1985-12-12

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in hope of solving what I can see will become a problem. You indicated yesterday that you were going to hear procedural arguments on C-70 today. I would submit that the argument might be better if it could be heard now for the following reason. I think you will have to consider the argument once it has been made and then rule on it. Given that there can be only one debate because of the nature of the grouping, the whole argument will be redundant by the time we make it if the Speaker then requires time to consider it while the debate is going on. It sounds a little complicated, perhaps it is just a lack of sleep or something, but what I am trying to say is that I would like very much if the Speaker would consider hearing the arguments before we proceed to debate, and sufficiently in advance of the debate, in order that time be allowed for the Speaker perhaps to seek some advise and consider what he has heard. I make that point.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the point. I tried to indicate yesterday that I would hear the matter at eleven o'clock if it were called. I was trying to be very careful yesterday in my wording. It was late last night, I agree.
It would have been my intention to have thought about the arguments for a little bit and perhaps make some comment at three o'clock. In the context I think I can still hear the arguments at the beginning of the debate when it is called and make a decision as expeditiously as is appropriate for the Chamber. Another technical difficulty would be to hear argument on Bill C-70 when it is not called. However, I could not do that as it would not be in order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council) moved:: 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 third reading stage of the said Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the 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.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate our desire to place time allocation on Bill C-74. I first want to put some specific things on the record and then refer to the general question of time allocation.
The House will understand that the amendment presently before the House is a proposal to send the Bill back to committee. I will first review what has happened to this particular Bill. It received exhaustive study when the Government tabled a White Paper on redistribution prior to the Bill being introduced. It was, in effect, pre-studied. The Bill itself had intensive study in committee over the course of six weeks. Witnesses were called and their testimony was given careful consideration by both the committee and the Government.
As a result of those deliberations and the contributions of many expert witnesses, the Government proposed two amendments to the Bill, at report stage so that this Bill which goes to the very root of Parliament, that being representation, would be readily acceptable to all concerned. During the debate on second reading and in committee the members of the Official Opposition made the point that the Bill as written was a violation of the principle of representation by population. That matter was addressed and that aspect of the Bill was deleted. We made the changes necessary to correct that situation.
Therefore, I submit that in proceeding to amend the Bill to coincide with the views expressed by the members of the committee and the witnesses who gave evidence, the Government has now responded to the concerns that were expressed. It is our position that it is not necessary to send this Bill back to committee for further study for the reasons I have already listed. We are now trying to wrap it up.
It is important for the House to understand that if the issue of representation goes to the very heart of Parliament, we have to approach that issue properly. That means putting this Bill in place so the various electoral commissions can fan out across the land and construct the boundaries of our ridings in such a way as to be as fair as possible to all Canadians. That process can only start if we get this Bill through. Therefore, I find the disarray among the opposition benches to be unfortunate for the people of Canada. I find that this filibuster which is under way is harmful to the issue of representation which is, as I say, the very essence of Parliament.

December 12, 1985
Time Allocation
1 now want to deal, if I may, with the question of time allocation. It is quite obvious to everyone in this House that there is a difference between debate for the purpose of examining an issue and the filibustering which is going on now. There is a difference between debate to allow public opinion to formulate-which is what we did with the White Paper, second reading debate and committee study-and pure delay and filibuster. We put this motion forward with the feeling that this particular Bill has had all of the discussion necessary. I feel that it has had all the discussion necessary and that it is very, very vital to representation.
[DOT] (mo)
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to predict what we will hear from the Opposition in the next hour and 50 minutes. I would like to remind the House of what happened when we moved time allocation on the employment equity Act and of some of the things that were said by the Opposition during that debate with regard to what the Government was doing. Opposition Members used inflammatory terms such as "howls of outrage" and "guillotine". They said that they had only had a few days to debate the Bill. They said: "Our Party has had only 14 Members speaking on this Bill". There were many other words of the same character used.
It is important to realize that on the day allocated for the final debate on the Bill, debate was to close at 4.45 p.m. and Hansard of November 21, 1985, shows that debate closed at 4.30 p.m. because the Opposition did not put up any more Members to speak. After having complained about time allocation, the Opposition could not fill its roster of speakers for a full day of debate. That is important to remember because we are going to hear a lot of complaints about how we are choking off debate, but when it comes to debate they do not have the bodies here.
Lest you think this does not happen often, let me refer you back to December 5 when the Government introduced time allocation on the Income Tax Act. I would like to read from Hansard of December 5 some of the comments made by members of the Opposition. The Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said:
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues in the House are amazed that the Government would seek to terminate the discussion in this House on the principles of this legislation.
He said that they wished to debate the changes in the House. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said that they wanted to debate whether or not it is necessary for the Government to bring in time allocation. All of the Members complained about time allocation. Referring to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said that the Minister "wants to cut, cease, abort the debate after only 50 Members have had a chance to speak". The Member took issue with the figures of our Whip and said that only 11 per cent of all MPs had spoken on the issue.
The Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) spoke and said that he considered that the Government had phenomenal
gall to do this. The Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said:
Mr. Speaker, for a sixth time since the Government came to power, it is using its overwhelming majority in this House to gag opposition Members.
He said that that is truly a shame for democracy. He spoke about having had only nine hours of debate.
I want to refer you back to eleven o'clock on Monday morning of this week, Mr. Speaker. At that time the final day of debate on this Bill on which everyone claimed we were choking off debate, was called. What happened at that time, Mr. Speaker? At 11 a.m. the Income Tax Act was called under Orders of the Day. What happened as reported in Hansard is as follows:


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment.
Since not everyone was here at that time I will explain what happened. The Opposition voted against the amendment, but did not even have five Members in the House to call for a recorded vote. We then moved to the main motion which everyone wanted to debate. We called for the question on this important Bill which the Opposition had not had enough time to read and review. Once again, Mr. Speaker, no one rose to debate, so the question was called at eleven o'clock in the morning when the day's business began. During the previous week the Opposition members had complained that the Government was cutting off its chance to debate this Bill. Having had lots of notice of their opportunity to debate it on Monday morning, they were not here.
I caution the people in the House today and those watching it on television to remember that the Opposition will howl about the Government allocating a certain amount of time to debate. However, on the last two occasions that we moved allocation because the Opposition was filibustering, it did not have its members in the House to debate the question. I, therefore, pre-empt that argument right now, Mr. Speaker. I would like to announce that we will be voting to allocate an appropriate amount of time for debate on a Bill which has a great deal of study through a White Paper, committee, and at second reading stage. It is about time we got on with the business of the House.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader (Mr. Lewis) is hell-bent on closing debate on the redistribution Bill. I would like to point out that this is the first time in history that a Government has moved to bring in redistribution so rapidly and without concurrence from both sides of the House. With 211 Members of Parliament, the Government feels that it can do anything, regardless of whether it is fair and equitable and regardless of whether the Opposition supports the Bill. This is the final nail in the coffin of the consensus approach to redistribution. This is a bad day for Parliament and for the consensus approach which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about during the election campaign. He talked about reforming Parliament and about a new civility.
December 12, 1985

I have here the 338 Tory promises which were made during the election campaign. If you look through this directory of campaign promises you will not see anything about redistribution. You will not see anywhere in that directory of campaign promises that the Government planned to move away from the amalgam formula or that it was going to reduce the amount of representation in the House of Commons. However, today there is a motion before the House to close this debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about having this Bill passed and having the redistribution commissions fan out across the country. This Bill was supposedly introduced to save money. However, a redistribution commission has already fanned out across the country. It has held public hearings, gone through a massive advertising process, and heard objections by Members of Parliament. Those debates have commenced. Only another two or three hours of debate is required in the House of Commons and redistribution can go ahead immediately. Within a year redistribution would come into effect. Riding boundaries would be newly proclaimed and local riding associations could be established.
With this Bill the House of Commons will be chopped down in size by 10 Members of Parliament. Outlying areas of the country will lose representation because of the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament that will be provided through the new redistribution. It will cost at least $5 million or $6 million to establish those new commissions. We will have to come back to the House of Commons for further debate, but rather than debating this matter in the Chamber itself, it will take place in a parliamentary committee.
We must question why the Government is in such a hurry to carry out this change and reduce the representation in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member opposite talked about the Opposition not being able to have enough members here. That is true. Sometimes we do not have enough members to cover every parliamentary committee. There are only 70 members on this side of the House. However, the Government Party, with 211 Members of Parliament, sometimes had only one or two members in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections when this Bill was being discussed. It is rather interesting to note that even with its massive majority, which it is using to impose closure, it is unable to provide a quorum at parliamentary committees. We should keep that in mind when we are considering this matter.
I am also concerned about the power of the Government as it relates to this proposed new formula for representation. In the report stage we were able to suggest certain amendments which would have provided additional floor representation for areas like northern Ontario, which has been an issue for many years. When the Bill was first introduced I made representations and wrote to Tory members on that committee, asking them if they would support an amendment to give us a floor of 11 seats for northern Ontario. While I received support from members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal caucus, I certainly did not receive support from the
Time Allocation
Government caucus. One can see from the vote taken on that day a couple of weeks ago that all the Tory members opposed that floor.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said that this Bill would be a great move forward and it would provide a floor under the representation for provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, based on the present representation in the House of Commons. While the principle was acceptable and desirable in some cases, it was not in others.
According to this current redistribution, which will almost certainly take place, we will lose representation because Ontario will lose six seats from the present redistribution which is going ahead. Tory members from northern Ontario will have to explain not only to their own constituents but to others throughout the North why they spoke and voted against that representation. It will not only affect representation in this redistribution but will continue to do so in each succeeding redistribution. The average number per constituency will be
87,000	people. After 1991 it will be 95,000, and then 99,000 people. Under this scenario, unless there is some magnificent new resource development, we will likely lose representation from an area that encompasses 88 per cent of the land mass of Ontario.
The Government's closure motion is unacceptable. The Bill, rather than being forced on the House of Commons, should go back to the committee because it is ill-conceived. If it passes, we will see new redistribution commissions being formed across the country costing another $6 million. This redistribution will come into effect during the summer of 1988. There will be massive confusion regardless of whether we are with the old boundaries or the new boundaries because that will most likely be the year of a general election.
I hope the Government will not force this resolution on the House of Commons through this closure motion today.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth time that the Government has moved a time allocation motion in this Parliament. Most of this has occurred recently. At a time when we are supposed to be discussing parliamentary reform and recognizing the rights of individual Members of Parliament to state their opinions and change legislation, the Government has a secret agenda which is to ensure that it can use its majority in the House to prevent any adequate discussion of legislation. This has become increasingly evident.
We only have 10 minutes each to speak on a time allocation motion but if time permits I will quote what Conservative back-benchers in opposition said about time allocation when it was introduced in the House by the previous Liberal administration. It is very ironic to see that same Party using time allocation on a regular basis.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) listed occasions when the Government had brought in time allocation and the Opposition was unable to continue debate even though there was approximately a day left for debate in the House of Commons. I do not believe that

December 12, 1985
Time Allocation
represents any lack of interest by the Opposition but, rather, explains the real situation in the House of Commons.
There are 211 Government members and an Opposition, divided between two Parties, with 40 members and 30 members. Not only must those Opposition members serve on the old standing committees of the House of Commons, under the new rules they are serving on the numerous legislative committees as well. This creates a problem.
While I would criticize Liberal members for their initial lack of participation with respect to Bill C-74, we must recognize that when there are only 70 Opposition members divided between two Parties who must have representation on the various committees of the House, there will be times when the Government is in a position to use its majority to exhaust the number of our speakers on a particular Bill. The Government could have us sitting on so many committees at a particular time that it would be almost impossible for us to have a Member in the House who has not already spoken to a piece of legislation.
That is part of the reality of the situation. Instead of continually using time allocation when the Opposition in the House of Commons is so small, the Government, if it believed in democracy and the parliamentary reform package about which we have talked so much lately, would not be using the manoeuvre that it uses so often.
Earlier I said that 1 would be quoting comments of Conservative Members of Parliament about time allocation. The first person I should like to quote is the new Government Whip, the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). He said:
Closure is the mechanism put in place by the Liberal Party to shut us up. It is a disgrace to Parliament... to my constituents and to Canadian citizens at large ... It should not be permitted in the House.
I should like to turn to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), one of the more eloquent Members. When he was in Opposition, what did he say when the Government brought in time allocation?


Mr. Rodriguez:: What did he say?


Rodney Edward Murphy: He said that it was "a sneaky, dirty trick", and referring to the Minister who brought in the motion, he said: "You are a snake". Those quotations indicate the hypoc-ricy of Conservative Members who spoke against time allocation when in Opposition but use it now that they are in Government on a continuing basis.
A lot of time was spent in committee looking at this piece of legislation. Witnesses appeared before us. Amendments were accepted by the Government. We, as a House, passed some amendments and defeated others. All that happened. As I have done on other occasions, one can lay blame on the Liberal Party for not attending at committee when it is necessary. One could lay blame on certain members of the Liberal caucus for not understanding what was being debated in the House at report stage. I have done that in the past. They should have been aware of what was happening when the legislation was
brought back to the House. However, we are now in third reading and have to recognize the right of the Liberal Party- and I am certainly not a defender of that Party-to change its mind and to discover things in the Bill which affect the Province of Quebec. They want an opportunity in the House to make their points. Also, those of us who think the Liberals are wrong in what they are saying should have an opportunity to make our points.
We are speaking out about a Bill which affects a very fundamental issue-how we determine representation in the House of Commons. It is an important piece of legislation. It not only affects how many seats each province has, but it effects how power is distributed in the House of Commons. The more seats we have and the more seats we are guaranteed in the future will have some influence on power in the House. Just as important is that we consider how a Member of Parliament is able to represent his constituents. That is reflected in the rules affecting the redistribution of seats in Bill C-74. It is important that we understand what we are doing and that the public understands it without any misconceptions.
As I have said, I am very happy with the amendments to [DOT] which the Government agreed which were made at the request of the Opposition. I support those two amendments, but I cannot support the legislation because, although it is sound legislation for the next redistribution based upon the 1984 census, there is no guarantee that it will be sound in the long term. The Government has created a flaw by dividing the population of Canada by the number 279. That is based upon a formula which knocks off two seats for the Northwest Territories and the seat in Yukon. Those seats are guaranteed, but the present population of Canada, based upon the latest census, is divided by 279 to determine theoretically the average seat size in Canada. That sounds good on paper, but it does not recognize that when the House has 293 or 296 seats in the future, there is no rationale in the world for using 279 as the denominator. The House would already be 16 or 19 seats larger than that particular figure. Since it has been guaranteed that no provinces will lose any seats, a strain or artificial limit, in terms of numbers of seats, is placed upon provinces with growing populations.
We should have a chance to express that concern in the House, and we should look at some way of resolving it. The only reason I have accepted the legislation, even though 1 intend to vote against it, is that it is okay for the next 10 years and it might be okay in the future depending upon what happens with population. However, it is a flawed piece of legislation. If the Government were wise, it would look at ways of removing those flaws rather than depending on the fact that 10 years from now some future Government could change the legislation, which has been the argument of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
In closing, I should like to say that time allocation has been introduced six times. The Finance Committee, which is considering Bill C-84 containing 235 pages, is choking off debate after three days of study. What are we doing? Why do we even talk about representation in the House of Commons if the
December 12, 1985

Government is to continue to use its massive majority to choke off any legitimate chance to study important legislation such as the changes to the Income Tax Act in Bill C-84? It is a massive piece of legislation. It contains 235 pages and hundreds of amendments. The Government will not let a committee of the House do a thorough job of looking at government expenditures and the raising of taxes, the very things which Parliament was set up to deal with in the first place. Parliament was set up to deal with these matters, and the massive Conservative majority is being intolerant of the rights of the minority.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to the motion for time allocation on consideration of Bill C-74. The amendment presently before the House is a proposal to send the Bill back to committee.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill received exhaustive study when the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections examined the Government's White Paper on redistribution. We spent hours and even days on this exercise, Mr. Speaker. You know, the people on this committee are sensible and practical, with a few very rare exceptions. If the people of this country, if business people were to see and try to analyze the behaviour of certain Liberal Opposition Members in certain committees, they would be flabbergasted and absolutely speechless. These people on the other side of the House have become experts in wasting the precious time of Hon. Members of this Parliament. They make a habit of indulging in useless verbiage.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Privileges and Elections also studied the Bill for a period of six weeks, I repeat, six weeks, during which a number of witnesses were called and heard. Testimony was given careful consideration by both the committee and the Government. Following the deliberations of the committee and testimony by expert witnesses, the Government proposed two amendments to the Bill at the report stage, to ensure that the legislation would be readily acceptable. Very serious testimony was given. The witnesses who appeared before us were reliable. They adduced a number of useful elements that gave us a broader view of the Bill and helped us form an opinion.
During the debate on second reading and in committee, the Liberal Opposition, and I repeat the Liberal Opposition, made the point that the Bill as written was a violation of the principle of representation by population. All witnesses who appeared before the committee indicated that the root of the problem was a section of the Bill which subsequently was removed. I think you follow me. I think you understand.
Then the Liberal Party critic-


An Hon. Member:: It isn't easy.
Time Allocation


Gilles Bernier: It may not be easy to follow, but in any case, that is what happened. I am referring to the sequence of events.
The Liberal Party critic proposed exactly the same amendment which is now being openly criticized by his colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). That same Member is now proposing that the Bill be sent back to committee. It is all quite confusing! Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we have here another example of a party that is disorganized, in complete disarray, and poorly led. The people in the Liberal Opposition are incapable of agreeing on the right orientation for their policies. It is obvious that confusion reigns. There must be a lot of unhappy people in that caucus, and if they aren't unhappy, they don't realize what is going on. Either one or the other.


Mr. Robichaud:: Certainly not!


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, by trying to adjust the Bill to reflect the views expressed by members of the committee, the Government, and I am very happy to be sitting on the Government side, the Government responded to concerns that have been clearly explained. It is unnecessary to send the Bill back to committee for further study. It is a waste of time and energy.
The only reason it was necessary to move time allocation for this Bill is the fact that the Liberal Opposition-in disarray as usual, as we see here today-decided to continue an obstructionist policy that is both unjustifiable and foolish, as you will agree, Mr. Speaker. They are doing this to the detriment of a large majority of the population that supports the Bill as amended.
While it must remain neutral, the Chair can see that you are ridiculous. I trust it is a mental comment he can make. And I hope that the people watching us on television or listening here in the gallery, and there may not be enough of them this morning to witness how ridiculous the Opposition is, 1 hope they realize, Mr. Speaker, that the useless verbiage of the Liberals contributes nothing to this country. In my opinion, we should proceed without paying any attention to their insinuations.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government House Leader brought in time allocation, or closure, on Bill C-74 earlier this week, I cannot deny to the House that I was highly agitated, irritated and quite hot under the collar. I want to say that I am more calm and collected now, but in exactly the same frame of mind. I am strongly opposed to what the Government is doing in forcing Bill C-74 upon us without allowing the full and adequate debate which this Bill deserves. I want to say again that we have not had adequate opportunity to present the case referred to by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster),

December 12, 1985
Time Allocation
namely, that in the Province of Ontario more than 80 per cent of the land mass constitutes northern Ontario and the more than 800,000 people who live there ought to be guaranteed a floor in the same way as provinces which are smaller in size but of approximate population. We still want to make that argument. We in Parliament still believe we can convince enough Hon. Members in this House that that argument is sound and ought to be considered.
At one point a Government Bill was brought in by a previous administration that almost became the law of the land which would have done that for northern Ontario. It failed. In the dying days of that Parliament-which lasted from 1974 to 1979-when unanimous consent was required, it was withheld by one Hon. Member and that Bill failed to become law. We would not have this problem now if that Bill had been accepted.
Members of Parliament from northern Ontario still want to make their case in this House. I believe we have allies on the opposite side of the House as well as on this side. We would like to hear those supporters make their case and we would like to convince the Government that it should change its mind.
I want to be very clear that when we talk about closure or time allocation, I do not want to be a ranter or a raver, as has happened in some speeches in the past with respect to time allocation. 1 am not unalterably opposed to the use of this parliamentary device to bring the House of Commons to a moment of decision. I am not at all opposed to that. After all, it was a Liberal Government which brought in the change in the parliamentary rules to allow for the use of what was then Standing Order 75(C). But when did we use Standing Order 75(C)? We used it when all of the arguments had been made and remade, argued and reargued.


Mr. Nickerson:: Just like this time.


B. Keith Penner: Not like this time at all. We used time allocation when we had a Government which did not have a huge, vast majority. When we have a large number of Members of Parliament in the two opposition Parties-or three opposition Parties as the case has sometimes been-and arguments are being repeated, that is the time when closure or time allocation can be introduced. For example, if both sides of the House were almost even, if there was a majority of seven or eight Hon. Members, and debate on an important Bill had been going on for several weeks, perhaps then the Government could bring in time allocation. While there may be some perfunctory protest, we could understand that there comes a time when a decision can be made. But when there are 70 Members of Parliament on this side of the House-30 members of the New Democratic Party and 40 members of the Liberal Party-and time allocation is used excessively, as has been done in recent months by this Government, then we have to start to ask the question, why is time allocation being used excessively?
When the voters of Canada gave the Conservatives such a massive majority, why, then, would they not, in the parliamentary tradition, allow a smaller Opposition the opportunity to
express its views on very important Bills? I want to illustrate that we have not had that opportunity. Let us take a Bill which is so important to the taxpayers of this country as the bank depositors Bill. I am sure you followed that closely, Mr. Speaker, but did you know that we did not, even at second reading stage, debate the main motion? Time allocation was imposed before we had finished debating the amendment which was introduced by my Leader. The main motion had not even come to the House for debate and time allocation was brought in. Does that not bother Hon. Members opposite? Are they not wondering what the Government they support is doing?
Let me give another example. There was a wimpy little Bill brought into this House. It was hollow and a sham. There was no substance to it at all. It was the employment equity Bill. Members on this side of the House were beginning to get the message to the country and to all Hon. Members that there was no employment equity in that piece of legislation at all. Time allocation was imposed on it. Why was time allocation imposed on it? Because the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) was becoming embarrassed by the truth.
Again, I am not always opposed to time allocation. When the Government brought in time allocation on Investment Canada, 1 think it was right to do so because to do away with FIRA and substitute it with Investment Canada was something Government members said they would do during the election campaign. They said that they did not believe in protecting the economy of Canada from foreign ownership and control. That was their policy. I do not agree with it. In fact, I am opposed to it. However, they brought in time allocation because that legislation was central to what the Conservative Government stands for. They said that they believed in opening up Canada and that if something looks good and is for sale, they should let anyone in the world buy it. I do not agree that they should sell things at fire sale prices. However, the Government decided to move closure because that policy was absolutely central to its program. It was part of its manifesto, as much as manifestos exist in this country.
By the way, I hope someday someone will bring in a law that provides that when a Party runs in an election, it would have to have something resembling a manifesto, not just 380 loosely strung out promises. There ought to be some central policy for which a Party stands. The only policy I was able to detect during the last election campaign was that government Members wanted to open up Canada. They brought in Investment Canada and they brought in time allocation on its legislation.
How can Government members justify bringing in time allocation on Bill C-74? It is not a Bill that is in any way central to the executive branch of Government. It is not part of a Conservative Government program or platform that was introduced to the country. It is not even a matter for the
December 12, 1985

executive branch of Government to decide. It is a parliamentary question.
When have we ever proceeded with the question of redistribution without seeking agreement among the Parties in the House? That agreement is central to the parliamentary process. We do not use such a heavy, powerful weapon as closure on a measure that is parliamentary in nature and not related to the program of the Government.
I would tell Hon. Members opposite that they should call a halt to this because they are doing themselves great damage. Do Hon. Members know that there are now suspicions that the reason they are bringing in time allocation on this redistribution Bill which they want so badly is that they want to do some gerrymandering? Yes, 1 have heard it said that they want to appoint these commissions and have them re-arrange the ridings in such a way that it will somehow be to the advantage of the Conservative Party. I am not making that allegation right now. However, I am telling Members opposite that 1 have heard it. It has come to my attention, and people have asked if that is what the Government is up to. People have asked why the Government is not allowing Members of Parliament to speak their minds on something that is as important to every Member and every constituency as is redistribution. They are asking why the Government would bring in time allocation on a Bill like that.
There are suspicions that what the Government really wants to do is to remove all of the returning officers in all of the ridings so it can extend the patronage system into every constituency with the appointment of new returning officers. I have heard that allegation. I am not making it but I am telling Hon. Members that it has been brought to my attention. People are asking if that is what the Government is up to. I mention these allegations simply because I appeal to Hon. Members opposite to get some control over their front bench.
Let time allocation be used responsibly. The Standing Orders exist for a purpose. There are Bills on which the Government has every right and justification to use time allocation, and I will say so when I believe that it is right. However, in the case of Bill C-74, a very serious mistake is being made. The people of the country will not like it. We in the Opposition say it is wrong, and I ask if there is some way that this can be reconsidered. Is there some parliamentary tactic whereby we can withdraw this time allocation measure and have a full and complete debate so we can reach an agreement as to how the electoral boundaries could be redistributed? We must move by consensus and not by having a decision forced upon us.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to spend a few moments speaking on time allocation. In the process, I must remind Government members that many times in the past, they were riled at the sitting Government because of this measure. In fact, I believe a Liberal Government once lost power because of time allocation.
My predecessor, the Member who represented Prince Albert before me, was a very great parliamentarian and had a very
Time Allocation
great deal of respect for Parliament and what it stood for. He made hundreds of statements about the strength of Parliament, and I believe it behooves us all to spend some time reading what he said before Parliament, what this Government is denying. On May 17, 1956, the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker made a speech before Parliament regarding the process of closure. I would like to put on the record some of the things Mr. Diefenbaker said at that time because they were right at that time and they are right now. The Party that put those statements before the House at that time is denying them now. He suggested the following:
-by the application of closure in the way in which it was effected, not for the purpose of interfering with unnecesary debate but rather designed to secure
silence-
He went on to say:
-and to use Parliament as an institution in which the government may produce what it will, is able to propound any proposition it likes and, because of its majority here to know that, regardless of whether or not there is any support for it, the majority will carry it through.
That is exactly what we are facing with this Government. Regardless of whether or not it has the support of the country in bringing something before Parliament and forcing it through, it will use its majority to force it through.
I wish Government members would remember that even if they do hold 211 seats, only 50 per cent of the people voted for them. A good portion of those people voted for the Conservative Party not because they wanted Conservative policies but because they wanted the Liberals out. They should remember when they are putting things before the House, passing Bills and using closure that they do not have the support of the majority of the people. The majority of the people did not vote for their policies and in many cases did not vote for the policies which they are forcing through the House by using closure.
I go on to quote from the words of Mr. Diefenbaker who was speaking of Mr. St. Laurent at that time, but what was right and proper then is right and proper now. He said:
-that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should abdicate his belief in democratic principles and deny those in opposition the right to advance their arguments and to educate public opinion or to find out why there is such solicitude on the part of the members of this government.
Mr. Diefenbaker recognized the responsibility of the Opposition to educate the public. The only way that the 70 members of the Opposition can educate the public is to have the opportunity to debate the Bills which come before the House in order to show the people of Canada that the Government is using its massive majority to stifle knowledge-to stifle the flow of information to them. We abhor this type of approach to legislation, that is, the closing off of debate and the withholding of information from the people of Canada just so that the Government can get its particular ideology through the House, an ideology for which 50 per cent of the people of Canada did not vote.
I would like again to quote Mr. Diefenbaker who said:
I ask the Prime Minister today to tell this House why he is so fearful of the facts; why he was afraid to allow the true facts of this nefarious scheme to be

December 12, 1985
Time Allocation
elucidated? I ask why he found it necessary, and the members of his Government found it necessary, to muzzle the representatives of the people in advance of anything in the nature of a filibuster or an interference on the part of the opposition with the policy and program of the government. 1 ask him to explain that today, for certainly the day of silence is past. Are they afraid of the truth over there? Is that why they hide behind the caricature of Parliament which they have substituted by the adoption of the parliamentary form of closure in a way that it has never been adopted before?
Those were the terms Mr. Diefenbaker used in castigating the St. Laurent Government. What he said then is true today. The Government has not given the Opposition the opportunity to put before Parliament and the people of Canada the truth about situations with which it is dealing within these Bills, this in light of the fact that 50 per cent of the people of Canada did not vote for the policies which this Government is putting forward.
1 go on to quote the words of Mr. Diefenbaker as follows:
Only once in history was it ever adopted in our country during the progress of a resolution, and then only after more than 10 days of debate.
What do we see with respect to the closure motion which is before us? Debate with respect to the Bill went on for eight hours-a mere eight hours. The Government then decided it should put forward its closure motion. What I am speaking about today is not the decision of the Government to use closure once but to use it six times in a matter of a couple of months. It uses it to force through legislation for which 50 per cent of the people of Canada did not vote. As 70 members of the Opposition here it is our duty to ensure that the people know that this type of legislation is being put before the House of Commons. They should know enough about it to put the type of pressure in place so that these measures will not be forced through Parliament.
In Mr. Diefenbaker's speech on the closure motion he finally made this statement:
Why not throw the key of parliament away? . . . Lock it up and throw the key of parliament away.
Those are the words of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker with respect to what the Government of the day was doing. It is what this Government is doing today-what it has done six times in the last couple of months. This Government is muzzling Parliament. We might as well take the key and throw it away. The Government is locking the opportunity of Parliament with respect to placing information before the country and it is throwing away the key.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased today to rise to speak against the motion to refer this subject back to committee. I am glad to see that there are so many members of the Opposition here, in fact, more than were here to vote yesterday. There has to be a reason for that.


An Hon. Member:: We are always here!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I cannot be sure whether they are here to-


Mr. de Jong:: Have you anything instructive to say?


Mr. Rossi:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: On the other side of the House, a reference was made to the presence of Members in the House today, but let me tell you, we always have three times the attendance of the Conservatives, in spite of their large numbers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that is a valid point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I assume they are here because they do not want to work until 1.04 p.m. Perhaps that is the reason. If so, we would like to ask them to change their minds-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why do we not work those extra four minutes so that the House can go on to the regular business at three o'clock? Are Members opposite here because they want to extend the day into the afternoon in order to pull a trick such as they did yesterday and waste the valuable time of the House and in so doing insult every Canadian who sent us here to work?


Mr. Angus:: It's your closure motion.


Ms. Copps:: You are on closure!


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I wish to address the comments of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) since he made some severe allegations. While he denied he was personally pressing the argument, he stated he has heard that the reason for pressing this Bill forward is so that the commissioners can conduct a gerrymander in the country. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior acknowledged that he knows far better than that because the commissioners in this land are often judges, men and women of impeccable quality. What they did in my province before the last election was to start in the southeast corner and move through it township-by-township until they reached the average size of the riding. In this way they worked their way through the province. To make any allegation that the commissioners are doing a gerrymander does a severe disservice to the country.
Why are members of the Opposition opposing the passage of this Bill? It is hard to imagine that here we are in 1985 and the Constitution of the land declares that after each ten-year census, which was completed in 1980, there has to be a redistribution. After the census of 1980 the commissioners spread out across the country and returned with a proposal which would have given many more seats to western Canada. When one talks about raw, ugly politics, one will find it there. The Liberal Party did not want the redistribution after the 1980 census because it would have given more political power

i

December 12, 1985

to western Canada, that is, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The Liberals stalled that Bill. Indeed, they refused to pass it in order for it to be put in place for the 1984 election. They committed a gross insult to every single western Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I appreciate that there are only 40 Liberals who sit in this place today. One of the reasons that there are only 40 and none of any consequence from the West is this great insult. Thus, here we are in 1985, a new Bill has been presented to the House but only after a White Paper has been produced. The White Paper had enormous coverage and input. A Bill was then drafted which went to committee. Witnesses came before the committee and explained how they felt the Bill should be changed. The Government House Leader incorporated those changes and the Bill was then brought for debate. Now we see this mindless ringing of bells and the opposition Members not being prepared to make their arguments and then vote on the Bill.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Look who's talking! Boy, a Tory concerned about ringing bells!


Mr. Benjamin:: You should know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I can tell all Members that those bells would ring another 15 days if the Liberal Party ever came to power and put in place a national energy program which robbed and raped one region of the country. It was absolutely against all Liberal principles, and many Liberal Members, some of whom survived the last election, agreed with that again and again.
I agree with time allocation. It is important to get this Bill through. The commissioners will have to fan out across the country to do their work. After they have done their work it has to be put into legislation. A Bill has to be presented in the House and there will then be all sorts of consideration and debate. We need to have this legislation so that new riding associations can be created, the boundaries can be changed, and the moneys can be adjusted and allocated between the various associations so that Canadians can get used to the new ridings in order to cast their votes properly in 1988 or 1989. Therefore, I stand in favour of this motion and make no apologies.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the first sign when someone knows he is in trouble is when he starts using bullying tactics.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Liberals know. This man speaks from experience.


Lloyd Axworthy: Over the past few weeks we had closure on the income tax Bill. That Bill was of incredibly vital concern for every Canadian citizen. It had hundreds and hundreds of
Time Allocation
tax measures which needed careful examination by Members of Parliament. However, this Government ordained that closure be applied before anyone has had a chance to make his or her voice heard and before a committee of parliamentarians could exercise their duties as elected representatives to examine public expenditures on behalf of their constituents. We have closure being applied, as my friend from Cochrane-Superior pointed out, to Bills which were not of urgent necessity. This is becoming a bad habit. The Government is doing this because it has lost its ability to manage the House. The Conservatives have lost their ability to organize their own caucus in such a way as to put together properly a parliamentary agenda. As a result, they are exercising this kind of defensive bullying tactic. In the meantime they are doing something very serious to this Chamber.
You realize, Mr. Speaker, that every time a Government makes a decision like this it sets a precedent. Do you remember those brave words in the election campaign when the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he was going to return civility to Parliament? He used the wrong word. He has returned buffoonery to Parliament. He was going to make Parliament the chief decision-making body of the land. He was going to restore its dignity. He was going to give individual Members of Parliament a new sense of responsibility in exercising independent judgment. What has been the result? Four closure motions in the last two weeks. Is that not an interesting exercise of giving this body a new sense of dignity and responsibility? What an incredible travesty. What hypocrisy. Members opposite have the nerve to make those kinds of claims and then walk into this House and exercise the guillotine without even having the honesty to blush when they do it.
The Conservative Member who just spoke tried to put the best face on this thing. We have to let the electoral commissioners go to work, he said. However, there was a well-constructed and well-debated distribution plan which had already gone through all the parliamentary steps and which would have ensured that there would not be uncertainty in the next election. However, this Government threw it out. Members opposite changed their minds.
That Member said the Opposition was responsible for stalling measures which would have given more representation to western Canada. However, he forgets that the Bill which had been debated and was in its final stages gave far more seats to western Canada than the Bill we are now debating. Where has he been? If he really was interested in his own Province of Alberta, or the other provinces, he would know they had more seats under the 1984 Bill than they have under this Bill. Instead, they have gone through a number of variations on this theme. They brought in something first involving 287 seats and now 295. What is more, Members opposite have not given Canadians in the different regions the opportunity to understand their shenanigans, to find out what they are about. They are denying the fundamental right of this House to be the crucible in which that kind of information is properly discussed and communicated to people across this country. They are

December 12, 1985
Time Allocation
afraid. They really are afraid that they cannot control the power of public opinion.
As we pointed out, Members opposite brought in a wonderful Bill dealing with employment equity with a lot of glitz and glamour. In fact, it was a mere piece of cosmetics which had nothing to do with the recommendations of Judge Abella. When they found that the cosmetics were quickly wiped away, they brought in closure. They were not prepared to accept the judgment of the Canadian people as it was expressed in this House. They could not take the heat. In so doing they are denying once again the responsibilities of this Chamber.
Perhaps the most important break with precedent, the one that will haunt this Chamber for many years to come, is the fact that they have taken something which has for decades been a matter of all-Party judgment and agreement and are turning it into a partisan division. This is something which affects every Member of Parliament regardless of Party, platform or attachment. It goes to the fundamental rights of representation with which we are deeply concerned. By doing this they will produce a spectre which will hang like a shadow over Parliaments to come. They are politicizing something which should not be political because it goes to the basis of our Constitution and the fundamentals on which our country is based, how people are heard and represented. With this closure motion they are not giving the proper opportunity for the dialogue and dynamics which take place in this House where a proper agreement can be reached between Members of all Parties.
Why is this Government so willing, indeed anxious, to tamper with a tradition and convention which has been one of the touchstones of parliamentary democracy for so many years? Is it because the Government does not care? 1 do not think that is the case because many Members in the Conservative caucus, Members such as the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), have exemplified over their parliamentary careers a dedication to this House. I think they are once again responding out of a sense of fear. The Government has gone through a period of total unravelling, total and complete disarray, and it now wants to get its house in order. It must show that it is being decisive and get all this legislation passed by the Christmas break. In other words, in serving its own political expedient ends of trying to get back some control of its agenda, it will victimize this Chamber. It will put this Chamber and its traditions on the altar of its own communications strategists. That is a terrible way to try to govern the country.
The Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) suggested that the backroom strategists who run the computers and public opinion surveys are saying that the Government is going to be in deep trouble in the next election and that it can save its skin by altering boundaries. The Members opposite cry: "Oh, no, it is not possible". If that is the case, why did they introduce an amendment to Section 13.1(6) to change the formula by which those alterations can be made, to break
away from the formula which said that boundaries must be fixed as closely as possible to representation, and to say that we are going to have more flexibility? That is a terrifying word.
It is not unknown in the history of this country or of other democracies for that to be the ultimate power of an executive in trouble and fearful for its life. The last resort of scoundrels is the gerrymander. The last way that they can protect themselves is by trying to rearrange and reorganize boundaries to suit their political interests. That is the problem. Mr. Speaker, that suspicion will remain because of this closure motion. They have set that motive in place and their actions speak louder than their words. Moving this motion and imposing closure on something which they know, deep in their hearts, they have no business imposing closure on, is going to haunt deliberations of those commissions and will create a suspicion across the country as to what is really afoot.
We are going to be very careful, Mr. Speaker, to watch that they do not do it. We hope that in these last moments some sense of the tradition of this House will prevail and members of the caucus will realize that if there is any motion on which closure should be withdrawn, it is on this Bill.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 have never seen more disreputable behaviour by a Government than that which we are witnessing today. This is the sixth time since the Government has been in office that it has introduced closure. There are 211 government Members and 70 opposition Members, yet the Government has to use closure to crush the Opposition. I could be very flattered by the fact that the Government has to use this sledgehammer to crack the Opposition. I could be very flattered that we are doing such an effective job. However, what is the Government afraid of? It is afraid of democracy.
The government Members ran around through the summer of 1984 saying that they would find a new way. Is this the new way? This is the way the Liberals did it and the present Government criticized them at that time. This is not the new way, but the Liberal way. They are a bunch of retread Liberals over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a responsible Government bringing in closure on a redistribution Bill which denies representation by population? That is what Bill C-74 really does. It flies in the face of "rep by pop". The Government is bringing in closure to snuff out what some might consider the ultimate in a democratic system. Members of Parliament come to this place to represent the population of the country.
The Conservative Member who spoke talked about the bells, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: He's a ding-a-ling.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says he is a ding-a-ling. I cannot say that, Mr. Speaker, and I would not countenance
December 12, 1985

that remark. Another Member over here said that he has the "clapper". Well, I do not know that, Mr. Speaker. I cannot countenance that remark either. Members of the Government are the worst examples of the abuse of Parliament. I was not in the House at the time, but the way in which they caused the bells to ring some years ago was a good example. Members of the Conservative Opposition at that time ran up and challenged the Speaker, shaking their fists at him. And now, in their puffed up hypocrisy, they are saying that they are the defenders of democracy. Mr. Speaker, they have abused democracy six times. They have taken closure to new heights and have abused it to the lowest depths. They are now bringing closure into the committees.


Mr. Manly:: Shameful.


John R. Rodriguez: Bill C-84, comprised of 235 pages, hands out the greatest amount of taxpayers' money to Tory hacks and flacks and friends. The Government introduced closure on that Bill even though it had been brought into the House only on November 27. The Government wants that Bill to be out of committee and into the House by next Monday. Government Members should hang their heads in shame that they have to resort to these undemocratic processes to get Bill C-74, a measly seven-page Bill, passed. Why do they have to do that?


Ms. Mitchell:: They're afraid.


John R. Rodriguez: Parliament resumed in September of 1985 and it took the Government six months to bring Bill C-84 to amend the Income Tax Act before the House. They are now saying that they must get it passed before the end of the year. They are saying the same with respect to Bill C-74 after having frittered and dithered away the time of Parliament.
Now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says he wants to prorogue the House so that he can start with a clean slate, a tabula rasa, so that he can give a new direction. Is this part of a machiavellian plot by the Prime Minister to show Canadian people how decisive he is? Is he really hurting because all those who watch Parliament see how indecisive he is? He wants to clear the desk. He wants to get rid of the tuna and the buffalo. One would have thought they had done a good job of getting rid of the buffalo some years ago. Now he wants to clear the table of the bungling on the deindexation of old age pensions. He wants the people to forget that. He wants to clear the Opposition off the table, but he is not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. We will not let him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I call upon members of the Opposition in the House to band together to prevent this juggernaut from destroying democracy in Canada through the use of the closure procedure which has been embarked upon.
I have been asked why the Conservatives have dropped to 40 per cent in the polls. It is a very good question. The reason is that they do not know how to govern.
Time Allocation


James Douglas Manly: Why do they still have 40 per cent?


John R. Rodriguez: I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving me two fingers again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member wishes, I will give him a whole hand. The Hon. Member has the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: I know that it means two minutes, Mr. Speaker, but I am glad I was not getting one.
The reason the Conservatives have dropped to 40 per cent in the polls is that they have substituted the skill of governing with the use of closure. It is that simple. Even with 211 Members in the Government, they have not honed the skills of governing. They have not understood that the Canadian way is the way of compromise, taking a little bit and combining it with what they want. Instead, the Conservatives bulldoze their way through Parliament. That reflects a lack of confidence on the part of the Prime Minister. He lacks confidence in his ability to govern. Therefore, his gang who sit behind him and around him-


Philip Derek Lewis: And around you.


John R. Rodriguez: -decide to ram through Parliament legislation like Bill C-74, Bill C-84-give me another Bill.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Bill C-70.


John R. Rodriguez: And Bill C-70. They just ram those Bills through. The Government knows that it should not proceed in this fashion. Members opposite are laughing because they think it is a big joke. However, 1988 will be here soon and I predict that they will be sitting on the Opposition benches again. If they continue in this way they will be punished by the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, that is well deserved applause for great oratory. At least, on the face of it one would think it was great oratory. However, when one realizes what was actually said, it does not really amount to very much.
Most of what we heard this morning was wind and puffery, to use the words of the Hon. Member himself when making reference to other people. Last Monday, when the vote came up on Bill C-84, he had an opportunity to display his commitment to what he is saying. He mentioned Bill C-84 in his presentation and said that the Government used time allocation on Bill C-84 in order to cut off debate. He used his great oratorical skills to say that the Government would not let the

December 12, 1985
Time Allocation
Opposition represent the people of Canada and their constituents. However, what happened on Monday morning? A whole day was set aside for further debate on Bill C-84, an important matter of income taxation. Where was the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)? Where were his colleagues from the New Democratic Party and his side-kicks from the Liberals Party? They were not to be seen. There was not one Member from that side of the House who wished to rise in his or her place.
Furthermore, when the vote was called, where was the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt? He must have been asleep somewhere at 11.30 on Monday morning. It is clear in Hansard, in the record of those who voted, that only 40 out of a possible 70 Opposition members voted. The name of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is nowhere to be found in that list. That is what we are facing.
It is great oratory to be sure and makes a great impression on television. However, when the time comes for substance, that substance is lacking in the extreme.
Returning to the matter under discussion, the issue on which parliamentarians are being asked to vote is whether we want the question to be put. I believe that I have a rather easy task before me in persuading Members of the House of Commons to vote in the affirmative. I believe that when the vote is counted we will see that all those thinking Members of Parliament will have voted in the affirmative. I am even confident that we will see some Members opposite vote in the affirmative.
When one looks at the Members opposite, one can see that quite a few of them are perhaps too far gone to see any reason. I see the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We dealt with the Member for Nickel Belt previously. There is not much hope for them. The Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry have been here too long associated with the Liberal Party. They have become contaminated.
However, there are one or two Members opposite with a vestige of intelligence left, I am sure. They will be voting with Members on this side of the House on this question. We know why there are so many Members opposite in the House in these last few minutes of this debate. We know why they came here. They do not want to sit here until four minutes after 1 p.m. in order that Parliament can do its work, get on with the business and do a good job for the people of Canada. The only reason there are so many of them here is to prevent us from doing that. However, in the process they must sit there and listen. The Hon. Member for Windsor West is not listening, but those who do will learn something.
They will regret having done this dirty work of sitting there and preventing the vote from taking place at four minutes past 1 p.m. When the vote is called, they will realize their mistake.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The venerable Member with all his years in the House should no doubt be aware of the fact that it is against the rules to
comment on the presence or absence of other Members in the House. I hope he will return to the relevant issue, which is the question of the Government's attempt to cut off debate with its massive majority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying and I agree with her. We will carry on with debate.


Dave Nickerson: Of course, the Hon. Member is quite right. It is not necessary to comment on her presence or absence because people can usually hear whether or not she is present.
The eminent Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) gave a very lucid explanation earlier today of the debate that has taken place so far. He explained in great detail the opportunities that were afforded to parliamentarians from all sides, particularly in the Opposition. In fact, Members on this side went out of their way and actually sat down and kept quiet from time to time simply to allow members opposite an opportunity to speak. We have a great respect for the institution of Parliament and we went out of our way to give them ample time to express their views.
We have heard members of the general public speak on this issue. There have been commissions travelling around the country. It has been a matter of continuing debate, practically year after year. Everyone has had an opportunity to make his views known and has been sucessful in doing so. The Bill was initially formulated after wide consultation. It had the tacit agreement of almost everyone in Canada even before it was introduced. When it was introduced, arguments were made, and it was shown that technical improvements could be made here and there. Then what did the Government do? It brought in amendments to reflect those concerns. The Government has been listening to people. We have been doing precisely what we have been accused of not doing by the Opposition.
The Bill does for representation in the House of Commons exactly what Canadians want. The objective is to keep the number of Members within reason. Surely that is what most Canadians want. They did not want the House to grow, over a period of years, into a House of 500 or 600 Members. They wanted a reasonable lid kept on that. That is precisely what has happened. They wanted, in general, representation by population with each Member representing more or less the same number of constituents. They wanted exceptions made in special circumstances, for example, Prince Edward Island and its historic right to four Members. They wanted special considerations for the very large northern ridings. That is precisely what is contained in the Bill. We can never get it absolutely perfect. We cannot expect everybody to agree on it. However, the Bill is surely the best fit and should be voted on as soon as possible, so that people will be able to get their affairs in order and start arranging for the next election. These things come upon us from time to time. There will be no necessity for one for the next 3.5 years, but at least we will know where we stand.
December 12, 1985

I see you, Mr. Speaker, signalling that my time has come to an end. 1 had much more to say of great interest and importance. Perhaps the next time we have a debate on time allocation, which I am sure will happen because of the mindless opposition of hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite, I will continue with my additional important observations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Boudria:: Now let us hear a real speech.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who spoke before me tried to speak quietly and passionately and tried to speak about parliamentary reform in the Chamber. However, those words will not hide what the Government is attempting to do. The Government is attempting to crush parliamentary debate in this Chamber. I feel a responsibility, before the Tory closure axe falls once again on this Chamber, to rise in my place and to speak, not necessarily to Bill C-74, but to why the Government is once again introducing closure.
In September, 1984, Canadians elected a Government. Notwithstanding the fact that 1 felt Canadians certainly understood what they elected, the fact was that they had an absolute majority in the House and that it was inconceivable for any opposition Party to win any votes. We accepted that because we accepted the verdict of Canadians that September. What we do accept and what Canadians did expect, even though we might not be able to win a vote, is that we should have the opportunity, the obligation and the right to be able to speak. We should have the right to be able to debate. We should be able to articulate the aspirations, the problems, the difficulties and the feelings of Canadians from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: That is why we are here. Each of us, all 282 Members of Parliament, represent a constituency. Everyone, whether he or she is in Cabinet or not, is on an equal footing because we each represent constituents. When the Government says that it has had enough and that it will move closure, it is in fact telling Canadians that we do not want to hear any more, that somehow we have made up our minds, that somehow we have conducted a poll and we know what is best. That is not parliamentary democracy. We in this Chamber are a vehicle for Canada. We are not here in isolation. That is the problem with the Government-isolation, isolation from the people who live on the streets of the country. They are isolated from those aspirations. That is why the polls are going down. They have seen nothing yet because it is a bottomless pit. We will see in 1987 and 1988 the bottom of that pit.
It goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy. Closure, very vividly and very boldly, once again shows Canadians another broken promise of the Government. It was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of the Conservative
Time Allocation
Government, who went from coast to coast and said: "You elect us, and you elect an accessible Government. You elect us, and we will give you an open Government. You elect us, and we will give you a Parliament which will work on behalf of you, on behalf of every single Canadian. You elect us, and we will be able to reform Parliament to meet your aspirations". Canadians are asking: "What happened on the way to Parliament Hill? What happened to those promises? What happened to those commitments which he made across the country?" Then he has the audacity to stand in his place and say that the Hon. Member from his Party did such a great job in trying to introduce parliamentary reform, on the one hand, and introduces closure, on the other hand, for the sixth or seventh time. If that is not the height of hypocrisy, then I do not know the definition of the word "hypocrisy".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the definition of hypocrisy, even from a hypocritical Member of Parliament-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Philip Derek Lewis: I am not-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Philip Derek Lewis: No-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Retract.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to hear the point of order, please.


Ms. Jewett:: It is not a point of order, I am sure of that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Withdraw.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, using a moment when you were distracted, unfairly and improperly accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of hypocrisy. The Hon. Member is making a good speech, but he got carried away. He should be forced to withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will check the "blues". The Hon. Member has the floor. If there is a problem, I am sure the Speaker or the occupant of the chair will look after it.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Government House Leader, in raising his point of order, made what 1 consider to be a totally unwarranted and improper reflection on the Chair. He spoke of the Chair being distracted while something was said. The Chair is always vigilant, especially yourself, Sir.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
9414

December I 2, 1985
Time Allocation


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I submit that far worse than an unwarranted allegation of hypocricy is the reflection the Deputy Government House Leader and Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader made about the occupant of the chair by talking about the occupant of the chair being distracted. I repeat, Sir, that the Chair is always on duty, it is always vigilant, and certainly when it comes to yourself, Sir, you are never distracted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think enough has been said. The Hon. Member for York West.


Sergio Marchi: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, but I am surprised that he would rise in his place. That, too, is simply another form of parliamentary closure and harassment.
Mr. Speaker, you know, as well as I do and as well as Canadians do, when you are promised something, when a Government makes a commitment, or when a Government goes across the country and says to each and every constituent, You have a sacred trust with me, don't you worry", and then comes into Parliament and delivers another bag of goods, what that is called. If you do not like "hypocrisy", you can call it what you will, but Canadians know what the colour of this Government is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I see nothing wrong with "hyprocrisy" as far as Beauchesne is concerned. Will the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) remain in his seat, please? I see nothing wrong with the use of the word "hypocrisy" in Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, in the fifth edition.


An Hon. Member:: Especially when it's true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Especially the way it
was used. I do not see a problem with the word "hyprocrisy" at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Merry Christmas to you as well. What we fail to see is that the only people who do have a problem with hyprocrisy are Canadians because they were misled about the change which was promised by the Conservative Government. Hon. Members opposite can smile, but they will not be smiling for long.
We can also talk about closure. When the Government invokes closure on Bill C-74, a Bill which is to determine how Canadians elect representatives, it is really going a bit too far. We heard from previous speakers that this Government has invoked closure before, whether it be a bank Bill, a Bill dealing with senior citizens' pensions or a Bill on family allowances. The Government has tried to stifle debate. We have stood in our places and argued against that on behalf of Canadians. But when the Government comes to Parliament and tries to invoke closure on a Bill which is to determine the men and women who are going to represent Canadians in this institution, then I tell Hon. Members on the Government side that Canadians will not tolerate it. Canadians will not accept it.
Canadians have experienced better Government. They have experienced broad liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Althouse:: When?


Iain Francis Angus: Not in my lifetime they haven't.


Sergio Marchi: Canadians have experienced a Government which has delivered what it said it would deliver, nothing more and nothing less. Previous Governments had the responsibility and the vision to take this country exactly where it told Canadians the country would be taken. That is why-


Philip Derek Lewis: That is why you have 40 Members.


Sergio Marchi: -successive Liberal Parties have formed Liberal Governments on a national basis. That is why the Conservative Party has surely been a footnote or hiccup in the history of the political landscape of this country. That is the destiny of this Government.
Canadians will not tolerate or trust a leader, a Party, or a Government which invokes closure on Bills which cuts pensions when they said they would not, on Bills which affect taxes-


An Hon. Member:: And family allowances.


Sergio Marchi: -and on Bills which cut family allowances, when they said they would not. The Government talks about free trade and puts everything on the table, and who knows what is under the table.


Mr. Lapierre:: Right.


An Hon. Member:: Call in the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Sergio Marchi: Christmas is a time which we enjoy with our friends and families, but I would submit that in this Chamber, Christmas is also a time for Governments to reassess their position. The Government started off badly and is finishing badly. The Government is going from bad to worse, and Canadians will not tolerate this Government in office for much longer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the Hon. Member to know-if I may have a word-that 1 was very vigilant. I have given him an extra minute and 15 seconds in order to make up for the lost time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in this closure debate as we come towards the hour of one o'clock, which gives me the opportunity to continue the debate following the statements at 3.30 p.m.
December 12, 1985

The question of closure is a very important one in this House and across this land. It is important because it means the shutting off of debate by Members of Parliament who are here to represent the views of all their constituents-not just those who happen to have cast a vote in their favour in the last election, but every man, woman and child in their individual ridings. It is ironic that this Government has put closure on a Bill which decides how those people will be represented, how many people will have to come together in a riding to elect a member and to be served by him or her. That is what Bill C-74 is all about.
The Government has seen fit to bring forth closure to reduce the amount of time we have to debate this Bill, which I believe is not of sufficient urgency that it must be passed by Christmas. I think, in fairness, we could have had further debate, we could have talked more about the question of representation in northern Ontario, as well as representation in the northern parts of all the provinces, so that we could ensure that all Canadians have the same value of service whether they live within a mile of the constituency office of their Member of Parliament or whether they live a thousand miles away. So I believe it is important that this Government should allow the debate to continue. It is very inappropriate that it has cut off the discussion.
I listened with interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) in contributing to this debate and in the discussion on the point of order regarding the word "hypocrisy". He made the argument that the people of Canada no longer trust a Government that uses closure. I think he might want to reflect on his own comments. As we see by the number of Liberals who were returned to this House after his Party formed the Government, it is true that Canadians do not trust a Party which uses closure. But the Government opposite is using closure far more often than did the previous Government. It uses closure far more often than is necessary.
We have three years to go in our legislative timetable. We know that Governments cannot change the world during their term, but what we do ask is for a process which allows us to think matters through, to have an exchange in this House which allows us to share points of view, to question proposals by the Government and to offer alternative approaches. That is how the people of Canada want to see this Parliament work. They do not see us as three Parties in a particular room. They see us as a group which has been elected collectively to make laws for this country and to ensure that these laws not only reflect the wishes of the marority while protecting the interests of the minority, but that they are workable and make common sense. By bringing in closure on this Bill, the people of Canada have been told by the Government that that is not how this Parliament works. They are telling the Canadian people: "The Conservative Party is the Government and we are going to darn well do what we please regardless of how the Opposition feels and regardless of the long-term impact".
When the commissioners have gone out and drawn the boundaries, the hearings have been held and Bill C-74 comes
Business of the House
back to Parliament, it will be in place for quite some time. So it is extremely important that we have the opportunity for a full debate in order to ensure that all of our concerns, not just the concerns of those on the opposition benches, but the concerns of Government members who represent some far-flung areas of the country, are properly debated and considered. We should have some flexibility so that we can come up with a Bill which works for all of Canada and which will protect the interests of all Canadians, no matter where they live in this country.
I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, and I will complete my speech after the statements this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As vigilant as I am, 1
notice that it is getting awfully close to one o'clock. The Hon. Member will have six minutes and perhaps 15 seconds remaining-the Table Officer informs me it is four minutes and about 12 seconds.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock today.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation between the Parties and it has been agreed that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) will make a statement at this time. I believe if you ask for unanimous consent, it will be given.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I take it, therefore, that there is a request for unanimous consent to go to Statements by Ministers at this time?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have discussed this with the House Leaders of the opposition Parties and the agreement which we have made is that, by unanimous consent, a statement will be made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) which will be responded to by representatives from each of the Parties. The time used by these statements will not affect the full time allowed for Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 22. In the way in which we have in the past, we will move everything back and have a full Question Period. This will be at the expense of government time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This is understood?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, by unanimous consent, 1 recognize the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).

December 12, 1985
Newfoundland Air Disaster DISASTERS


CRASH OF CHARTER AIRCRAFT CARRYING UNITED STATES MILITARY PERSONNEL, AT GANDER, NFLD.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise to inform the House of the tragic loss of life as a result of the crash of a U.S. military charter DC-8 aircraft at Gander, Newfoundland, this morning. On behalf of the Government of Canada, and 1 am sure of the entire House and all Canadians, I offer deep and heartfelt condolences to those families which have been so tragically touched by this accident.
This morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sent a personal message of condolence to the President of the United States. The Prime Minister also spoke directly with Ambassador Niles to express his sorrow on behalf of the Canadian people.
Earlier today the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) called his counterpart in Washington, Mr. Weinberger, to assure Mr. Weinberger of Canada's complete co-operation in the investigation now under way. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) also discussed today's tragedy with Mr. Schultz, the U.S. Secretary of State, this morning in Brussels.
The aircraft involved was an Arrow Airlines DC-8 on charter to the U.S. military. On board were 250 U.S. military personnel returning from peacekeeping activities in the Sinai, along with eight crew members. The aircraft was en route from Cairo to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with refuelling stops at Cologne, Germany, and Gander.
Preliminary information indicates that, after refuelling, the aircraft took off from Gander at approximately 6.45 a.m. local time. After clearing Runway 22, the aircraft crashed in dense bush on the shores of Gander Lake approximately one-quarter of a mile from the airport.
The crash fire rescue units at Gander responded immediately and were at the scene eight minutes from receipt of the alarm. The response consisted of six firefighters, one first response truck, two large foam trucks, one water truck, and one structural fire pumper. Further airport emergency procedures were implemented according to plan, and municipal fire-fighting assistance reported to the scene.
An intensive, all-encompassing independent investigation is now under way to determine the cause of this tragedy. A preliminary Canadian Aviation Safety Board response team is at the scene. A follow-up support team is scheduled to be in Gander later today. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration have also dispatched officials to the scene. Transport Canada's Emergency Air Operations Centre has been in operation since 7 a.m. this morning. Pending fuel analysis, Pit No. 8, the refuelling station used by the aircraft at Gander, has been closed.
In conclusion, I repeat our expression of sorrow and sympathy to all those who have been touched by this tragedy. During this season, when family is of such importance, we mourn with them over the loss of their loved ones.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) on behalf of all Canadians for his prompt response and reporting to the House of Commons on the tragic accident which took place in Gander, Newfoundland, this morning. On behalf of the Official Opposition I wish to join with the Minister and all Members of Parliament in expressing our condolences to the people of the United States and, in particular, to those families who lost loved ones this morning.
I note, as the Minister has noted, the response and the efforts made this morning by the Ministry of Transport firefighters in Gander in very difficult circumstances, and also the co-operation which existed with municipal officials in attempting to save the lives. Unfortunately, that was not possible. 1 thank the Minister for the briefings which his officials and his Department provided this morning. We look forward to receiving continued updates on this sad and tragic event.
I simply say that the Province of Newfoundland has had a long history of association with the U.S. military, with air bases in Goose Bay, Labrador, Stephenville, Saint John's, and the military presence in Gander as well. I say on behalf of all Newfoundlanders that we regret this tragic accident very much. We express on behalf of all Canadians, but in particular the people of our province who have had a close association with the people of the United States, our condolences today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we too wish to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) for his statement, and echo his expressions of sorrow to the people of the United States and to the families and relatives of those who perished. Our Leader has personally conveyed our condolences to the American Ambassador.
At this point I wish to pay tribute to something accomplished by the 101st Airborne Division with respect to its role as peacekeepers as a result of the Camp David agreement. Canada has had many years of experience in peacekeeping under the United Nations and knows what it is like to earn recognition throughout the world for being not only a peacemaker but a peacekeeper. That type of accolade is deserved by the 101st Airborne Division peacekeepers who served in the Sinai over the past number of years.
I wish to say to the Minister that we support him in a full investigation and inquiry which will have to result from this accident. We hope that the results will be made public so that we can make greater efforts to ensure that this type of tragedy, no matter what the cause, does not happen again.
Again, on behalf of my colleagues, we express our sincere regrets and condolences to the people of the United States and to the families and friends of those who perished.
December 12, 1985


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate for all Members of the House to rise for a moment's silence?
[Whereupon the House stood in silence.]



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 22


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this week at the UN delegates will be asked to vote on the Sweden-Mexico nuclear freeze proposal. This resolution will urge the United States and the Soviet Union, as the two major nuclear weapons states, to proclaim an immediate nuclear arms freeze as a first step towards a comprehensive program of disarmament. At the First Committee of the UN vote held this year on November 20, 113 countries voted in favour of this significant resolution. Unfortunately Canada was one of 11 countries which voted against.
I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Government of Canada to direct our representative at the UN to join with the vast majority of other delegates around the world in voting for the freeze resolution. Only by taking this important step will Canada be recognized as a nation committed to world disarmament and peace.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Beatriz Barrios Marroquin, mother of two young children, was kidnapped yesterday by four armed men some hours before she would have left her home in Guatemala City to enter Canada with her visa as a refugee. Ms. Barrios had already been politically kidnapped a month ago, tortured, then released through her family's influence. Wishing to become a refugee in Canada, she was barred because the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. MacDonald) decreed early this year that all Guatemalans must obtain visas before arriving in Canada.
Although Canada votes for the annual UN resolutions condemning Guatemala's brutal repression, although Guatemalans have not abused visitors' rights entering Canada, although thousands of Canadians warned and petitioned the Minister that imposing visa requirements would endanger
genuine Guatemalan refugees by exposing them to observation by the death squads when they arrange for their visas, the Minister nevertheless imposed the visa requirement endangering refugees like Ms. Barrios. Therefore the Minister now shares responsibility for the fate of Ms. Barrios and ought now, in all conscience, to withdraw that visa requirement for the protection of other refugees.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, today the Toyota Motor Corporation announced it will build an automobile assembly plant in Cambridge, Ontario. This $400 million investment will provide employment for 1,000 workers producing 50,000 passenger cars per year, and will commence operation in 1988. This is great news for Cambridge and the adjacent Kitchener-Waterloo area, and indeed for Canada as a whole.
Since taking office last year, and with the cancellation of FIRA and the immediate creation of Investment Canada, the federal Government has been working hard to ensure that Canada offers a healthy investment climate, thereby encouraging companies from other countries to locate here. One by one we are seeing this effort produce results.
Today's announcement by Toyota is the latest evidence that Canada is indeed an ideal country in which to invest. This will mean jobs, jobs for construction workers, plant employees, car dealerships and the many auto parts suppliers of Waterloo County. In fact the economic spin-offs will have an enormous impact upon all areas of Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo economic life, including small business, housing, retail outlets, schools, hospitals and so on.
Toyota is to be congratulated. Its decision is a tremendous vote of confidence in the Canadian economy in general, and in the skill and hard work of the people of Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo in particular.




Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we recently saw how once again, Canadians recovered their confidence in Canada's economy and in the future. Another series of figures published by Statistics Canada confirms that our economic situation is very encouraging. I am referring to the data on automobile sales for October. These figures indicate a 14 per cent increase over the same month in 1984. This considerable growth in new car sales is a clear sign that Canadians have

December 12, 1985
once again become confident in the future and are willing to make substantial purchases. This renewed confidence will be an additional boost to the economic recovery now underway.
In fact, this renewed confidence in the Canadian economy has a positive impact on the small- and medium-sized businesses that work as sub-contractors for the big car manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, in my riding, 1 have two businesses that specialize in this sector and are expanding at a tremendous rate.
This is something to be proud of and emphasizes the positive aspects of our improved economic situation here in Canada.
It has been a long time since the people of this country saw such a good performance by their federal Government. Everywhere people are saying the Conservatives are doing a good job. Of course, there are still a few problems here and there, but our Government has an attentive ear, and with the cooperation of labour and management, we shall find solutions to those problems.



FOOTWEAR IMPORT QUOTAS-CORRESPONDENCE OF MEMBER FOR LANARK-RENFREW-CARLETON

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention a letter that was sent to the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) by the Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). This is what he had to say about the shoe industry in this letter dated September 18:
On October 23rd, 1984, I wrote to you, Sir, as our new Minister for International Trade, and asked that if we are really serious about maintaining employment in this country, and if we are serious in ensuring that our domestic footwear manufacturing industry is competitive, then rather than a 2 year, 3 year, or 5 year quota period, I believed we should have a 10 year quota period in order to encourage the appropriate investors.
I wonder what happened to that Member, Mr. Speaker. The letter continues:
Further, on May 2nd, 1985, I wrote once again supporting a letter from our colleague, Roch LaSalle, on this matter, and again pointed out that I believed 10 years was necessary if we were seriously going to approach this problem, and try to give the appropriate lead time necessary for proper investment to bring the Canadian industry into line with the competition.
Mr. Speaker, 10 years was shortened to roughly 10 weeks after this letter was sent because of what happened to the shoe industry.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, many social policy groups, women, poverty groups, unions, and churches have joined forces again to protest the treatment of children and families by the Government and the cynical myth of its consultation. Their anger is repeated by over 40,000 citizens who have petitioned the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full benefits to families. The Government ignores this unanimous consensus as it proceeds with legislation to deindex family allowances.
Women's groups protest the deindexing because it attacks women, especially homemakers and those raising families on their own. Poverty groups and social reformers deplore the additional hardship this puts on poor families. Catholic Bishops condemn deficit reduction policies that put restraint before human needs.
By proceeding with Bill C-70 the Government has given its message to Canadians that children are not important and parenting deserves decreased support. Canadians will long remember Christmas of 1985 when the Conservatives took benefits from children. The silent victims are kids.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, for the last few days this House has been subjected to both Liberal and NDP rhetoric concerning the Government's sale of de Havilland to Boeing. Through their usual manipulation of the facts they give the Canadian public the impression that the Government is selling off one of our most prized possessions for a ridiculously low price. The Opposition has made de Havilland appear to be Canada's "Jewel in the Crown". Nothing could be further from the truth.
What the opposition Parties neglected to tell the Canadian public was that over the last 11 years the Canadian taxpayer has poured over $800 million into de Havilland and it is still losing money. Last year this company lost $40.3 million, and in the first nine months of this year it lost another $55 million. How long do Canadian taxpayers have to pump their hard-earned tax dollars into such a venture?
As reported in The Globe and Mail today, even the Liberal Premier of Ontario recognizes the necessity of selling Crown corporations, such as its Urban Transportation Development Corporation, which no longer fulfil a public policy purpose. It is interesting to note that in an edition of The Toronto Star this week it is mentioned that as far back as 1974 the federal Liberals pledged that they would sell de Havilland back to the private sector. Now the federal Liberals are crying about de Havilland's sale. What a bunch of hypocrites.
December 12, 1985

Unlike the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, which are both well known for incompetence in fiscal matters, we in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that Canadian taxpayers should get value for their money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIVE PEOPLES


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to talk about the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, and political autonomy. As you may know, the James Bay Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement are the first two over-all settlements of territorial disputes in Canada. They were signed in 1975 and 1978. These agreements are still the most wide-ranging settlements ever concluded with native peoples. They deal with all aspects of Northeastern Quebec economic, social and political development.
The agreements define the structure within which Northeastern Quebec is to develop so as to enable Indian communities and interests to develop and progress in accordance with their own plans. Canada and Quebec also benefit from the agreements as a result of the economic fall-out which Canadians reap from Northeastern Quebec hydroelectric projects in Abitibi.
As to political development, the agreements provide for the establishment of a public administration over Inuit territory and political autonomy over Cree and Naskapi territory.
The Cree-Naskapi Act was adopted in 1984, and it applies exclusively to Northeastern Quebec. Cree and Naskapi bands already enjoy legal autonomy status, more decision-making authority, grants and other benefits.
Other bands will soon be entitled to similar benefits as political autonomy becomes reality elsewhere in Canada, in keeping with the policies announced by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.



AIRPORTS


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, there is no Minister who has the responsibility or speaks for Hamilton. The local Progressive Conservative Members are either being ignored or saying nothing. Therefore, I want to issue a person-
5.0. 22
al invitation to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to visit the Hamilton Civil Airport with myself and members of Hamilton City Council.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that at the moment only 34,000 people per year are travelling through this airport. It is an absolute white elephant and unless the federal Government comes in with a program for a free-trade zone, or for the use of the Hamilton airport as the third expanded airport to cover the Toronto International Airport, the airport will be a disaster.
The Minister is also aware the Purolator has attempted, through negotiations with the Minister, to establish its eastern operation there. Unless it is given a positive answer within the next two weeks we will see several hundred jobs leaving Hamilton.
Since the so-called political Minister for Hamilton has done nothing in this effort, 1 urge the Minister of Transport to intervene personally and come to Hamilton airport to save those jobs and give Hamilton airport a chance to become the full-fledged international airport it should be and should have been when the $50 million expansion investment was approved.
Government Members have done nothing on this issue. Perhaps the Minister could personally intervene. I am issuing him this invitation to come to Hamilton before Christmas to see the very desperate situation in Hamilton.


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



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of days a very strange and unusual story has come to my attention. It would appear that the humanitarian efforts of a woman in Regina have been caught up in the delivery of External Affairs Christmas treats to our embassies in Latin America.
According to a source, 1.5 tonnes of wine, cheese, fruit and Christmas trees are being flown by a National Defence aircraft on a navigational training exercise to such capitals as Guatemala City, Georgetown, Brasilia, Ecuador, and Bogota.
When my office attempted to contact officials from the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs, we were given various different stories. At first they told us they did not know what was on the flight. Then we were told that at times they have carried personal packages of embassy personnel but only if they are packed in small boxes and weighed a specific amount. Another person from the Department of National Defence stated: "Goods which could not be purchased locally" would be on that flight and: "Yes, if there are no Christmas trees in Bogota, that might qualify".

December 12, 1985
Presence in Gallery
Meanwhile, only some of the relief aid that had been gathered for the victims of the Columbia volcano will be on that flight. 1 would like to know if it is the policy of the Government to fly wine, nuts, cheese and Christmas trees to our embassies while relief aid takes a back seat. It should become Government policy to co-ordinate training missions with relief agencies that have aid to be shipped to disaster affected areas.


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



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to report to the House very positive news from Sarnia-Lambton. Results of exhaustive and detailed tests of water samples from eight water treatment plants from Lambton to Windsor confirm that area drinking water is absolutely safe.
The Ministry of the Environment tested samples at treatment plants at Windsor, Sarnia, Walpole Island, Wallaceburg, Amherstburg, Stony Point, Mitchells Bay, and Stag Island. The tests all showed absolutely no traces of dioxins and no hazardous levels of the other 109 chemicals and organic compounds for which tests and analyses were made.
Finally, we have solid factual evidence which defeats the negative hyperbole and speculation of those relatively uninformed people who made short visits to our area for press conferences, merely to cast aspersions on our area. Their comments never appeared to be backed by any factual information. Perhaps they will now take note of this scientific information.
Few people have been told that the quality of water in the St. Clair River has actually improved over the last several years. Many enjoy sport fishing, and hundreds participate in our salmon derby. We are known as the beautiful "blue water land", and we are working hard to develop it as a tourist area.
I will continue to make every effort to maintain the good name of Sarnia-Lambton, because I know that we have earned such a reputation. I will not stand by as others smear it.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of Hon. Members today to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Haig Young,
Minister of Public Works for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I join with other Members of Parliament and all Canadians in saying that our hearts go out to the families of the American servicemen and women who lost their lives this morning in Newfoundland. I echo the very eloquent words of the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe who replied on our behalf, and the representative of the NDP.
My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I think he will have recognized by now that the opinion of his colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, to the effect that the de Havilland transaction is not subject to review by Investment Canada, is wrong. Will he ensure or guarantee to the House that the transaction will indeed be reviewed by Investment Canada and that Investment Canada will render public its report, particularly in respect of the other bidders who tried to enter a bid for the purchase of de Havilland and were unsuccessful because they were not given a fair hearing?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the transaction is reviewable by Investment Canada. As to the results of the review under the Investment Canada Act, normal procedures will be followed, and they are not made public as a matter of course.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Check with your
seat-mate.


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Finance asks me to check with my seat-mate. I want the President of the Treasury Board to check what his colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, said in the House on December 11.


REQUEST THAT ALL OPTIONS BE EXAMINED BEFORE CANADAIR IS SOLD
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the Government of Canada is
December 12, 1985

going to act more sensibly in the case of an eventual sale of Canadair.
Would the Minister allow Parliament, the Government of Quebec and Canadair workers to examine all possible options before a decision is made on selling Canadair?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that all representations by other levels of government, other countries or other groups interested in the eventual privatisation of Canadair will be welcome, and we will certainly give them our undivided attention.


POSSIBILITY FOREIGNERS BETTER INFORMED THAN CANADIAN BIDDERS
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Government has provided no information, either to the Government of Ontario or to the workers at de Havilland, and we want to avoid this kind of situation in the case of an eventual sale of Canadair. My question is as follows: Why are the big multinationals like Boeing better informed about the facts and events than Canadian citizens and Canadian companies? Why are foreigners better informed than we are?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's premise is totally false. I have said in this House, and I say it again today, that during the past year, we have been in touch with more than 130 potential buyers, both Canadian and foreign. Those who showed an interest had access to the information required to enable them to tender an offer to the board of directors of the CDIC, as required.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The gravity of the situation is pointed out in the report just released by the Royal Society of Canada and the U.S. National Research Council. It points to the chemical toxicity of the Great Lakes as being the worst on the continent. Would the Minister admit the mistake his Government has made so far in cutting toxic research programs and reinstate the programs, and the people affected by these cuts, in this very vital area of public health?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member has had a chance to read the report he will know that the authors of the report stressed
Oral Questions
that the problems with which we are dealing go back many years. It does not have to do only with decisions made by this Government or, for that matter, by the previous Government.
Because of the urgency of the situation-and it is a sense of urgency we shared even before the publication of the report- this Government has begun to put in motion the plans which we hope to bring to Parliament early in the new year which will be the most progressive, cradle-to-grave management of toxic chemicals in the western hemisphere.


Mr. Caccia:: I want to remind the Minister that we did not cut the toxic research programs whereas his Government did. Therefore he has an obligation.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Since the report was published yesterday by prominent scientists on both sides of the border indicating the gravity of the situation, would the Minister tell us what action he intends to take?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of what action I intend to take. It is a matter of what actions I am already taking. I have met with the top representatives of all the chemical industries in the country. I have mobilized a team of people from labour, industry, and provincial officials from across the country for the purpose of putting together a regime which I think will be a credit to the Government and to the people of Canada.
We are going to revamp all of the laws within the federal Government having to do with toxic chemicals, focusing in particular on the Environmental Contaminants Act. Those amendments will be brought forward in the House before too long. I urge the Hon. Member who raised the question to get the support of his Party behind those worth-while reforms.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I have just learned that in Toronto, just before noon, over 2,000 de Havilland workers, representing one shift only, have signed a telegram addressed to the Prime Minister expressing their opposition to the Government's negotiated deal with Boeing. What this means, since it is only one shift, is that the vast majority of de Havilland workers are opposing what the Government plans to do in terms of their employment.
Given the opposition now of those workers, clearly expressed, which adds to the questions the deal, will the Minister commit himself, and the Government, to bring all the aspects of which have been raised about the financial aspects of this deal before Parliament before it signs a final agreement?

December 12, 1985
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, why does the Hon. Member try to create insecurity in the minds of the workers?


John Edward Broadbent: Insecurity?


Robert René de Cotret: Why is he out there all the time spreading information which will make the workers less secure? Under Crown ownership, in Canadair more than 2,000 jobs were lost between 1981 and 1983. Let the Hon. Member talk to those people. Let him talk to those people from de Havilland who lost jobs on what they think about job security under Crown ownership. And then let the Hon. Member tell those employees that with the Boeing deal, with the world product mandate, with its access to foreign markets, they are getting more job security than they ever had before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister that he is the one who is insecure in this situation.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TALK TO WORKERS
John Edward Broadbent: Considering the Government talked a lot about consultation before the election, and talked a lot about it since the election, and the men and women whose lives are going to be directly affected by this decision are in opposition to the Government, will the Government-and the Minister, specifically-at least have the integrity to go to de Havilland and explain its case to the workers? Will he do that?


Robert René de Cotret: The case, Mr. Speaker, was explained to the workers in a number of working sessions, and all available information will also be made available to the workers. They are going to be fully briefed. They have been fully briefed.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: They have?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, they have been fully briefed. We have maintained our commitment to keep the workers abreast of what we were doing and why this deal was good for them, good for the company, and good for Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, maybe the workers at de Havilland know a little better than the Minister about the facts of the case. The fact is that Boeing in the United States just in the last four years laid off 20,000 employees. That is
20,000	Boeing lay-offs in the United States. Maybe the Canadian workers have a right to be concerned about what this Government is doing now.


Ian Deans: It has a world product mandate.


CLOSING DATE FOR SALE CONTRACT
John Edward Broadbent: Will the Minister confirm that the termination date, the date beyond which the
Government cannot go to extricate itself from this deal, is March 3, 1986? Will he also confirm that if the Government comes to its senses, in our view, and wants to get out of the deal-in terms of the contract which has been signed-it in fact can do so with a minimal cost, paying the cost only which would cover incidental fees like legal costs and public relations? Will the Minister answer both of those questions now?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will answer both questions. First, it is interesting to see the Hon. Member following so closely the progress of a corporation outside the country. I would like to point out that in Canada Boeing created new jobs.


An Hon. Member:: In Winnipeg.


Robert René de Cotret: In Winnipeg. The Hon. Member should talk to the people in Winnipeg and ask them if they are happy.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Robert René de Cotret: In answer to the Hon. Member's second question, we have no intention whatsoever of extricating ourselves from this deal. It is a good deal for Canada and we are going to go ahead with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. He should know that the Boeing Corporation has a very strict research and development policy under which all research and development operations are based in the United States. Has the Government of Canada ensured that this policy will change vis-a-vis de Havilland? And what are the conditions in the Government's agreement with Boeing that guarantee that de Havilland's research and development operations will remain and be developed here in Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, the understanding with Boeing clearly indicates that the research and development which is done by de Havilland Canada will stay in Canada by virtue of the fact that it is incorporated into the Dash-7 and Dash-8, which will continue to be produced with a world product mandate at Downsview.


John Edward Broadbent: There are no guarantees for R and D.


Robert René de Cotret: In the case of augmentor wing technology, the rights to that technology belong to the Crown.


Ian Deans: It already has a world product mandate.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF GUARANTEES
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about the next generation of technology. We want
December 12, 1985

to know what is going to happen with the planes after the Dash-7 and Dash-8. If the Minister has assurances that research will continue and expand in Canada, will he do the right thing and let Canadians know the nature of those guarantees before signing a final agreement with Boeing? Let us know what those guarantees are. Will the Minister table them in the House?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have the guarantee of the world product mandate. We have the guarantee of retaining our technology in this country. We have the guarantee of increased R and D in de Havilland in Canada and that, from a high tech point of view, is a very good deal.


John Edward Broadbent: There isn't a guarantee.


DATE OF DECISION TO SELL
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I am going to give him a little respite from the questioning. I just want some information. At what date was the decision made to see de Havilland, and when was de Havilland given the directive to open its books to the corporate planners and accountants of the-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -bidding corporations?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the exact dates, I will be happy to take that under advisement and give the Hon. Member the specifics. In terms of the decision to privatize de Havilland, it was a decision taken by this Party. It was discussed at great length during the election campaign-


John Edward Broadbent: Right, at whatever cost.


Robert René de Cotret: -and announced very shortly after we took office.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT PROVISIONS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, since Section 99 of the Financial Administration Act requires that directives to Crown corporations be tabled before the House, would the Minister please tell us why those directives regarding the sale of de Havilland have not been tabled before the House?


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, it is not a directive to de Havilland. It is the shares in de Havilland that were held by the Crown through CDIC which are being sold.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last September in his deathbed repentance on patronage, the Prime Minister said:
Many of these steps are long overdue, and heaven knows this Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Believe me, if you shush me you're not going to shut me up so you might as well quit it right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's about the only thing that the surfers in this Parliament can do.
The Prime Minister stated in September that the Government has had cause to regret the absence of those steps. Is it not in fact true that, according to leaked documents that came from the Prime Minister's Office today, the Prime Minister himself was in control of the patronage monster to the point where he approved, not once but twice, every single patronage appointment that crossed the Government's desk?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to say for the record that I would not dream of shushing the Hon. Member, at any time. In regard to the question she raises, as my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, knows full well, custom requires that the Prime Minister sign all Orders in Council and that is the only reason for the involvement. All Orders in Council in this regard are submitted by the Ministers. They represent the very best people available in the country, and we are honoured that so many have accepted our invitations.


REPORTED LEAKING OF DOCUMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in his former incarnation as a member of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said: "There's no whore like an old whore". Is it not true-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


An Hon. Member:: He said it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is it not true that the Prime Minister-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's a sexist statement.


Mr. Gauthier:: Why did he make it then if it's sexist?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is it not true that he has personally had a hand, not once but twice, in every single patronage appointment that has been put forward by the Government at least since last January when that memo was written, or does the Prime Minister deny the existence of the secret memo from his office?

December 12, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the preface was inelegant and tasteless and the question was false.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: You'd love to rewrite this one, wouldn't you?


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and it deals with the report released yesterday by the Royal Society and the U.S. National Research Council. I would like to ask the Minister more specific questions than those that were asked by the Hon. Member for Davenport.
Will the Minister fully reinstate the research that was associated with the herring gull program, and will he fully reinstate the proposal having to do with the Toxicology Research Centre in Guelph? Both those programs are in keeping with the recommendations for expanded support for research made by that report. It seems to me that the least the Government could do at this point is to announce the restoration of those programs.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's high regard for both those programs. Regarding the first one, the Government has already restored much of the funding but I am looking very carefully at ways in which our limited budget can be applied to that area and related areas. I would like to stress, however, that those two programs, though worthy in themselves, would not deal with more than a small part of the total problem that was addressed by the report to which the Hon. Member made reference. We are looking at a broadly based approach to the total problem of toxic chemicals both in the Great Lakes and in other bodies of water.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, a broadly based approach is a good thing, but part of a broadly based approach is not only a legal approach in terms of amendments to the Environmental Contaminants Act but also a research based approach. I noticed that the Minister of Finance turned around to say no to the Minister of the Environment. I want to say to the Minister of the Environment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I want to ask the Minister of the Environment-


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Will he make a commitment now to restore those two programs? In particular, with respect to what he said about the herring gull program, he knows that only one out of the six people employed there has been rehired. That is the least he could do in response to this report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I have caused a complete review to be made of all programs and policies within my Department in connection with various restraints including those presented by the Deputy Prime Ministerial task force on program review. I am assessing the two programs to which the Hon. Member has made reference in connection with that total review which I expect to be completed within the next six weeks.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Last November, two textile plants, Doric and Celanese, some of whose executives are here in the House today, merged to form the Monterey textile plant, their main purpose being to compete with cheap imports from Asia.
Has the Minister considered following the example of certain Common Market countries who have concluded bilateral agreements with Eastern European countries in the textile and clothing sector, for instance, West Germany has an agreement with Bulgaria, and there is also Turkey which subsidizes shipping costs. Does the Minister intend to follow that example or take other appropriate measures in order to enable Canadian companies ...


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his question was long enough.


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware that the Canadian Textile Institute is meeting here today and that it is its 50th anniversary. I congratulate the Institute on that.
Certainly we have every desire to assist the industry. We are doing this through the renegotiation of the multifibre agreement and entering into restraint agreements with individual countries with low-cost exports. In addition to that, we are prepared to assist the institute with its exports through our
December 12, 1985

PEMD Program and our Fairs and Missions Program, as well as through our trade offices abroad.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-ROLE OF PROVINCES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister for International Trade as well. Once again a Government Minister has made a speech on trade in the United States while we cannot get answers or information in the House. Once again that statement contradicts previous positions.
Does the unilateral assertion made by the Minister for International Trade yesterday that there is recognition by all provinces that there will be only one negotiator at the table not fly in the face of the commitment made by the Secretary of State that the negotiating process would be worked out with the provinces over the next three months, and does it not abrogate the fundamental principle of the Halifax agreement that the provinces would have full partnership in the negotiating process?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, not at all. Unfortunately, and 1 do not blame the Hon. Member for this, The Globe and Mail only quoted the last half of my sentence. First, 1 was asked whether or not the United States had made any representations to me about provincial involvement in the negotiations. I replied no, and went on to say that we have reached an agreement in Halifax at the First Ministers' Conference, I believe two weeks ago now, that the provinces would have full participation but there is a recognition by all of the provinces that there will only be one negotiator at the table and that will be the federal Government. There is no departure whatsoever from what we agreed on in Halifax.


CONSULTATION WITH PREMIERS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for giving us the full benefit of the entire statement. It still does not answer the question of whether or not this interpretation by the Minister is, in fact, agreed to by the provinces. Before the Minister gave the statement that it is recognized that there will be only one negotiator, did he take the trouble to consult with provincial Ministers to gain their approval for this type of statement or, in fact, did he once again ignore their interests and concerns?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would again advise my hon. colleague that there has been no departure whatsoever. We agree and will fully participate with the provinces in these negotiations, as we have said. We have agreed that there will be a 90-day period within which to do this. I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that I had lunch today with Mr. Reisman-
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: That's nice!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: I am sorry the Hon. Member was not invited.
I obviously forgot.


Lloyd Axworthy: Maybe next time.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Who paid?


James Francis Kelleher: Since he was not at the lunch, I want him to know that Mr. Reisman has already sent out letters to the provinces inviting them to meet with him prior to Christmas to commence the 90-day participation period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. I do not have a copy of The Globe and Mail article. I have a copy of the Minister's speech-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -in which he says that this agreement in no way diminishes the primacy of the federal Government in leading the negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. McDermid:: Read the whole thing!


Steven W. Langdon: Where in the Halifax statement, which was agreed to by the provinces, is there any reflection of this type of primary role for the Government being laid out? Did the Minister not in fact mislead his audience in New York?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, not at all. I would like to read from the paragraph which precedes the paragraph read by the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


John Horton McDermid: We're going to get the whole thing out yet!


James Francis Kelleher: I can start right from the beginning, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Just table it.


James Francis Kelleher: It's a great speech, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!

December 12, 1985
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: 1 will read just one sentence, "The Prime Minister and all of the provincial Premiers met recently in Halifax and agreed to work very closely together on all aspects of the negotiations".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARTICIPATION OF PROVINCES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely at that point that the Minister went on to say that that represents the primacy of the federal Government. In addition to that contradiction, why has the Minister contradicted the Secretary of State for External Affairs who told me on December 2 that this principle of full provincial participation would be worked out over the next 90 days? Why did the Minister unilaterally decide to set out its terms in New York just 15 days later?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, in case no one has noticed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I do not have any disagreement. We agree with one another completely on all matters of Government policy. I agree that we will work out this deal with the provinces during the next 90 days. As I have pointed out, we commenced that process yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister recently released a press statement having to do with ethyl carbamates in alcoholic beverages. What consultations did the Minister have with respect to the wine-making industry and with the Province of Ontario before he established the levels which were set out in his statement? Will these guidelines apply to the sale of all wines in Canada?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure Hon. Members know, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines has been a strong representative of the interests in his riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I commend him for it.
I wish to tell him that the federal Government has guidelines. That is our responsibility. It is not a matter of consensus. We have presented that before the judicial inquiry in the Province of Ontario. Additionally, there were meetings yesterday between my own officials and the LCBO. I believe this afternoon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be making a statement at Queens Park with respect to the
same issue in order to present it from a federal point of view. 1 think we are okay.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On January 1 the Minister will implement changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will count early retirement pensions as income, thereby robbing thousands of Canadians of their paid-up unemployment insurance even though these Canadians are ready and willing to work. Considering that many groups and individuals have continually protested these changes, will the Minister withdraw these measures scheduled for January 1 now and refer them to the Forget Commission, which she has appointed to study the Unemployment Insurance Program?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will remember, this change was first announced on November 4, 1984. However, in order that it be implemented fairly across the country, we have delayed the implementation until January 1, 1986, to ensure that people have adequate lead time to deal with this matter.
As far as the Forget Commission is concerned, I have asked it to review all aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Program. If the Commission wishes to deal with this matter as well, then it will certainly be entitled to do so.


INCREASE IN NUMBERS OF OLDER UNEMPLOYED
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have continued to protest against these changes since last year. Does the Minister not realize that in the last two years the rate of unemployed older Canadians between the ages of 45 years and 64 years has gone from 7.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent and that another 77,000 older workers have been classified as unofficially unemployed? If she will not listen to me, will she at least listen to these older Canadians who need their pensions and unemployment insurance benefits to survive until they get new jobs?
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many Canadians, including many Members of the House of Commons, about the inequities which exist in the Unemployment Insurance Program. We have moved to try to redress some of those inequities. We hope that the results of the Forget Commission and its recommendations to Government will further that cause and, in fact, reduce and eliminate some of the inequities which continue to exist.


Mr. Allmand:: That does not make sense at all.
December 12, 1985


LABOUR RELATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister is aware that employees of Pacific Western Airlines is in a strike situation with its workers. Is the Minister also aware that this company is advertising in Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland and San Francisco for sheet metal workers and aircraft and avionic technicians, in spite of the fact that Manpower Directive, Chapter 17, specifically states that temporary work authorizations cannot be issued to people from outside of Canada to take the jobs of striking workers?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Labour, may have more specific details on this subject. I am certainly not aware of individual advertisements which are placed in papers either domestically or internationally by individual firms. However, it is not the mandate of the Department of Employment and Immigration to interfere where there are labour negotiations ongoing or where there are strikes or lock-outs.


ENTRY OF BOEING TECHNICIANS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, Chapter 17 of the Manpower Directive says that you may not issue temporary work authorizations to people from outside the country. That being the case, why was Boeing allowed to send eight Americans to Canada to work on PWA planes during this work stoppage?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the Hon. Member knew that negotiations are resuming between the parties to this dispute he would not be asking these questions at this time in a very difficult manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: You mean when they negotiate you can break the law?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that from time to time provincial and federal Governments put in place agricultural stabilization programs because of climatic or economic conditions. In such cases arbitrary lines necessarily need to be drawn. Will the Minister ask his officials to start the process of putting in place individual personal data so that stabilization programs can relate to specific conditions rather
Oral Questions
than regional conditions which, by their nature, tend to be unfair?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell by the nature of the question that the Hon. Member knows exactly what he is talking about. I can assure him that that information is partially available to us now. Our work in designing the amendments to the Crop Insurance Program to provide additional coverage will give us an opportunity to complete exactly what the Hon. Member has requested.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With increasingly arrogant regularity the Government is using its large majority to run roughshod over the rights of opposition MPs, not only on the floor of the House but in committee, to force closure on Bills dealing with deindexation of family allowances, complex tax laws, and redistribution.
Will the Minister confirm what his officials have told me, that the rates being used for the January family allowance cheques have been set at $31.58 which reflects the Government's intention to deindex family allowances? In other words, the Government will pass that legislation without worrying about what Parliament and coalition groups have to say. Come hell or high water the Government is going to do what it pleases.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the legislation he refers to was announced in the Budget of the Minister of Finance. There was a six-day debate and this House ruled on the Budget through a number of votes. We then had first and second reading of Bill C-70 and the House availed itself of that opportunity for debate. That Bill went to committee where there was an extension of the time originally agreed to in order to deal with the Bill.


John Napier Turner: Contempt of Parliament.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Bill then came back to the House and we were willing to debate it yesterday, but the Liberals moved adjournment of the House. They did not even want to meet and talk.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Then the Hon. Member has the audacity to say we should not pass it. They do not want to work, and they do not want Parliament to meet.

December 12, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


DEINDEXATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister's failure to reply to my hon. friend's question confirms that his Government has already decided that as of January 1 -
Oh, come on, that is the question! Right!


Mr. Speaker:: The question please, and right now!


Jean-Claude Malépart: 1 will repeat what I said to wake up the Progressive Conservatives. My question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Now!


Jean-Claude Malépart: My question: The Minister confirmed that your Government decided to increase by 31 cents-


Mr.   La Salle@: Is it a question, or isn't it?


Jean-Claude Malépart: My question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A classified document dated January, 1985, has surfaced from the Prime Minister's Office. It outlines the PET system-Patronage for Every Tory. Can the Prime Minister confirm the existence of this document and tell us how different this system is from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau system of patronage?


John Horton McDermid: Better people.


Martin Brian Mulroney: First of all, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau system of patronage was kept alive by a coalition with the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: He did not appoint any New Democrats.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was sweethearts on parade. There they were.
The Liberal system was historic, overwhelming, and debilitating, as exemplified by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and massively repudiated in the last election campaign. This Government has done infinitely better.


REQUEST FOR REFORM
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty damn obvious that there is no difference between Tory pork-barrelling and Liberal pork-barrelling.


Mr. Speaker:: Language, please. Just a question, please.


John R. Rodriguez: Can the Prime Minister give this House and the Canadian people the assurance that he will keep his campaign promise and reform the patronage system so that we do not have to wait until every living Tory has been appointed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member that no amount of sweet-talk from him is going to get him an ambassadorship.


An Hon. Member:: Unless we want to start a war.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Even if Ed asks us to give him one.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is an opening in Fort Chimo I want to talk to him about.
It is widely known, Mr. Speaker, and generally accepted across the country, that this Government, through the efforts of the Hon. Member for St. John's East, in co-operation with other Members, has brought together-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Don't pretend that you accepted our recommendations because you didn't!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The last thing this country needs is a socialist having a cardiac arrest in this House. That would be one of the most unpleasant sights of all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: There goes my ambassadorship!


SASKATCHEWAN HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She will know that Alberta and Saskatchewan are not happy with the federal Government's decision to review the support package for the Husky Bi-Provincial oil upgrader. The Minister said she would have a decision on this package by early December. When is the Government going to come forward with a decision and live up to the commitment by the former Liberal Government so this project can get under way?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the allegation that anyone is unhap-
December 12, 1985

py with our energy policy 1 can refute by referring to an editorial in the United States Oil & Gas Journal which says:
The engine of energy security-petroleum exploration-is humming in Canada and sputtering in the U.S.
It goes on to say:
The administration of Brian Mulroney is living up to its promise. Canada is better for it.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government is stalling. It is sloughing off a decision on this upgrader. Alberta and Saskatchewan are not happy because of that. The people in Lloydminster are suffering. When is the Government going to approve this package so this project can start and these much needed jobs can be put in place?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been continually told about the report on the risk assessment of this project which was signed days before the Liberal leadership convention and could have consequences for the country which involve a very high risk. We have already explained to the House that it was only prudent to look at the terms of this agreement which was signed in a highly political environment by the former Government. We have also advised that the risk assessment has been completed and is being studied by our Department. Meetings are scheduled to take place shortly.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister of Labour who is responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. CMHC contracted for the building of at least 23 shell houses on Howland Crescent in Sackville, Nova Scotia, in about 1972. Due to the faulty and poorly inspected construction permitted by CMHC, these roofs are now so rotten that the present owners must replace them.
Will the Minister tell the House why CMHC and he have declined to bear the cost of replacing these roofs and why he has declined to send a report to the local member of the legislature which he promised to do half a year ago?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, to correct the Hon. Member, CMHC did not contract to build the houses, but provided loans to the shell housing program. CMHC did an inspection for value because of the mortgages ensured by the mortgage insurance fund. The builder built the buildings.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, CMHC has contacted half of the individuals, has inspected the homes, has offered to
Point of Order-Mr. Hovdebo
provide additional RRAP money, and has offered to assist in refinancing the mortgages even to the point where CHMC will attempt to capitalize the interest so that there is not an undue burden on those homeowners.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of 35, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, December 11, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions presented by Hon. Members for York West (Mr. Marchi), Laval (Mr. Ricard), Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), Skeena (Mr. Fulton), Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), and Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Vezina) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of Question Period. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) would like to correct a statement made while giving an answer rather than mislead the House. The Financial Administration Act specifically states that if a directive is given to the Crown corporation the House must table that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. This is not a question of order, this is a matter for debate or opinion.


Ian Deans: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a question of order. I take it the Hon. Member disagrees with the validity of the answer of the Minister. He has the right to use the "Late Show" for that, as he knows. This is not a question of order.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I then rise on a question of privilege. He did mislead the House. Perhaps he would like to correct it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the Hon. Member that he does have the option of using the "Late Show" if he does not like the answer he got. If he is now raising a question of privilege in an attempt to make a comment about another Member, I would remind him that I cannot hear that as a

December 12, 1985
Business of the House
matter of privilege. I, therefore, suggest he avail himself of the procedures of the "Late Show".


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader what business he proposes for the coming week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray) for asking that question. As Hon. Members know, we are approaching the time when the House would normally adjourn for the Christmas recess. Therefore, we have a very ambitious legislative program, with which 1 know Hon. Members will want to co-operate. As Hon. Members know, we are now dealing with a motion with respect to Bill C-74, the Representation Act, 1985. Following that we will continue with report stage of Bill C-70, the family allowance Bill. That will be followed by Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors in the CCB.
There are also other budget related Bills in committee and, in the interest of the taxpayers of Canada, I am anxious to have progress made on these items of legislation, which include Bill C-82, with respect to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, and Bill C-84 with respect to the Income Tax Act. I think it is in the interest of the people of Canada that we make progress on those Bills before Christmas.
We must also deal with Bill C-83, which we have debated at second reading, which deals with the tax rebate discounting legislation and legislates charges to be made by tax discounters to taxpayers who use their services. That Bill should be in place from the beginning of the year to protect the people of Canada.
There are also items of very considerable social significance which I think the people of Canada would like us to complete before we adjourn for the Christmas recess. I refer to the legislation to amend the Divorce Act, the Divorce Corollory Relief Act, and the Family Order Enforcement Assistance Act. On each of these Bills there has been substantial and good input in committee and on the floor of the House. This is very important legislation which is being awaited.
There is also legislation in committee which is to be reported out. I commend to the House and to the Opposition House Leaders legislation with respect to the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act to do away with the problems with respect to gating and keeping dangerous convicts out of society. There is also important legislation with respect to the RCMP which is to modernize and make more effective and more in the interests of the Canadian public the procedures and provisions with respect to the operation of that very distinguished national police force.
Perhaps we can complete this business by the end of this week.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We will never get it done if you keep talking.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would like to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to have the reform package put into effect for the time when the House resumes sitting. There is also, Mr. Speaker, item No. 59 on the Order Paper which is in my name. If there are any additional items which we think we can accomplish before Christmas, I will certainly advise the House and the House Leaders of the opposition Parties.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Government House Leader to give us his priorities. If he has any sense of realism about the operation of the House, surely he will set forth a clear-cut realistic set of priorities which we can consider.
In that connection I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether he realizes that the current excessive and abusive use of closure and time allocation is poisoning the atmosphere of the House, is undermining the role of Parliament, and is not making it easy for progress to be made.
I also want to ask him if he will tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) that to prepare family allowance cheques on the basis of a law that has not passed, and may not pass by the time the House adjourns, is an abuse of Parliament and is contemptuous of Parliament. Finally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. 1 am sure all these matters are important to all the House Leaders, but it seems to me that this is beginning to be a meeting of House Leaders on the floor of the House as opposed to a discussion of the business that is actually scheduled, which is what we are supposed to do at this time. I, therefore, recognize, for the moment, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to take too much time. I would acknowledge that the package of the Government House Leader is ambitious, but manageable in certain circumstances within a reasonable period of time. I would like to ask him, however, if, in an effort to try to accommodate his desire to see progress made on all of those matters, he might be prepared to respond to two questions. First, he knows that there have been some requests from this side of the House for certain changes to legislation which he has already mentioned. Does he know whether the Government is prepared to accept changes, for example, to the Family Allowances Act along the lines of what was requested?
The second question is of equal importance and can be dealt with immediately, I believe. He will recall that approximately a week and a half ago I wrote to him with regard to the problems of the sale of de Havilland to Boeing Corporation. I asked if he would consult with his cabinet colleagues and perhaps respond to me. The request that 1 made on behalf of
December 12, 1985

my colleagues was that a committee be structured now to review all of the relevant documents pertaining to that sale.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With great respect to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I must call him to order as 1 did with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). It seems to me that these are not questions about business scheduled for debate but in fact a House Leaders meeting on the floor of the House of Commons. May I suggest that these matters should be discussed by the House Leaders somewhere else?


Ian Deans: If I may, Mr. Speaker, 1 would be delighted to discuss them somewhere else. Do you have any place in mind?
I asked the same question last week. We are near the end of this session. All 1 want to know is if the committee will be struck and, if we have an answer to that, will the documents be forthcoming? If they are, I am sure that we could deal quickly with much of the legislative package.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, since we are entering the festive season I will not respond in the way I might at another time. 1 simply say to the Hon. Member that he must have been listening to questions and answers during the course of Question Period over the last week and a half when he has asked precisely those questions. I think those questions have had adequate response.
I find it difficult, when the Hon. Member writes me a letter and then stands up the same day on the floor of the House of Commons to ask one of my colleagues the same question, whether I am supposed to respond or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must also interrupt the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as 1 did the other two House Leaders. It seems very clear to me that it is not a discussion about what is scheduled but a discussion about what might be scheduled, which is more appropriate for a House Leaders meeting.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying to the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition that we have attempted in all instances to have a very full and long debate. We have provided ample opportunity for virtually every Member of the Opposition to participate in legislation.
When I listed the items I did, I would like to say to him that naturally we would like to pass the legislation I listed, but I am prepared to discuss the matter with him in order to see whether we can make progress before December 20 or to see what steps will have to be taken if we do not reach December 20 without making good progress on these pieces of legislation. Those questions are in the hands of the Opposition and we are prepared to be as co-operative as ever.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-74, the redistribution Bill, is primarily a parliamentary matter and it is parliamentary tradition to proceed by way of agreement on these matters, would the House Leader take this
Royal Assent
opportunity now to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the time allocation motion?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this tradition was not followed by the previous Government. All 1 can say with respect to this legislation is that 1 have taken more steps by allowing pre-consideration before I even introduced the Bill last spring. This fall, I allowed additional witnesses and an extension of time.
The strange thing about this Bill is that I responded to the request of the Liberal Party and made the amendments that were requested by their spokesperson, the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). Now they have the audacity to stand up and say that those amendments which I brought in because of their request are the reason they want this Bill to go back for further consideration. What hypocrisy.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-6, an Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a Convention between Canada and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V. J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 12th day of December, 1985, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your obedient servant, Leopold H. Amyot, Secretary to the Governor General.

December 12, 1985
9432_____________________________________
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report, in Canada's two official languages, of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-FIFTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to table the fifteenth report of the Striking Committee in both official languages.
[ Translation]


PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX ACT, INCOME TAX ACT-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the legislative committee, I have the honour to present our report on Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, without amendment, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be able to describe to the House this afternoon new initiatives resulting from a review of the housing policies of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which represent a national direction for housing solutions. These changes in direction are the result of an extensive process of policy review and consultation with interested groups, the private sector and the provinces.
Shifting needs and priorities require that Governments reexamine their policies, however comfortable it may be to continue with the status quo.
The housing programs now in place have succeeded in adding considerably to the stock of housing available to Canadians in almost all income groups. At the same time, many of these programs have become enormously expensive and, while expanding the housing options of middle-income Canadians, have had an unacceptably modest success in helping those lower income Canadians who must look to Government for affordable housing.
On assuming responsibility for CMHC, I asked that current policies be reviewed to determine their effectiveness in dealing with the major areas of need. I wanted this re-examination to draw on the experience of all Canadians who work with CMHC to deliver housing, build and market the housing, and receive housing, and all those who have acquired an expertise in the field of social housing policy.
In January of this year I released a consultation paper setting out what were seen as the three main challenges facing us. Those challenges were: the need to establish clear objectives for federal housing policies and programs; the establishment of clear priorities for federal housing expenditures; and the requirement that programs achieve our objectives in a cost efficient manner.
I met extensively with social housing and rehabilitation groups, industry and mortgage lending associations and organizations representing the poor, the elderly, the disabled and aboriginal peoples. They all participated in the consultations. The consultation process was open to any group or individual who wished to participate. We have had the benefit of many views and perspectives. I thank and acknowledge those groups for their contributions, for their dedication to the Government and to providing social housing, and the time and effort they spent during the consultation process.
At the same time we were engaged in intensive discussions with the provinces. If the provinces and the federal Government work together and pool resources, we will be able to eliminate areas of duplication and a greater proportion of Canadians will benefit from the programs established.
My Parliamentary Secretary and I met personally with some 21 groups active in housing. In October, my staff and senior federal housing officials met with some 15 groups. I received over 300 written responses, including 50 briefs and 250 letters. Furthermore, over the past year, over 70 federal-provincial meetings on housing have been held. This includes two conferences of federal, provincial and territorial housing Ministers. I also meet bilaterally with each of my provincial and territorial counterparts.
As well, I benefited from a review of federal housing programs carried out by a task force set up by my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). Many of its conclusions were similar to ours and are reflected in the new policies. The social housing directions I will now describe are based upon the points of consensus which emerged from these consultations. The major changes relate to the mix of social housing programs and those assisted under them, to the participation of the provinces, and to the role of co-operative housing.
First, the federal Government will provide a new package of social housing programs with all assistance directed to households in need, that is, all those who are unable to obtain affordable, suitable and adequate accommodation in the pri-
December 12, 1985

vate market. This represents a significant improvement over previous programs, under which only a third of the total units provided went to households in need. This will enable us to reduce the level of outstanding need by less than 2 per cent per year.
There will be two packages of social housing programs-one for urban areas and one for rural areas. The package for urban areas will include three programs-a new non-profit housing program, a rent supplement program and improved renovation assistance.
The new non-profit housing program will be used to increase the supply of affordable units. Unlike the Section 56.1 program, which is funded through a reduction in the mortgage interest rate to 2 per cent, assistance under the new program will be based upon the difference between project costs and revenues generated by the application of the rent to income scale. Assistance will be directed to households in need.
The rent to income scale will provide, as it does now, that tenants will not pay more than 25 per cent of their income for rent. A rent supplement program will be provided to subsidize rents in regions where an adequate supply of accommodation is available, but it will be targeted to households which cannot afford that accommodation. The current program, which has proved cost effective where used, is being substantially expanded. We are making a number of significant changes in federal renovation assistance. The assistance is designed to bring substandard housing up to minimum health and safety standards. The present approach in designating areas under the urban program is being eliminated, and assistance will be available and targeted to households in need, without geographic limit.
There are significant alterations to the rental RRAP program. To prevent excessive rate increases and the displacement of people who need help, as has often happened under the present program design, assistance will be increased from an average of $3,500 to $12,000 per unit. Assistance levels will depend on the relationship between the rents of the property involved and the local market rent. Assistance will be directed to the older, lower-cost housing stock occupied largely by low-income households. A new renovation plan to assist the disabled will raise maximum funding from $1,500 to $5,000. RRAP in rural areas will remain unchanged, as will the home ownership-rental component of the rural and native housing program. We will also be undertaking a demonstration program in rural Canada to provide up-front funding for materials, with the clients or communities providing the labour.
The particular mix of these programs to be used in various areas of the country will be based upon an assessment of the housing needs which must be addressed, the availability of accommodation in the private market and the specific requirements of groups with special housing needs. This will ensure that the strategies followed will be cost effective and flexible.
In my consultations I received strong representations calling for the continuation of some income mixing to avoid low-income ghettoes and the community resistance they may generate. I want to make clear that directing assistance to
Statements by Ministers
households in need does not mean a return to the discredited versions of public housing. The definition of those in need is broad enough to allow for a considerable range of income groups to be served. It allows us to continue to assist the working poor, as well as senior citizens and families on welfare.
Also, under the new arrangements with the provinces which I will be outlining, there is the possibility of income mixing beyond those in need, although in such cases federal subsidies would not apply. An emphasis on smaller projects, plus the income mixing features of the new co-op and rent supplement programs, will continue to facilitate the integration of assisted households into the community.
The second major departure in social housing strategy relates to the participation of the provinces. To increase the resources available and to reduce duplication, we are prepared to negotiate a package with any interested province which would allow the provinces and the federal Government to work in a closer partnership. 1 must emphasize that this does not represent a transfer of federal responsibility for social housing to the provinces. To improve efficiency, we are prepared to agree to provincial delivery under certain specific conditions.
Increased provincial financial contributions, ranging from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, will be required. In addition, a joint three-year planning of social housing strategies will be undertaken to ensure that federal housing objectives and accountability requirements are met. Present delivery groups such as private non-profits, co-ops and native groups will continue to be involved. I expect some provinces to participate in this arrangement. Where provinces wish status quo, the federal Government will continue to be responsible for delivery.
The third significant change from the current social housing strategy is in the area of co-operative housing. The federal Government has been instrumental in fostering the co-operative housing sector. However, while co-operative housing provides security of tenure for some low-income households, its main objective has been to provide security of tenure for moderate and middle-income households as an alternative to home ownership. The measures we are introducing, which are being developed in close consultation with the co-operative housing foundation, recognize these two objectives and provide a level of assistance intended to help that group of people with incomes above those in core need that are unable, through no fault of their own, to afford home ownership. This will be achieved through a new co-operative housing program based on index-linked mortgages and subsidies. Some units will also be eligible for rent supplements to enable low-income Canadians to enjoy the benefits of co-operative living.
I should like to talk about two other areas in which we are taking new directions-market housing and housing quality. The objective of the federal market housing policy will be to assist in developing a climate of stability to allow builders to respond to the demand for family homes for ownership. We will not be introducing programs to stimulate home ownership artificially or the private rental housing market. Should future circumstances compel us to consider such measures, the Gov-

December 12, 1985
Statements by Ministers
ernment would act only after consultations with industry and the provinces. We will be working to assist Canadians to finance their homes by promoting the availability of stable, long-term mortgages and access to high ratio mortgage financing. We expect mortgage-backed securities to permit longer-term mortgages, and we will continue to provide public mortgage insurance as a means of providing high ratio loans.
I believe there is a clear need to continue federal leadership in the role of housing research and development while improving co-ordination of research initiatives with the provinces and the industry. I propose to set up a housing research committee to co-ordinate federal, provincial and industry involvement in housing research. Also, options for improving CMHC's inspection service and the materials evaluation service will be reviewed.
These and other initiatives will enable the federal Government to use the present level of funding to concentrate on helping the one million Canadian households which do not enjoy acceptable affordable housing. While the private market, if permitted, can provide most Canadians with comfortable, quality housing, all levels of Government must be prepared to work together and join their resources to assist those Canadians who do not have the income to secure that type of housing.
I think the process just concluded has been useful and effective. It is important that our housing policies be based on a genuine and realistic consensus as to what can be provided with the resources available through Government. I am willing to meet again, after an appropriate period, with the groups and individuals involved in the consultations to discuss and evaluate the success of the new direction we have taken.
I believe these changes are necessary and represent a fair allocation of housing dollars among competing interests. 1 look forward to continued contact with all of those who, by providing me with their ideas, have contributed to this national direction for housing solutions. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank those individuals who have assisted me greatly over this period of time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we have just found out today that a Minister is quite prepared, like Pontius Pilate, to wash his hands of the whole issue of social housing for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised that the Minister would say he did hold consultations. He even claimed he was party to such consultations-

"My Parliamentary Secretary and I met personally with some 21 groups active in housing." When I was in British Columbia about three weeks ago, I met with nine groups in a day. The Minister is presenting an extremely major document which will change the face of housing policy across this country after meeting with only 21 groups?


John Horton McDermid: How many were national groups?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let us hear about the kind of consultation the Minister had with the handicapped. What kind of consultation did he have with those people? Even though our phones were down for one of the two hours 1 was trying to prepare my response, I managed to contact a representative from COPO, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar because it is a coalition which represents provincial disabled organizations across this country. Was Mr. Lorrie Beachill contacted by the Government? Yes, officials got in touch with him in November asking him to consult with them the next day. When he was unavailable that particular day, they never met with him.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Not true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister states that is not true. In fact, I spoke today with Mr. Lorrie Beachill and he told me he was not contacted.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: On October 24 we met with the coalition of provincial organizations of the handicapped.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In fact, he was in Toronto and unable to meet with the officials and was never contacted again. Susan Kitchener, of government relations with the Ontario March of Dimes was not contacted even though the Government trumpets its actions in the area of changes in housing for the handicapped. What the Minister did not tell the House was that it was this self same Government which cut back the CMHC funds which had been available by regulation to the handicapped when they used to be treated like every other citizen. They had the capacity under past Liberal Governments to qualify for funds in the same way as any other housing organization but they were gutted by the Minister and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the current and past program was replaced with a $1,500 subsidy which they are now talking about increasing to $5,000.
We know at this point in time from the figures which came out today that we are at a four-year low in terms of vacancy rates. What the Minister has produced is essentially a housing policy for developers. Let us look at the increase for RRAP funding on a unit basis. What the Minister did not tell the people was that as a result of the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Deputy Ministers' cut-backs, the RRAP funding was gutted by 25 per cent by this Government. Now the Minister is suggesting that on rental units, the amount of money available will be increased to $12,000 per unit, which presumably will go to benefit the landlords. Pure and simple mathematics will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to have $12,000 allocated per unit and the Budget is cut by 25 per cent, thousands fewer Canadians will be able to take advantage of the RRAP program as a direct result not only of the Minister's announcement today but because of the other housing cut-backs.
The Minister talks about the new relationship with provincial Governments. We know that the Government is on the verge of signing an agreement with the Province of British Columbia in the area of social housing. Let us take a look at the record, and what this Minister is prepared to do in terms of
December 12, 1985

passing the buck to provincial Governments. In 1979 the federal Government gave British Columbia control of senior citizens' housing. The track record of the Government of the Province of British Columbia in 1974 was that 1,300 units were put on the market. In 1978, 1,700 units were put on the market. In 1979, it shrunk to 600 units. In 1980 it was 250 units. In 1983 it was 350 units. If we look at the records of the provinces, and at the amount of money spent in 1984 on a province-by-province basis per capita for housing, we find the two worst producers at that time were the Province of British Columbia and the former Conservative Government of Ontario. That was at a time when the soon-to-be-appointed President of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was the Minister of Housing. We saw the social credit Government in British Columbia spend an abysmal $13 per person on housing in 1984. The Government of Ontario spent a paltry $19 per person.
I understand the Minister did not want to announce the appointment of the new president of CMHC this week and that it may be coming next week, but the very same person who had the power to reduce the expenditure to $ 19 per capita in the Province of Ontario is going to now head the corporation which will be negotiating with the provinces the transfer of responsibility. That will mean places like British Columbia, which has no commitment to social housing, which does not believe in social housing, which is against it, will be able to negotiate the transfer of those responsibilities.
The Minister attempts to pass this as a sop by saying that for the first three years there will be a conditional agreement and there will be discussion between the provinces and the federal Government. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when I was in British Columbia, the message was loud and clear from the provincial Government of British Columbia: "Hands off social housing". There was a time in this country under previous Liberal Governments when the development of social housing stock was a responsibility. But with this document, in one fell swoop the Minister is saying that we will attack the problems of the market-place by rent supplements and by hand-overs based on the difference between the cost of a project and the income of a project.
The Minister suggested that is not going to lead to ghettoi-zation but if you were a project manager, Mr. Speaker, and the amount of money you will get from the Government is directly dependent upon the income levels of those people in the units, obviously, the lower income you can find for the unit, the more Government subsidy you will see. We will see a return to the kind of ghettoization which resulted from a national housing policy put in place in the 1960s which saw all low-income people lumped together in one building, in one subsidy, in one development. We can look at Regent Park in Toronto. We will be creating more and more Regent Parks at a time when non-profit organizations and social housing organizations will not have the capacity to develop the kind of base budgets which have allowed this country to accrue a certain level of housing stock over the last 25 years.
Statements by Ministers
If there is one thing of which this country can be proud and has been proud it is that we have been world leaders in the development of new approaches to housing. We have not wanted to stick all the poor people on the same block. We have believed in a mix of people and we have funded mortgages which have allowed church organizations, municipalities and non-profit groups to develop projects which can integrate into the community those people of low, medium and higher incomes. We have done this because we believe it is important to have that kind of integratioin. With this policy, we will see in one fell swoop the kind of ghettoization about which even the Minister made reference in his speech.
The Minister said that a number of organizations spoke to him about the difficulties inherent in the kind of policy that he is now attempting to introduce. He suggests that he received strong representations calling for the continuation of some income mixing to avoid low-income ghettos and the community resistance they might generate. However, he provides a caveat to that. He says that the definition of those in need is broad enough to allow for a considerable range of income groups to be considered. The Minister is an intelligent man and he recognizes that this policy will lead to ghettoization. The Minister suggests that provinces will have the opportunity of allowing other people to get involved in projects, people who may not specifically meet the Government's income-mix requirements. However, he also says that in such cases, federal subsidies will not apply. In other words, unless every future housing program across the country is directed specifically toward the ghettoized kind of Regent Park mentality on which we gave up a decade ago, it will not be eligible for federal subsidies.
1 would like to know from the Minister the definition of need. When he dealt with the definition of need in the RRAP program, he said that anyone earning over $13,000 was no longer eligible for RRAP funding. That was his definition of need six months ago. In fact, I believe the Minister should have tabled those requirements with the statement he has made.
The Minister also talked about making different determinations in different areas of the country depending upon the vacancy rate. According to the most recent, hot-off-the-wire story from November 20, 1985, vacancy rates have dropped to a four-year low across the country. In the Chicoutimi-Jon-quiere region, the vacancy rate is 3.2 per cent. In Edmonton, it is 4.4 per cent; in Windsor, it is .7 per cent, in Ottawa, it is .9 per cent; in St. Catharines, it is .3 per cent. I would like the Minister to table in the House a list of the areas across the country in which he believes there is an adequate housing supply because those particular designations have not been made in his statement.
What most frightens me is the suggestion made by the Minister that this program will now be targeted only to those who need it most and that the passing over of responsibility from the federal to the provincial Governments is a positive thing. In some provinces, this will be the case. In the Province

December 12, 1985
Statements by Ministers
of Ontario, I know the Liberal Government will use its housing money in a wise fashion but I also know that for the last 43 years, there was a Conservative Government in Ontario that did not believe in social housing and wanted to direct all subsidies toward developers. With the introduction of this document which is clearly focused on rent subsidies and specific income unit supplements, the Minister is saying to the developers that they will have a heyday because the Government will give them hundreds of dollars per unit in rent supplements for those people who cannot afford to pay.
There are groups and organizations which have developed a policy for national housing. They have created projects with perhaps only 25 per cent low-income residents. I can think of First Place and St. John's Place in my own riding, the kind of housing organizations which deliberately decided to have a mix of those people who were needy, those who were less needy and those who could afford to pay market rents. Those projects will no longer be viable as a result of this program because the funding from the Ministry will be directed only toward those occupants who are in the low-income category. Quite clearly, that spells the death of social housing and the development of a national housing stock, something which has been a hallmark for Canada.
Over the last six months, the Minister has denied that he was meeting with the provincial Governments in an attempt to pass off responsibility. We have seen that that is exactly what he intended to do as he indicates right here in this document. We know that British Columbia is about to sign an agreement. Further, we know that there are other provinces across the country that are looking at signing agreements in the very near future, agreements which will spell the end of a national housing policy.
The Minister has made a differentiation between the funding available for rural and urban Canadians and for that I applaud him. However, I think the Minister should further recognize that there are provinces in this country that cannot, on their own, afford to develop the kind of housing policy that was made available because successive Liberal Governments believed that the national Government had a responsibility to balance inequities from coast to coast. Does the Minister really believe that the Province of Newfoundland has the financial resources to carry on the kind of housing program that would have occurred under federal jurisdiction? That is simply not the case, and I say that this document is a sell-out of 25 years of housing policy which has created not great housing, not even good housing but better housing for thousands of Canadians who could not afford housing and who will not be able to afford it now because the money will be going to the developers and to those people who least need the help.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, over the past year and a bit, we have been able to observe that the Hon. Minister has indeed worked very hard on the housing end of his portfolio. I do credit him with taking his responsibility very seriously. There are some good things in this report and 1 will note some of them later. However, I am disappointed in the report as a whole.
The Minister gives no estimate of cost except by indicating in one line that there will be no more money provided than there was in this past Budget, the low point for housing efforts on the part of the federal Government for many, many years. He gives no indication of the number of units that will be provided. He talks about the million people for whom the private market does not provide but does not at all ensure that his program is intended to provide for all of them. In fact, his presentation appears to be an attempt to defend the private market with its great boondoggles over the past 30 or so years in which not only the federal Government but the Ontario Conservative Government participated heavily. Things like the MURBs, the assisted rental projects and the limited dividend projects were all programs for impoverished developers like Trizec, Cadillac Fairview and Meridian.
The tenants know where the money went. The billions of dollars went for housing subsidies and it did not go to the co-operative movement, the non-profit housing or low-income tenants. At a time like this when it is reported that the poor as a proportion of the Canadian population have increased to one-sixth of our population, there is to be no increase in the money supplied for housing, no assurance that there will be more social housing provided and no program for indicating which portion of what the Minister calls the core poor will be helped. He will use the poor, though, as an excuse for cutting back on certain aspects of the social housing program which have been extremely valuable to the life of cities like Toronto which I know and other cities which I have visited.
He pats himself on the back for his consultative approach. Although it was an energetic approach involving a good deal of hard work, it was not consultative. It was elitist; it was secretive. It may have been clever market research reaching out to find out which individuals or which leaders of which groups might agree with the things that he chose to do, but he carefully prevented the groups from being able to consult effectively with them. He would say: "Now, I might do this for you but don't tell anybody about it".
When my office tried to get some of the studies, some of the briefs which were presented, his office presented so-called legal objections. Somehow or another they were not able to send us those briefs. He has bragged about the confirming study that was done by his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). My office has been trying since the summer to obtain a copy of that study from the Deputy Prime Minister's office and has been told that the study was not yet complete. Perhaps it was completed last night.
The program consists of doling out small amounts of help to some of the most obvious needy groups as an excuse for turning the very major part of responsibility for housing back to the private market, which has already failed in the matter. It is misleading to say that all the money spent in the past many years did not increase the housing stock and reduce the need very much when he knows full well that the reason was
December 12, 1985

that it was not spent for the purpose of meeting need but for the purpose of increasing profits.
I am relieved to hear the Minister assure us at last that rent geared to income contributions of low income tenants will not be required to exceed 25 per cent. 1 hope he will be firm with the Minister responsible for housing in British Columbia who does not agree with that. However, he has not indicated what the areas will be which are adequate where there will be no social housing built or what the areas will be that are inadequate where there should be social housing built. He has not even indicated the criterion for that. He has not defined the areas. He has not said how long the supplements will last.
It is also good that he has decided to remove the limitation of urban RRAP so that the rehabilitation programs are no longer confined arbitrarily to certain city areas but can be extended as needed in the regions around the cities. However, there is the question of how he will control the use of the increased per unit allowance for rehabilitation. Who is going to get the money? Will it be non-profit groups, co-op groups or will it be speculative builders and renovators for profit? How is he going to carry out his intent of making sure that the low income tenants benefit by that program or, indeed, that the low income tenants are allowed to remain in the buildings once they have been upgraded?
The biggest disappointment in the Minister's statement is his blind and unexplained reliance on rent supplements. There is plenty of evidence which I would have thought the Minister would have reviewed to show that rent supplements are a failure as a way of providing social housing or as a way of providing for those who cannot, at present, afford decent housing. I want to refer not to a study by a New Democratic Government, not even to a study by a Liberal Government, but 1 want to refer to a study by a Conservative Government, the Government of Ontario, in 1981, whose Standing Committee on the Administration of Justice published the results of an exhaustive review of the programs in operation of the Ontario Housing Corporation. In this study they state, and I quote:
The Ministry of Housing support a variety of public-assisted housing programs, but give preference to non-profit, co-operative housing and OHC owned and operated public housing. The current rent supplement program should be phased out gradually and the units should be replaced by others provided under alternative programs.
Their principal objection to rent supplements goes directly contrary, on the basis of their study, to the principal argument commonly used by the Minister and his associates in the building industry. Their principal objection is that it is not cost-effective. Their further objection is that there was no long-term investment achieved and no increase of housing stock. They do acknowledge that in the early 1970s with high vacancy rates and lower housing costs the increasing real incomes and relatively low inflation rates made this assumption seem not unreasonable. However, under present conditions, and likely future conditions, low income households are generally not experiencing real increases in income but their housing costs are rising in real terms.
The same finding is made by another Government which is not considered left-wing, that is, the Congress of the United
Statements by Ministers
States. In their study of rent supplement programs they came to the conclusion that the rent supplement programs resulted in higher rents than would have been charged without rent supplement. The premium, they said, averaged 24 per cent higher than comparable, unsubsidized housing in the market leading to an estimated $213 million extra cost to the public for the approximately 250,000 units provided in 1980.
Two Governments have done careful studies of rent supplements and found that they are a failure. Yet, the Minister is moving to use rent supplements, in part, as a substitute for what these other Governments have found worked better. It is very disappointing.
In regard to RRAP, one question that the Minister teases but does not answer, as I said before, is: Who will get the $3,500 to $12,000 per unit? There are in Ontario alone tens of thousands of rental apartment units jerry-built during the 1950s and 1960s with the get-rich-quick programs provided by the then federal Governments which now need rehabilitation. The question is: Will RRAP be used to rehabilitate those and so increase the equity of the landlords, or will the rehabilitation funds be used to enable the residents of those buildings to buy those buildings and operate them as non-profit or as co-operative corporations, which has been found to be the most efficient way to ensure maintenance?
The Minister has not explained what he means when he says that assistance level would depend on the relationship between the rents on the property involved and the local rent. In other words, is he saying that if the rents and the maintenance are low there will be no rehabilitation grant?
On the matter of the disabled, it is good that he has again raised the grants for disabled housing to compensate for the previous cut. However, the aid he gives should be directed to the needs of the disabled, and not, as in the case of COPOH, the needs of the non-disabled. That is to say there are things that are needed in houses of the disabled that are not needed in ordinary houses, such as paved driveways. The Minister should have some regard for how that money should be used.
The Minister has claimed that co-op housing has not met the low income target. In fact, co-op housing as designed by the several Governments, including provincial Conservative Governments, has provided, on average, for 40 per cent to 50 per cent of its units being rent geared to income, which is meeting the target group. They did not put them into ghettos of 100 per cent rent geared to income units. However, the terms the Minister tosses about with respect to moderate and middle income are so undefined that even when he talks about the working poor we do not know which groups he intends to benefit beyond the absolutely rock-bottom core welfare poor.
It is also disappointing that the Minister talks about consultation with the provinces and the industry but never about consultation with the tenants who have organized in many parts of this country, or non-profit and co-operative societies. In other words, he will sit in a back room with the builders, bankers and provincial colleagues and not seriously listen to

December 12, 1985
Petitions
those in the community who are making an effort to produce a great deal of low-cost housing.
This is a very disappointing report. The Minister says these initiatives are going to provide housing for the people who need it. However, he has not explained how it will meet the needs of one million people, which he admitted to. He also has not explained how his programs will in any way meet the need of the people in the Atlantic provinces where 80 per cent of the economy is dependent on Government expenditures. Housing is in desperately short supply there. This is an admission of failure by the Minister.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-59, an Act respecting Customs, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


PETITIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Vancouver, New Westminster and once again a large number from Surrey. They feel that the cut-back in family allowances and the tax increases are inequitable and unbearable in the face of budget hand-outs such as $500,000 in tax-free capital gains, greater RRSP deductions for high-income recipients, billions for the oil companies and the $1 billion bail-out of the banks. They ask and pray that we reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my first petition is signed by residents of Niagara Falls and they call upon the Government to rescind the Bill to partially deindex family allowances. It is a regressive step.
I have a similar petition signed by people from various parts of southern Ontario. 1 have as well a third petition whose operative clause is: "Wherefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind the unfair tax increases." These citizens of Canada reside in the City of Woodstock.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present even more petitions calling for the reinstatement of full indexation of family allowance payments and rescinding of unfair tax increases.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of 26 residents of Moncton, New Brunswick. They call upon Parliament to stop any moves to downgrade in any way the CN shops in Moncton, New Brunswick.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some petitions from the Wynyard-Mozart area in my constituency which call upon the House of Commons to note that family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit. Even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990. As well, changes to the tax system will reduce by $600 million annually the amount of money families have to spend on their children. They call on the Parliament of Canada to therefore reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases proposed in the last Budget.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of different petitions. The first one is headed: "Please help save baby bonus indexing". It calls upon the House of Commons to save Canada's family allowance program. It also voices displeasure at the federal Government's unfair taxation of ordinary Canadians while providing billions in hand-outs and loopholes to the rich. Quite a number of people from Edmonton and other points in Alberta have signed this.
The second petition is from the community of Hastings-Sun-rise in my riding. It also calls on Members of the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.
The next petition comes from Downsview, Ontario, Ward 5. They ask that the House of Commons restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit. This budget measure will take away $55 million in family benefits by 1987.
I have a further petition, if you will just bear with me on this, from Quebec and it says that-
[ Translation]
Wherefore the undersigned humbly ask for the restoration of full indexation of family allowances and the repeal of unfair tax increases.

There is another one from Dorval, Quebec, which is similar and I will not-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Read it for us, please.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: measures which are so hard on families, particularly on children.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions on the issue of the Government reneging on its election promise when it decided to deindex family allowances. It is interesting that the petition, from the City of Thompson, Manitoba, was circulated by the senior citizens of that city, indicating the appreciation they had for the people of that city who helped them to protect their pensions. They wish that Canadians would do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Further petitions without speeches.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I also have a petition signed by residents of the City of Flin Flon who ask that the Government reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases in the May 23 Budget.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On a different matter I have a petition signed by a number of workers in Manitoba who protest the Government's decision to calculate pension benefits and severance pay in determining UIC payments. It is very hard, especially for older Canadians, to get jobs and they need to keep their pensions and severance pay without being penalized.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the City of Moncton who protest the Government's partial deindexation of family allowances. They ask that these allowances be fully indexed to the cost of living. They point out that 16.2 per cent of families in New Brunswick live below the low-income cut-off line and that all low and middle-income families will be hard hit by this deindexation. As in duty-bound your petitioners will ever pray that this Government will come to its senses.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present two series of petitions from a group of senior citizens in Prince Albert, as well as people from Dartmouth, Windsor, Halifax and Liverpool, Nova Scotia. Both petitions call upon the House to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.
The other series of petitions come from Downsview, Ontario, as well as from New Brunswick, mostly from Fredericton. They call upon the House of Commons to restore full indexation of family allowances and child tax credits. They suggest that $55 million will be taken from family benefits by 1987.
Petitions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia who are very troubled about the procedures regarding radiation monitoring in the waters adjacent to the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. They wish that the results of these radiation monitorings would be made public. They, therefore, after outlining their concern in much more detail, request the House to hold a public inquiry, before the present agreement is renegotiated, with power to investigate the above concerns about the said test range at Nanoose Bay and to make recommendations thereon. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 have several petitions on the matter of family allowances. One is from residents of Calgary who argue that the proposed cuts in the family allowance unfairly bear on women and children and are particularly unfair in view of the increased tax benefits being given to the rich such as through the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a speech instead of a summary.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: They therefore pray, Mr. Speaker, that the House rescind these laws.
I have another petition to the same effect, which 1 will not read, from citizens of Nova Scotia.
I have another petition which is in a different language, Mr. Speaker. It says that the undersigned ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit as this Budget matter will take away $55 million from family benefits by 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a speech. Does the Hon. Member wish to conclude with a summary of the petition as opposed to reading it?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 was only reading the actual petition, not the "whereases". It is simply the request of the petitioners-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that what is permitted is a brief, brief summary and perhaps a short recitation of the petition actually prayed for, not the "whereases", the concerns, or the comments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The "whereases" were not in it, Mr. Speaker, only the petition. Could I say, on a personal note that this is very important to me since 1 have just had my eleventh grandchild.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, would the Hon. Member please resume his seat?

December 12, 1985
Petitions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Seek the unanimous consent of the House. It is his eleventh grandchild.


Mr. Speaker:: Did I understand that the Hon. Member for Spadina was trying to seek unanimous consent to wish his grandchild well? Consider it done.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the action taken by Moncton residents who are very concerned about the current situation at the Moncton CN shops. The petitioners decry the inertia of the Government and request that the Minister do something to protect the jobs of the shop workers.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a number of petitions which I have received on the issue of family allowances. The first one is from citizens of Toronto and ridings which include Don Mills, Willowdale and Rexdale. These petitioners point out that the deindexing of the universal family allowance and massive cut-backs in public commitment to child benefits are an attack on women and children, especially single-parent mothers. Accordingly, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance, and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Tillsonburg, Simcoe, and Brantford, also on the subject of family allowance. It is a similar petition so I will not go into the substance, but these petitioners also call upon the House to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the other tax increases.

Third, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from Port Dover residents who request that family allowances be fully indexed.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions signed by a large number of residents in the area of Kingston. They call for full indexation of the family allowance and point out that the cut-backs in child benefits on top of the sales tax changes and increases constitute an extraordinary burden on middle and low income households.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition from residents of Ottawa who request that family allowances be fully indexed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All the petitions are on the same subject. I take it the Member knows that she should simply indicate that she has other petitions and that should be the end of it. It should take her no more than about five seconds.


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While some of these petitions are on the same subject matter, they are different petitions. The next petition is also on family allowance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lynn McDonald: I am just going to say where it is from.


Mr. Speaker:: They are all on the same subject matter. I think the Member has admitted that. Could she please be as brief as possible.


Lynn McDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The next petition is from petitioners in the riding of Rosedale. I also have a petition on the family allowance from residents of Hamilton.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you. Next.


Lynn McDonald: I am being very brief. I cannot help it if we have a lot of petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lynn McDonald: The next one, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! The Hon. Member knows that a petition filed with the Clerk at the table has exactly the same effect. I, therefore, suggest that she may wish to file with the table the remainder of her petitions. Order, please.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 was provoked by these people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I, therefore, suggest that she may wish to file the rest of her petitions with the table.
1 wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, today's sitting will be extended by 44 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 5.44 o'clock p.m.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 1985, I tabled the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. Today I would like to move that that report be concurred in.
December 12, 1985


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this report. I know that the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments worked very hard to prepare this document which is now before the House. I think the members of that committee are to be complimented on their efforts. There were two reports made on the same day, Mr. Speaker, and we are now dealing with concurrence in one of those reports. I think it is commendable that the committee could make two reports on the same day.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to hold the floor and discuss this at length until we have a message from the other House. I will be pleased to discuss the things which the Patent Act goes into. The Patent Act requires a register of patent agents on which are to be mentioned the names of all the persons entitled to represent applicants in the presentation of and application for patents before the patent office.
It is very important that we have, in Canada, a patent system which does not allow for interference with the very important Canadian patents which exist, and also does not allow for interference in things which are going to take place later this evening. I want to take some time to discuss this. I am pleased that my hon. friend has seen fit to move concurrence and give me a chance to debate it. Had we moved immediately to the vote the bells may have rung. 1 want to take this opportunity to thank him for being so observant as to give me the opportunity to debate this very important matter of the Patent Act until there is an interruption.
I would point out that prior to 1923, any person appointed in writing by a patent applicant could represent that applicant in the presentation and prosecution of a patent application. There was a subsequent change and the committee has quite properly pointed out that according to Section 57 of the Patent Act, it was enacted that:
A register of attorneys shall be kept in the Patent Office on which shall be entered the names of all persons entitled to represent applicants in the presentation and prosecution of applications for patents or in other business before the Patent Office.
That is a very important change that this Parliament brought into effect in order to protect-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to insist on reading the Patent Act, he has an obligation to at least be entertaining.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have made an effort to be entertaining on easier things than the Patent Act. This does strain one's credibility. 1 do not have the same familiarity with the Patent Act as my hon. friend across the way. I am working my way through this as a lawyer who was recently defrocked of his Queen's Counsel by Premier Peterson. We all come to the House in sorrow these days. We used to practise as representatives of the Queen, another representative of whom will be coming through the door in a minute. Now we must
Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments practise without that honour. Since the matter has been brought up, the Hon. Member who moved concurrence in this report was also a Queen's Counsel. He has now been defrocked by the Premier of Ontario and he paid good money for that gown.
When we practised law we often thought about the Patent Act and Section 23. I suppose that on occasion we were frightened that we would be asked to advise on it.
In any event, once we got through with that Section of the Patent Act, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments dealt with the provisions of the United Kingdom legislation which is referred to on page 2 of this very important report.
That committee did not take its obligations lightly. The then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who I believe was Mrs. Erola at that time-late of this House and late of the riding of Nickel Belt-replied that her Department was advised by the Department of Justice that Sections 153 to 156 of the Patent Rules were validly enacted pursuant to Section 12(l)(a) of the Patent Act and were intra vires the Act. I would point out that the relevant correspondence is appended to this report. Members opposite could be sitting in another committee meeting instead of hassling me. Then they would have something else to concur in.
Page 4 of the Report contains some items that should be taken into account. The executive is now asserting-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has only one oratorical equal, the Hon. Roy MacLaren, the former Member of this House who was equally entertaining.


Philip Derek Lewis: You have said a lot of nasty things to me in your days here but that is about the worst. That is close to a question of privilege. I am not sure that I could wear one of those double-breasted suits. I am waiting for them to come back into style.
The Hon. Roy MacLaren wrote a book about the new liberalism. I think the subtitle is "Life with 40 Members in the Dark". Roy has gone on to greater things. He was a good colleague and ran in the last election, but ran into a little difficulty as did many of his colleagues. They were here yesterday, wearing carnations. 1 should state for the record that there was a party yesterday for those who won and those who lost. Unfortunately, there were more there who lost than won. It is a party with which we, as colleagues, did not interfere. There was no loud clanging of bells during that party and I do not think you will find that there will be loud clanging of bells tonight either.
In any event, before my hon. friend interrupted, 1 was dealing with paragraph 4 of the report. It states:
While the Executive is now asserting that authority for the rules under Report is to be found in Section 12(l)(a) of the Act, the Committee notes its position has not been consistent in the past.

December 12, 1985
Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments
Let me talk about consistency. We have seen the Hon. Members of the Liberal Party decrying the sale of de Havil-land. At the same time, the Premier of Ontario wants to sell UTDC. In this morning's Globe and Mail one can see the comments from Tuesday's Hansard in the Ontario Legislature where Ontario Premier David Peterson, speaking to the proposed sale of UTDC-


Sheila Maureen Copps: UTDC was a P.C. boondoggle and you know it.


Philip Derek Lewis: We never had any boondoggles when we were in Government. We just had successes in Ontario. It is nice to have the Hon. Member with us after a distinguished career in the Ontario Legislature. I am just trying to think of what distinguished it.
I was going to say that on June 10, 1948-


Maurice Brydon Foster: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the Hon. Member clarify if this is the first time in history that the Government is filibustering a report like we are dealing with this afternoon?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North, on debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is too much, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today we were accused of cutting off debate and rushing legislation through Parliament. Earlier today the Liberals and NDP said that we are choking off debate in Parliament. Now we are debating. You cannot have it both ways. Either you want to debate something or get at the business of the day. Some Members of the House would do well to bear with me as we discuss the Patent Act.
I want to remind the House that in 1954 the Governor in Council purported to revoke the Register of Patent Rules, 1948 of his own authority. That was quite a constitutional problem because not everyone wanted him to revoke those rules. However, the report goes on to state:
These Rules were made by the Commissioner pursuant to the regulation-making power delegated to him by Section 15(2) of the Patent Act and can only be revoked by the Commissioner. While the approval of the Governor in Council is required for the making, amendment of revocation of regulations under Section 15(2), this is not to say that the Governor in Council may substitute himself for Parliaments's delegate. If authority is wanted for this proposition, it can be found in section 26(4) of the Interpretation Act-
This is where we get to the power:
Where a power is conferred to make regulations, the power shall be construed as including a power, exercisable in the like manner, and subject to the like consent and conditions, if any, to repeal, amend or vary the regulations and make others.
Then we come to the meat of the report in which we are concurring:
Your Committee is of the view that the revocation of the Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1948 by the Governor in Council was without legal effect and that until such time as these Rules are revoked by the Commissioner of Patents, they must be regarded as being legally in force.
That is why we must have the debate today and air this question for the benefit of the House and the entire country.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, oh!


Philip Derek Lewis: They will never get my FCA. Where was 1?


An Hon. Member:: Start over.


Philip Derek Lewis: I was talking about the fact that the committee indicated that until such time as these rules are revoked by the Commissioner of Patents, they must be-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We will send a copy of your speech to your constituents.


Philip Derek Lewis: -regarded as legally in force. That is the key. The House must actually look at and consider whether these rules are in force. Can the Commissioner of Patents revoke them or are they regarded as being legally in force? The committee came out with a recommendation. We have to decide whether the House, all 282 of us, will back the feelings of the committee that the provisions of the Patent Rules which regulate the registration of patent agents be formally revoked and that the Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1984 be amended by the Commissioner of Patents so as to bring them into conformity with current practices under the Patent Act. I should like to make a personal aside here. This patent matter is a pretty complex one. When someone came to those of us who practised law-and I am sure the Speaker and other Hon. Members who practised law will remember such occasions- with a patent question, we always turned it over to an engineer. For the engineers in the House, I will say that was a disaster. Anyway, engineers have to do something, and as long as they took the Patent Act out of my hair, I was happy. Anyway, they all trucked down here to Ottawa, because most patent agents seemed to operate in Ottawa, to consider what rules to use. They wanted to know whether they should use the Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1948 or whether they should go to the Commissioner of Patents and say: "Did you revoke the rules?"


Sheila Maureen Copps: The family allowances are being cut back, and you are blithering about the Patent Act.


Philip Derek Lewis: This is important stuff. For example, people go out and buy motorcycles. They may be sitting on motorcycles on a magazine cover some day. If that were to happen, they would want to know whether the motorcycle was properly patented in Canada. They would not want to be sitting on an unpatented motorcycle. For crying out loud, those things can happen to people. Where was I?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Start from the beginning.


Philip Derek Lewis: In case anyone has lost my train of thought, I want to point out that there was a slight grammatical change in the legislation which was passed in 1923. It was not exactly the same as the legislation which was passed in 1869. One cannot read the report all at once; it has to be digested piece by piece. I should like to point out to the House a case considered by the House of Lords, to which reference is made on page 2 of the report where it reads:
December 12, 1985

The provisions of the United Kingdom legislation dealing with the registration of patent agents were considered by the House of Lords in Institute of Patent Agents v Lockwood-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to say that I have always wondered, up until now, why he got paid an extra $15,000 per year.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Now 1 really do not know.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I am getting paid an extra $15,000 per year for this, somebody is slipping the other $6,000 because it is $9,000. If the Hon. Member can find the other six, I hope he will let me know. My bank manager and my wife both want to know.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Just $9,000 too much.


Philip Derek Lewis: I will speak until the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. It will give me a chance to return to the case in the House of Lords, Institute of Patent Agents v Lockwood. Lord Watson, a great guy and a great fellow on the Patent Act whom we all remember, said:
-the main intention of the Legislature appears to have been to protect poor inventors from being robbed by unskilled patent agents who failed to make a specification and claim in such a form as would secure to them the fruits of their invention.
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, is that someone at the door?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before admitting the messenger, 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 Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-Shipbuilding-Development strategy for shipbuilders-government position; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Housing project in Sackville, Nova Scotia; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Cultural Affairs- Inquiry if Government disposed to insist on Canadian control of film industry. (b) Request concerning government funding of Canadian feature films.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grain Act- Chapter No. 47.
Bill C-78, an Act to amend the Governor General's Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Salaries Act and the Judges Act-Chapter No. 48.
Bill S-5, an Act to provide for the creation by amalgamation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments be concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now resume debate with the expert on patent law.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, At the time we were interrupted with a message from Her Majesty, we were discussing Lord Watson. He was on one of these pages but I do not know where he is gone. Anyway, let us talk about patents in general.


Ian Deans: You have 30 seconds. Tell us all you know.


Philip Derek Lewis: I did that, and then I went on.
I have had an opportunity to put a few remarks on the record about this very important committee, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulation and Other Statutory Instruments, which often does work which goes unnoticed by this House, and by the country, and 1 think we are fortunate that on this particular day, in view of the other things we could be debating, that we have been able to respond so quickly to the concurrence moved by my colleague in this report. The House knows that had we continued on to Orders of the Day, we would-

December 12, 1985
Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the Hon. Member's time has expired. Are there questions or comments?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). He has indicated to the House today his deep knowledge of the Patent Act. His elocution, I think, is admired by all of us as well as his depth of knowledge and his ability to convey very complex issues in a very straightforward and understandable manner. I think the House has been well advised by the manner of the Hon. Member's approach.
I think that is in keeping with his reputation in the House of not only being a very fine constituency person, but also someone who understands all aspects of the House. He is truly a man of the House of Commons. We on this side of the House are pleased that he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. It is unfortunate that comments were made by Hon. Members across the way about the extra money he receives as Parliamentary Secretary.


Ian Deans: Why is he pointing this out to everyone?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It should be pointed out to the Liberals that it should be more because of the fine work he has been doing. I think most Hon. Members would understand that that is a recommendation which would find much favour on this side of the House if Liberal Members would care to move it, something which I am quite sure they will consider most seriously.
The point on which I would like the Hon. Member to elaborate is the entrepreneurial spirit. We want to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit and there are many Canadians who we believe are waiting for that change and happily have adjusted to it. For example, if we were to take a look at the growth rate over the last year, we would find that Canada has had a good year. Canada has seen growth rates only comparable-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Questions or comments directed to the Hon. Member are, I believe, what are in order and I would ask that the Minister be called to order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is correct. I would ask the Minister to comment or ask a question on the excellent speech made by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for pointing this out. For those of us who were Members of the House at the time and not in Queen's Park, I think we will recall that when the 10-minute rule came into effect, it was for two purposes: for questions and for comments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Relating to the speech.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Precisely, and that is what we are doing. It is important for Hon. Members to know that and I am pleased that you have pointed that out, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted although I am becoming almost used to it from that Hon. Member, that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that the Tories are having their Christmas party today and I realize that it probably started early. However, given that the Minister who is making these comments and allegations is the person who is about to bring in a cut-back on family allowances, it would seem to me that the House should be moving on to the important business and should cut out this garbage which is being viewed by the taxpayers as an absolute waste of money.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a quite separate point of order and 1 think it is in fact a point of order. My recollection of the 10-minute question and comment period provision is that it was for the purpose either of putting a question or of making a brief comment and that it was intended that the 10 minutes would be shared among a number of Members from both sides of the House. Knowing that the Hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Epp) is always fair minded, I would simply ask him if he could perhaps draw his question to a close reasonably quickly in order that other Hon. Members might have an opportunity to take part.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that intervention and it was again of the calibre that we have come to expect from the Hon. Member who made that contribution here in the House. However-


Ian Deans: Will you cut it short? That's all I want to know.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I was talking about the entrepreneurial spirit and the growth. There have been more than
400.000	new jobs created. The bank rate is down 3 per cent. The unemployment rate is down 1.2 per cent. Retail confidence is up. Canada has had a good year. That being the case, perhaps the Hon. Member could expand on unleashing even further this entrepreneurial spirit.
I was made aware of a case of a gentleman who works for the railways and had observed during a prairie winter the concern-


Fernand Robichaud: He's not working any more, he's been laid off.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, no, the concern about the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister. Could I ask the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) to answer, please?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. The Minister was talking about unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit that has taken hold since we took office. He spoke of the
416.000	jobs we created as against the piddling number of jobs
December 12, 1985

which were created by the previous Liberal Government. This is due to the low interest rates which we have achieved. It is due to the vast number of housing starts and the general confidence in the economy that every Canadian feels. One might ask oneself what this has to do with the Patent Act.


Ian Deans: That might well be a good question.


Philip Derek Lewis: This is the point: when we unleash that spirit, people start inventing and they need to have patents.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: There has been a flood of patent applications because of the fact that we have unleashed that entrepreneurial spirit. Interest rates are down, jobs are growing, and as the Minister quite rightly points out, we want to be able to deal with this.
When this committee brought in this report, one of the first things we said to ourselves was that we will discuss concurrence without any difficulty at all because we feel that when important work like that is done by a committee, we as a Government should respond. Therefore, we came here to discuss concurrence in this report rather than have the bells ring unnecessarily, something which might have interfered with other things. We decided we would discuss the matter here. I know that that is to the regret of some Hon. Members.
How can an Hon. Member move concurrence in a report and not debate it? We were shocked. It was so shocked it took me a minute to rise. The Hon. Member who spent all that time on committee with the report wanted to move concurrence without discussing it. That is simply unheard of so I sprang to my feet to discuss it with vim and vigour.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is now about two weeks before Christmas and I realize that there is a lovely, friendly spirit of conciliation and co-operation in the House. However, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) really believes that the load of information that he has just dumped on the floor of the House of Commons is really worth the paper that Hansard is going to have to use to print it on. It seems to me that he has simply wasted the time of the House of Commons when there are extremely important issues before us.
Next week the Government wants to bring in the tax discounting Bill. Why does the Hon. Member not talk about that? The Government wants to gerrymander all the ridings across this country. The Government wants to cut back on family allowances. There are important national issues facing this country and the Parliamentary Secretary is contenting himself with spewing garbage all over the floor of the House of Commons. Why does he not get to the point and allow the people of Canada who pay his salary to get their money's worth?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), I would say that it is well
Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments known in this House that no one knows so well what to do with a load as that Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My friend, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), says that his comments were directly tied to the Bill because of the flood of patents which resulted from the new entrepreneurship which resulted from the new economic prosperity. If it is true that there is this new economic prosperity with more people working and all of the economic factors are performing as he said, why then is the Government increasing taxes and decreasing family allowances?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my hon. friend the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), a good colleague of mine, asked that question.


Ian Deans: I knew you would be.


Philip Derek Lewis: The answer is very simple.


Ian Deans: I would hope so.


Philip Derek Lewis: We were left with a horrendous deficit because of 16 or 17 years of flagrant Liberal spending without knowing where the money was coming from.


Ian Deans: Profligate.


Philip Derek Lewis: Profligate, thank you very much. For that reason, we have had to increase taxes. When the Liberal Government was not spending profligately, it was making profligate statements like the one made by the Liberal ex-Minister of the Environment.
We regret that we have had to make some adjustments in the taxation system. However, the people of Canada will know that we are making every effort to get the deficit under control. With the employment rate going up and the unemployment rate coming down, revenues will increase. In due time we will have the deficit which was left to us by the profligate Liberals under control. At that time we will see consideration given to social spending which will look after everyone whom we can look after. However, when we do it we will do it on a reasoned basis. We will not spend money with the same reckless abandon for which the diminished number of Liberals were responsible. I say diminished because they went into the last election with 147 Members. Some 18 of them caught the Titanic out of the harbour and went on to greater rewards. Out of the 147, less 18, we have this motley bunch. Thus, Mr. Speaker, what can I say?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in this debate because of the fact that the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has used a clearly obstructive tactic in moving this particular debate. People who are watching this debate will not understand that the normal courtesy is that if there is a motion for
9446

December 12, 1985
Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments
concurrence with respect to a joint committee which has been traditionally a non-partisan and productive committee, and not for the purpose of trying to obstruct the business of the House, the Hon. Member need only have consulted with your humble servant. I would have been glad to speak to the appropriate Minister to see whether or not we could have had concurrence. In order to use an obstructive tactic the Hon. Member moved the motion with respect to this matter without notice. I have indicated to his House Leader on many occasions that if that were to be the tactic it is simply unacceptable. If there are to be motions of this sort and if we are to operate in this way and give notice to each of the other Parties respecting the business of the House, there takes a kind of mutual trust. I have tried to keep my side of the bargain with respect to this matter and have tried to give as much notice-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -to Members of this House as to what the business is and what motions will be moved. I was very much taken with the statement by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), who is sitting with her soul-sister-soul-brother-


Ian Deans: I beg your pardon. I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I object to the reference to my soul.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Separation of church and state.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As I say at meetings of House Leaders: "May God have mercy on us". I agree with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, which is what possessed me to stand up and speak now.


Ian Deans: You are possessed!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is time to get on with the business of the House. It is time to get on with the legislation which is before us. It is time to make progress before Christmas. I will accommodate the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I would not have done this if she had not spoken. Therefore, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Ian Deans: It is the very thing you were trying to avoid.


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


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 6.44 p.m., it is obvious that the House cannot proceed to the Orders of the Day. Therefore, under the terms of the Standing Orders, I declare that the motion has lapsed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 is deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have been on the floor of the House several times to ask the Government about its plans for a development strategy for shipbuilders and drill-rig builders. It is a matter of considerable concern to the workers in my riding, since the survival of many hundreds of jobs will depend on this policy.
All Members of this House have one major concern, which is to create and preserve jobs. The shipbuilding and ship repair industry is now in a position to create jobs. Canada's most efficient shipyards have adopted modern technology and advanced management techniques.
Versatile Davie of Lauzon is foremost in its field. Its shipyards have been in operation for more than a century. The material and human resources involved in this shipbuilding complex are practically unique in North America. Today, it has Canada's most advanced facilities for modular construction. A ship is built in sections, in several workshops, and then assembled in one central workshop. However, even the use of this technology does not guarantee jobs for our Canadian shipbuilders.
In recent months, the daily media across the country have reported on the precarious position of our shipbuilding industry. As far as ship building is concerned, order books are at their lowest level since World War II. Because of the deficit it inherited from the Liberals, our Government cannot directly inject new funds into this industry. Our budget situation is such that we cannot provide the kind of assistance received by certain foreign shipbuilders.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at new orders for Canadian ships and orders for ships built abroad and registered in Canada, we
December 12, 1985

see that imports are ten times as numerous as orders placed with Canadian firms. In 1984, new orders in Canada totalled six ships, together representing 29,200 gross tonnes, while ships built abroad totalled 235,975 tonnes or 18 ships. During the first half of 1985, commercial orders placed with Canadian shipyards totalled three ships, together representing a capacity of 3,138 tonnes.
Mr. Speaker, if we compare the assistance offered by the Canadian Government to our shipyards with that received by our competitors abroad, we see that nearly half the foreign countries offer direct aid of as much as 50 per cent of the price of the ship, while in some cases, very generous use is made of indirect subsidies. In addition, our Canadian industry also has to cope with protectionist measures. A study published this fall, under the title "Shipyards in Quebec and Canada- Situation and Prospects", shows how Norway was able to make the exploration of offshore resources benefit its shipyards, by demanding that test drill rigs, for instance, be built in that country. The demand for ships is picking up in Canada, but this demand is almost entirely met by imports. Direct grants available in foreign countries and preferential financing arrangements make it possible to buy ships at prices which are often below Canadian costs.
I have already indicated to the House how important it is for our Government to be able to propose a strategy to all shipbuilding interests. Our shipyards could achieve a better performance than other undertakings in various production sectors. The federal Government and the provinces have given generous support to foreign car manufacturers to encourage them to build Canadian plants which are not likely to create more than a few thousand jobs, whereas shipyards and related industries now employ 20,000 workers and could create more jobs.
It is therefore important for the Government to promote through judicious policies a resurgence of Canadian commercial demand for our shipbuilding industry, and it is also important for the Government to develop a ship and drilling platform import policy because there is a need in Canada for all kinds of ships and offshore oil development equipment. All we have to do is to ensure that this demand will be met by the Canadian industry, and not by foreign shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, if we have been able to correct and improve the international competitiveness of other sectors of our economy, we can do the same for our shipyards. The Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has already shown his commitment to the future of our shipyards.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on March 23, 1985, the Minister reminded the House about the $15 million support granted to the Versatile company so that it might purchase the Davie shipyard in Lauzon. By providing such support, the Minister
Adjournment Debate
showed the interest of the Canadian Government in the future of this key industry.
We are about to enter the second phase, Mr. Speaker. There will be other achievements. These decisions will ensure the stability of this sector of our economy and the profitability of our shipbuilding industry.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Minister will soon announce his shipbuilding development policy to the Canadian public.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spoken about an important problem which is of serious concern to us. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is well aware of the problems of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and this is why he has had numerous discussions with representatives of shipbuilding companies and of the unions.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Levis is very concerned about this issue, but there is no easy answer. The Government has already contributed to the survival of this industry as its own orders account for the great majority of the contracts of the industry at this time. The Government has also shown flexibility in its contractual relations with shipbuilding companies. For instance, the Government accepted to renegotiate its contracts with Halifax Industries Limited so that this company would be able to complete ships it was building for the Coastguard in spite of financial difficulties. The Government also accepted to make the acquisition of Davie Shipbuilding by DOME easier under the tribal class ship retrofitting program and allowed Pictou industries to take over the Government work contracted to Ferguson industries.
The Minister and the Government will continue to support the shipyards through public contracts. The Polar VIII icebreaker program is now under consideration and the patrol frigate program is under way. Together, these programs represent 10,000 person-years of employment. In addition, the Government supports the industry by granting ships a tarriff protection of 25 per cent and drilling platforms a protection of 20 per cent, which is the highest level of protection in the world.
However, commercial contracts are also necessary to ensure the long-term future of the shipbuilding industry. Because of the drop in world demand, coupled with an increase in the building capacity of countries such as Korea, competition on all world markets is Fierce. The OECD has noted a 50 per cent decrease in the cost of ships between 1980 and 1984 and a general decrease in world capacity since 1976. This decrease is especially apparent among Western European shipbuilders, whose business has fallen by as much.as 66 per cent. In spite of these decreases, a surplus capacity of over 20 per cent persists and keeps costs low. In view of this, we must see to it that Canadian shipyards operate at a very high level of efficiency

December 12, 1985
Adjournment Debate
without imposing an economic burden on the users of ships built in Canada.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is holding meetings with the private sector to discuss problems faced by Canadian shipyards and to receive suggestions as to how all parties concerned may look for a solution that will prove to be viable in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my dear colleague for Levis, and also give him the assurance the Minister will not hesitate to get in touch with his colleagues in this Elouse as soon as a solution has been found.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS (A) INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT DISPOSED TO INSIST ON CANADIAN CONTROL OF FILM INDUSTRY. (B) REQUEST CONCERNING GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF CANADIAN FEATURE FILMS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I raised yesterday a question concerning the report published the day before yesterday by the Task Force on the Film Industry. That group has done an excellent job, because it has made a strong and in-depth analysis of the problems of this industry. The actual situation points to the third-rate status of the film industry, in which 97 per cent of profits made in Canada are going to the United States. Indeed, Canadian moviegoers are supporting the American film industry.
Now, part of the profits have to be re-invested in Canada for Canadian production. Canadian film producers have no access to the Canadian market. Canadian films take up only 3 to 5 per cent of screen time, and account for only 2 to 4 per cent of titles available on videotapes. Canadians are confined to marginal positions in their own country, and viewers are essentially funding foreign productions. This is why the Task Force has recommended that the Government issue a clear policy statement on Canadian control of film distribution.
American film distributors are now treating Canada as part of their domestic market. When they get distribution rights on a film or a videotape for the United States, they also insist on getting the same rights for the Canadian market. Even Canadian producers are compelled to grant Canadian rights to an American distributor to have access to the American market. This is no longer acceptable. It never was.
Canada is the only country in the world which accepts such a denigration of its cultural sovereignty. We have here in Canada a situation of vertical integration between film production and distribution, which means that the multinational corporations controlling the distribution of films are the same ones that produce them.
Of course those corporations do not promote films produced by other firms, whether they are independant Canadians, the National Film Board or small Canadian film companies.
Vertical integration in the film industry is no longer legal in the United States, because of the harmful effects of that kind of monopoly or duopoly, which comes to the same in this case.
American film multinationals are now enjoying in Canada benefits that are illegal in the United States. We must tell them: The End. Access to the Canadian market must be controlled by the Canadians themselves. We must make sure that in the future, part of the profits are reinvested in Canadian productions. Canadian control of film distribution will allow Canadian producers to negotiate for Canadian distribution rights of foreign films and videotapes. Canadian control will put an end to the monopoly enjoyed on Canadian soil by American distributors.
Canada is a nation with a population of 25 million people living next door to a large country with 250 million people. No country with that kind of population can develop a film industry without Government intervention, which means financial support and regulation by the state.
All European countries, even those with populations larger than ours, have developped their industry with state-support measures. We have started with initiatives for promoting the production of films.
Now without the means to provide for the distribution, such measures remain useless. The Task Force has in addition, suggested creating a fund to finance Canadian feature films. Even with other proposed measures, such as increased private investments, co-productions and sales abroad, the Task Force feels that public financing will be essential. More specifically, it advocates a fund of $60 million per year. The Task Force notes that 40 or 50 feature films must be produced if we are to play a significant role with respect to movie theatres and pay television.
This is only 5 per cent of the amount paid out every year by moviegoers in Canada. The Task Force notes that in other countries, higher amounts are earmarked for production. We are aware here of the necessity of serving linguistic and cultural communities. Consequently, it recommends that special attention be granted to French-language and regional productions.
Unfortunately, there is no reference to the fact that very few women have access to capital for the production of films, especially costly ones such as feature films. Or course, the contribution of the Provinces is essential for a film distribution policy, but we should not delay granting the required funds. 1 would have been more satisfied, if the Minister had given us a more constructive answer.
We have heard enough about good intentions for action. The Minister knows these problems and he knows them well. They have been talked about in his Department for a long time. I dare say his Department has had a copy of this report for a
December 12, 1985

while and he has had time to think about it. The excuse that consultations must be held with the provinces just cannot last too long. It would be far better for the Minister to take some leadership, to say that this report contains good recommendations so as not to close the door on every nuance or, perhaps, the recommendations could be improved upon in particular places. He should be showing some leadership and say that this is a part of our culture that must be reclaimed. If he wants to be serious about bringing back Canadian culture, as we brought back our Constitution, this is the place for him to be acting. The time is now.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and his Parliamentary Secretary entirely agree with the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mrs. McDonald) about the Canadian cultural sovereignty objective. [English]
I can honestly assure the Hon. Member, and I remind her as well, that one of the commitments this Government made as a Party prior to the election, and one which it has consistently honoured, is that of national reconciliation through negotiation. Consultation with the provinces is an essential part of that mechanism.
Yesterday, the Hon. Member raised two questions with respect to the recently report of the Task Force on the Film Industry. One was with respect to whether or not the Government subscribes to the view expressed in the report that measures should be implemented to eliminate vertical integration in the film industry. The second was with respect to whether or not the Government will grant the $60 million the task force identifies as necessary for the financing of feature films.
On the principle endorsed by the report that vertical integration be eliminated, the House will appreciate that the measures necessary to accomplish such a major structural change in the industry will involve the co-operation of two and possibly three orders of Government. The responsibility for distribution and exhibition in the film industry falls largely within the competence of the provinces. Any action taken on
Adjournment Debate
recommendations of the task force which fall within these areas will require concerted action. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has already conveyed the task force report to his provincial colleagues and plans have been made to meet with his counter-parts from the provinces to discuss the matter. The course of action to be taken by the Government of Canada will be decided upon following this meeting and pending analysis of what would be involved in implementing the recommendations of the task force.
It would be premature to predict the ultimate position of the Government of Canada on the vertical integration question. It is certainly fair to say, however, that the Minister of Communications is well aware of difficulties posed for the Canadian industry by its present structure and is intent on rectifying those structural problems as far as it is possible to do so.
In addition to seeking the advice and assistance of his provincial colleagues, the Minister will be consulting with his colleagues in Cabinet, particularly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote), who is responsible for competition policy, and with the industry itself in order to determine the most effective response to the recommendation.
On the matter of the recommended fund for the financing of feature films, the task force has obviously recognized and documented a serious need. The implementation of such a fund, however, is a costly measure, both in terms of where the resources might be found and in terms of assuring that such a measure would, in fact, complement other forms of assistance now in place. The Minister and his Department will be looking at that recommendation very carefully over the coming weeks and his conclusions will be brought to Cabinet for review. They will obviously have to be considered among all the other demands on the public purse. However, the Minister's commitment to the betterment of the Canadian film industry is firm. He will do all in his power over the coming months to assure that the industry has the resources it needs to develop its evident potential.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 7.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 13, 1985