sacrifice that goes with such actions is frequently lost in the books which record it. Today, we in the House of Commons have an opportunity to correct or at least to recognize both of those situations.
Raoul Wallenberg, it goes without saying, showed remarkable courage and bravery on behalf of Jews who lived in Hungary during the Second World War. That this is well recorded and documented, no one denies. Today we can recognize his incredible commitment to humanity.
Raoul Wallenberg could have lived in Sweden in a life of relative comfort throughout the Second World War. He need not have faced what he ultimately faced.
This act we propose today is unique and I contend that it is, however, a fitting act. 1 urge my fellow Members of Parliament to extend to Raoul Wallenberg the highest honour available to us-our desire to share our citizenship.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my comments, I asked a few questions when the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) moved that his Bill be withdrawn.

It was to withdraw Bill C-234. I will read what was on the Order Paper because 1 think it is very important in terms of what I would like to say today:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration of Bill C-234, an Act to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg to be an honorary citizen of Canada.
I said that if I had a chance to speak, I would give my consent, and I did. The new rules provide that every Member can give consent or not, unless we change the rules.
Then my colleague from Toronto, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), asked for similar leave from the House in terms of his own Bill. The Order Paper reads:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration of Bill C-233, an Act to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg to be an honorary citizen of Canada, and requesting his return to freedom.
There again I gave my consent. Because I wanted to speak on the Bill, I had prepared myself to do so. Those Bills were to be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. However, I gave my consent, because you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. Because I believed so strongly in the day which we will celebrate tomorrow, I thought it would be in bad taste for me not to give my consent. We knew what the debate was to be all about.
The Hon. Member for Laval read his own motion, as did the Chair, so I will not read it. It is similar to the motion presented by my colleague from Toronto. Therefore I will not read his motion.
I have no doubt as to the qualifications of Raoul Wallenberg. Tomorrow, many Canadians just like many colleagues of
ours from the three political Parties, will begin to know who Raoul Wallenberg is. People ask who Raoul Wallenberg is. They would like to know more about him so I will say more.
The reason I wanted to send the two Bills standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) and the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) to committee is that for many years, I wanted to find a way to honour people who deserve it, either because they had rendered some service to Canada or because they had worked beyond the call of duty in the cause of human rights. I was going to propose today that we send the Bill to the Committee on Multiculturalism, a new committee, to have it look into how one could be made an honorary Canadian citizen and to consider Mr. Raoul Wallenberg as one of the first recipients of the honour.
Since we were not told this by those who proposed the motions, I will do so. Canadians would like to know that this is a very exceptional gesture on the part of Parliament. This will be the first time ever an honorary Canadian citizenship will be given to someone in the world. We were not told that.
I would like it to be on record that all of what is taking place tonight is supposed to have been debated in each of the three caucuses and debated in the Senate. It was debated in caucus as we were told by the Hon. Member who spoke just before I did. He also said that he already has the assurance that the Senate will give its consent. That means there must have been much agreement before today, much of which I am totally unaware. I would like to be on record saying that I was totally unaware of much of that agreement.
In the few moments left to me, I would like to reflect on what will happen tomorrow, December 10, 1985. I recall that tomorrow is to be Human Rights Day. I recall that many people have spoken on this issue before. It is not a new issue and Canadians should be told that. 1 would like to put on record some of the history behind the Raoul Wallenberg motion so that people do not feel that they have been taken by surprise.
On October 7, 1980, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence, spoke on behalf of freeing Mr. Wallenberg from the Soviet Union. I would like to render homage to a very fine old colleague of ours, Dr. Stanley Hudecki, the former Hon. Member for Hamilton West, who on November 18, 1980, also raised that issue. I would like to put that on record for those who tomorrow will begin to ask who is Raoul Wallenberg.
On December 10, 1980, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) raised a question as to the fate of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg. On December 18, 1980, the same question was raised by David Smith, a colleague of ours who was defeated, the former Hon. Member for Don Valley East, on Order of the House No. 43.
Canadians will want to know who this person is who will be the first person ever to be made an honorary Canadian citizen. I would have preferred to have had a much larger debate on
December 9, 1985

this issue and a much larger audience because we are about to give what I consider to be one of the best citizenships in the world to this person.
On August 4, 1982, my esteemed colleague, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), also raised the question of Raoul Wallenberg. Since then, no one has asked to give him Canadian citizenship. Now I come to the words of a very important, fine gentleman, our own Mr. Speaker. I would like to render him homage and read part of what the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) said on May 17, 1984, as recorded on page 3822 of Hansard, in the first mention of offering Raoul Wallenberg Canadian citizenship:
Mr. Speaker, the League for Human Rights of the B'nai Brith, supported by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the Swedish-Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese-Canadian National Council, and the Federation Internationale des Droits de l'homme, have asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to declare Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada, and I wish to add my voice in support.
He went on to speak quite well and quite extensively on the matter.
Today my colleague went second. I would like to render him homage because on April 15, my colleague went first by introducing Bill C-233, an Act to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada and requesting his return to freedom. This motion was immediately followed by that of an esteemed colleague of ours, the Hon. Member for Laval, who on April 18, 1985, suggested the same thing. That was the first time we started talking about honouring a foreigner as an honorary Canadian citizen.
I make no secret of the fact that 1 would have preferred to send the entire matter immediately to a committee of the House with instructions for the committee to inform us of how in the future we should proceed in honouring honorary Canadian citizens and to recommend as one of the first, if the committee so wished, Mr. Raoul Wallenberg. Some people, in their wisdom, decided to proceed otherwise. That is why there was a slight confusion earlier in the debate when we had to ask consent of the House to withdraw a bill, consent of the House to withdraw another Bill, consent of the House to introduce something that could only be introduced at the end of December and consent of the House for something that would have to be introduced again at the end of December. I went along with that, but I would like to be on record, for the benefit of colleagues of mine who may still have some doubt, that I believe very strongly that one of the greatest sicknesses that must be fought continuously is anti-Semitism in the world. If Raoul Wallenberg was able to do what he did, it is because there were people called Nazis who in their fury wanted to dispose of a certain group of people known as those of the Jewish faith. I believe this must be denounced and for that reason, Raoul Wallenberg could qualify as one of the first honorary Canadian citizens.
Having said that, I would like to repeat that I want to know something of which only the House Leader and my two colleagues could inform me. Is this the way we will proceed in the future? When I am not a Member of the House of Commons, others will need to know how to proceed when they
Raoul Wallenberg
want to honour someone as an honorary citizen of Canada. The way to proceed would be to present Bills or motions and to ask for the generous consent of all Members of the House for the great qualification which some people may have in order to proclaim them honorary citizens.
I repeat that I do not oppose the motion which is before the House. 1 think it would be impossible for me to oppose it, although in reading it I find it difficult to understand why one would want to honour someone by including certain of the divisions which may have taken place. Some people say Raoul Wallenberg is still alive, which is mentioned in the Bill. I also do not think it is necessary to talk about the Soviet Union in a Bill which proposes to honour someone in Canada. To say what he has done would have been sufficient and positive. The anti-Soviet sentiment in the Bill is not my style. I believe we must keep the door open in respect to talks between the two big powers.
If it is true that Raoul Wallenberg is still alive, that he is in prison and that the Soviets know his whereabouts, then there are many ways in which to honour him other than the way which is proposed. However, I am not the master of this place. Each Member has his own way in which to proceed. This is not my way.
I would like to conclude by saying again that tonight I have been asked by Members: Is it the first time we will have a Canadian citizen-

I would like to tell the House that what we are now doing is to honour someone whose actions will be described tomorrow in the newspapers and to honour him not only as an honorary Canadian, but as the first ever honorary citizen of Canada. [English]
There are only two honorary citizens of the United States. The Americans have used this great gesture only twice. The first time was to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen. Of course, to me, that concept is universal in the western world. The second time it was utilized was to honour Raoul Wallenberg.
I hope my two colleagues who have proposed this Bill are aware of the hearings which took place before a subcommittee on human rights, part of an international organization connected with the committee on foreign affairs of the House of Representatives in the United States. A person who was saved in Hungary by Raoul Wallenberg when he was 15 years of age later became a congressman in the United States Congress. He is a Congressman for the State of California. He was very diligent in his representations with respect to Raoul Wallenberg. President Reagan signed a Bill with respect to proclaiming Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen.
I was asked several months ago how we in Canada can honour Mother Theresa in a very concrete way for the great work she does. She is alive. We sometimes prefer to honour those who are dead. However, we do not know whether or not

December 9, 1985
Raoul Wallenberg
Raoul Wallenberg is dead or alive. I know members of his family are still alive. I know he helped a great many people who are now Canadians. I know some of them. Some of them are Hungarian of Jewish religion who now live in Canada, some in Montreal.
I think Raoul Wallenberg is properly suggested for such an honour. Perhaps the nest time the occasion arises we could look around the world and choose someone in order to show that Canada is a country which stands not only for human rights but that it is a country which does a great deal for its neighbours, as Mother Theresa is doing. To me that is very important.
On the eve of that great day, December 10, I would like Canadians to reflect on what human rights really means. There are too many people in the world who are too selective with respect to coming to someone's defence. Whose human rights are we ready to defend? There are many people who organize groups for the defence of human rights of this and that. On the eve of that great day I think Canadians should reflect not only with respect to the human rights of a group, because there are many, but on the human rights of individuals. Many people have come forward to say that in the Middle East there are issues with respect to human rights which should be raised in the House of Commons. I wish to echo those sentiments here today. I hope that my colleagues in the House will learn that when we talk about human rights we should not be selective. We should talk of human rights in general. When we consider honouring someone we should do so in particular, as the House has done today in honouring Raoul Wallenberg.
I now know the road to follow, and for the information of those Canadians listening and who will read this debate, in order to honour a second or third person as an honorary Canadians, one must go through the House of Commons. One must find a champion in the House of Commons who will put forward a motion. I intend to propose one with respect to Mother Theresa. Then one must ask the permission of one's colleague to withdraw his Bill and then ask the three Parties for unanimous consent. If the case is a bona fide one we can then proclaim the person an honorary citizen. Then, around the world, we can say that in Canada we not only honour our own citizens but people from outside of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Messrs Guy Ricard (Laval) and Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence), seconded by Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain), moved that:
Whereas during World War II millions of Jews were exterminated in death camps at the hands of the Nazis in then occupied Europe;
And whereas hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were facing extermination in 1944 through deportation to Germany under the orders of Adolf Eichmann;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg as Secretary of the Swedish Legation went to Hungary in the summer of 1944;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg, with extraordinary courage and with total disregard for the constant danger to himself, saved the lives of almost one hundred thousand innocent Jewish men, women and children, a considerable number of whom now live in Canada;
And whereas the Soviet Union, in violation of Raoul Wallenberg's Swedish diplomatic immunity and of international law, seized him on January 17, 1945, with no explanation ever given for his detention and subsequent imprisonment;
And whereas Raoul Wallenberg has been a prisoner in the Soviet Union since 1945;
And whereas reports from former prisoners in the Soviet Union, as recently as January, 1981, suggest that Raoul Wallenberg is still alive and remains a prisoner;
And whereas history has revealed that heroic acts of salvation were tragically rare during the massacre of millions of innocent human beings during World War II;
And whereas the significance of this symbol of humanity's concern for its fellows has been reduced by the wall of silence that surrounds the fate of Raoul Wallenberg;
Now therefore the	House of Commons resolve that the said Raoul
Wallenberg is hereby declared to be an honorary citizen of Canada;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the said Resolution by filling in the blank with the words, "Senate and the".
Is the motion agreed to?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may, I would suggest that we call it six o'clock. We could proceed with the Adjournment Debate. We have one Parliamentary Secretary here to answer the questions. I would undertake on behalf of the Government to make sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) is not here on time, we will certainly make arrangements to accommodate Members who are on the "Late Show" today.
That would be the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.
December 9, 1985

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish tonight to take Members back for a few moments to the great Mississauga train derailment of a few years ago. I know that you can recall the time, Mr. Speaker, just as vividly as I can and just as vividly as can the people of Missussauga, the people from Metropolitan Toronto and the people from the areas surrounding Metropolitan Toronto. This was a great jolt to the people of Mississauga, Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding areas.
Before the Mississauga train derailment, there had been on a number of occasions in the past in Canada and in the United States-and, for that matter, in other parts of the world- other catastrophes of this sort where there were chemical spills, explositions, fires and great devastation as a result of train derailments. I suppose we in the Metropolitan Toronto area felt that this kind of thing could never happen to us. Perhaps we were asleep at the switch and were not paying too much attention. But, certainly, the Mississauga train derailment jolted our attention. It caused all of us to reappraise the situation and think for the first time about what could really happen in these cases.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of the Mississauga derailment we were faced with, first, an exposition, then a fire, then the escaping of chlorine gas which caused the evacuation of a great many people. In fact, 225,000 people in Mississauga were evacuated for a period of some six days. That, of course, changed the way in which the people of Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding area thought about this whole problem. Many citizens immediately became concerned and, as a result, organized a variety of citizen groups to try to deal with the situation and spearhead some changes in the law. Second, they inspired local Government to become concerned enough to try to bring about some changes. Third, the provincial Government was inspired to get involved as well. Finally, of course, pressure was put on the federal Government of the day to investigate the situation to see what could be done.
Out of all that came the Grange Royal Commission of Inquiry which looked into the Mississauga disaster. During its investigation it found a great many individual problems with the transportation of dangerous goods and commodities through the Metropolitan area. One of the major problems it found was that dangerous goods were in effect being shunted back and forth through the heart of Metropolitan Toronto, not for any specific purpose, but just because it was convenient for the train to take the goods through Metro Toronto, bring them back and then, perhaps, take them back and forth three or four times befor they were marshalled on to their ultimate destination, which may have been western Canada.
Out of the Grange Report came a number of recommendations, many of which have already been dealt with. But there is still a major problem because there are still many carloads of
Adjournment Debate
dangerous commodities being shunted back and forth through the heart of densely-populated Metropolitan Toronto every day of the year. That is of particular concern to my constituents because the train derailment in Mississauga was only about 30 minutes away from the heart of my constituency. My constituency has the main lines of two of the major railways the CPR and the CNR, running right through the Don Valley which cuts through the middle of my constituency and I suspect there are dangerous goods being transported on those rail lines right at this very moment. Obviously, that is of concern.
The backyards of some of my constituents abut the railway right-of-way and if anything happens they would certainly be in the front line of a disaster. But it is not just the people whose backyards abut this area who have a problem, it is everyone within one or two miles of the area. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we can have something called a "bleavy" when there is a derailment of a train carrying dangerous goods which causes an explosion that perhaps can cover one or two miles, devastating and wiping out the population in that area.
What can be done about that? There are a number of things which can be done and right now the Toronto Board of Education is doing one of those things, that is, carrying out evacuation drills. It is teaching the children how to evacuate the schools in the event of a spill of chemical materials near a railway track.
There are other things which can be done as well. The speed at which the trains are moving could be slowed down. There could be a rerouting of those trains and in fact a relocating of the rail lines themselves. Recently, there have been a couple of inquiries by the Railroad Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission which is looking into the situation. There was one in Metropolitan Toronto where it was decided that nothing would be done, and another in Vancouver and Victoria where it was decided that as of the 1st of January the transportation of dangerous goods through the high-density areas of Vancouver and Victoria would be banned.
It is time we addressed this problem in Metropolitan Toronto. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on December 4, 1 asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) what he was doing about the situation. He indicated in reply that he intended to set up a task force to deal with the problem. That task force, we hope, will be forthcoming before the end of the year. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary tonight will be able to tell us when we are going to have that task force, what the terms of reference will be, whether it is going to deal with the question of rerouting or relocation and whether it will deal with the question of speed.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is the Christmas season. It is the season of hope, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us hope tonight for a safer 1986. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the citizen groups which has been dealing with this matter in Metropolitan Toronto, MTRAC, or the Metropolitan Toronto Residents Action Committee, is looking for some answers, as are all of the people in

December 9, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Metropolitan Toronto, and I trust that we will hear those answers from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's remarks. I would like to take notice of his comments. Six p.m. came rather sooner than we had expected this evening and, unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary could not be here at this time. However, we will definitely take notice of the remarks and give an answer back to my colleague.
In view of the fact that our colleagues opposite who had given notice that they wanted to ask a question on the Adjournment Debate are not here, although the Parliamentary Secretary is here to answer one of the questions, I suggest that we will co-operate with the Table in rescheduling tonight's Adjournment Debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 10, 1985