1985-05-08

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians have finished filing this year's income tax returns. They sent their tax forms in by the April 30 deadline.
However, one businessman in northwestern Saskatchewan was waiting for a receipt he required to complete his tax form. The receipt that he needed was mailed from Toronto, postmarked March 13. He waited and he waited. Finally the receipt arrived in Battleford, Saskatchewan, 49 days later, on May 1, one day after the tax deadline.
At a time when many Canadians are growing increasingly frustrated with their Post Office, and while this same Post Office asks Canadian citizens and businesses to pay more for their postage, many ask why. I urge the Cabinet to consider very carefully the increase in postal rates requested by the Post Office.
The cost of mail is significant, particularly for small businesses. The public would not be expected to shoulder the burden of removing the deficit of a Crown corporation that sometimes provides questionable service. If the Post Office does not perform adequately, then Canadians should not have to pay more for less.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Quebec native women I make the following statement.
Indian women have had enough of the Government of Canada's refusing them the most fundamental of human rights. Indian women seek justice which they have never known since the arrival of the Indian Act in 1869. There have been one hundred years of misfortune for and injustice to those who married a non-Indian. This law, which was imposed on
them by a non-Indian government, puts control on their most fundamental human rights, and creates divisions within their families.
For those who have married a non-Indian, this law takes away their identity, the possibility of transmitting this identity to their children, the right to live in their communities, and even the right to be buried within their communities. By this same law, which comes from the federal Government, nonIndian women who marry Indian men acquire Indian status.
The federal Government, in an effort to repair these injustices, finally introduced a bill, Bill C-31, which could have re-established the full rights of Indian women and their children. However, the committee which was mandated to study this Bill has proposed amendments which are contrary to the spirit of the Bill by putting limitations on the rights of Indian women, and has refused to consider amendments which would have guaranteed the right of Indian identity for their children.
They have had enough. They insist that justice be rendered to them. They insist that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) act now. Bill C-31 must ensure full rights to women and their children.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recently took steps to reinstitute regular western VIA Rail service between Edmonton and Vancouver, which includes the scenic and much travelled tourist corridor between Jasper and Kamloops, British Columbia.
This decision enabled the local communities to develop local tourism infrastructure projects. The critical component in this long awaited development process is the existing passenger train stations in the communities located within this corridor. However, VIA and CN are considering closing stations at Valemount, Blue River, and Clearwater, which woud seriously inhibit these communities in their tourism development.
Therefore I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) to intervene and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that these stations remain intact so that passengers travelling along this scenic corridor will have the opportunity to access local tourist areas, which will enhance not only VIA's attractiveness but help provide local economic development and jobs.

May 8, 1985


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: 
AIRPORTS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, what happens to Mirabel Airport will have a vital impact on the economy of the Montreal area and that of the rest of Quebec.
The Government ought to decide as soon as possible what it intends to do about Mirabel. Several Members of this House are concerned about what the Government will decide, and 1 think it is entirely unacceptable that the Government should refuse to announce whether it will approve expansion of the airport in Toronto or try to give Mirabel a certain status.
All parties concerned in this matter agree that Mirabel is the perfect location for an international airport, that it and is well suited to future expansion. There are no obstacles to expanding Mirabel, except the Government's inertia which is preventing it from making a decision. The people of Quebec and Montreal are waiting for a decision by the Government, and I think this Government is demonstrating its indifference to their expectations.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of attention paid recently to the so-called Grand Canal proposal, whereby the theory is that James Bay would be dammed, turned into a freshwater lake, and water diverted back south into and beyond the Great Lakes to points in the United States.
This proposal, earlier regarded as too bizarre to be accorded much credibility, has been given some credibility lately by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) approval of water exports by tanker from his own riding, and his subsequent silence on the broader issue of water diversion for export which the Grand Canal project raises. Perhaps the silence is intended to complement the promotion of the Grand Canal scheme by the Prime Minister's old friend, Quebec Liberal Leader Robert Bourassa, whose enthusiasm for this massive act of technological hubris and ecological insanity seems to know no bounds.
The federal Liberal caucus, on the other hand, speaks with two voices. The Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) thinks it is a great idea, while the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) appears to be against it. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) thinks it should be studied.
Canadian waters are not ours to sell. In this sense, opposition to such a diversion is not to be seen as selfishness but as good stewardship of that which has been entrusted to us and of the ecological and planetary context in which our Arctic and northern waters need to be considered.
Americans, like Canadians, should look first to what can be done in terms of water quality improvement and water conservation. They would be surprised what we could do if the political will were there on both sides of the border. Unfortunately it does not seem to exist at this time.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Native communications societies throughout Canada are suffering a severe hiatus because of the Government's failure to date to approve any form of advance funding for the 1985-86 fiscal year.
These societies perform a valuable and essential function for native Canadians, and enrich the ethnocultural mosaic for all of us.
If present uncertainties are allowed to continue, the state of anxiety and confusion permeating the directors and staff will deepen, impairing further their effectiveness and enthusiasm.
The Government must learn to play fair with the agencies it funds. Delay is a form of denial. Numerous bodies wonder if it
May 8, 1985

is being used now to identify those programs which could later be cut without too much political backlash. It is time for the Government to put its money where the Prime Minister's April 18 statement directs.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a speech to the Ottawa Social Planning Council, the Executive Director of the Canadian Council on Social Development cautioned Canadians about the role that small business could play in developing long-term employment and economic opportunities. Let me say I disagree, and I point to the facts.
For the past ten years over 70 per cent of new job creation in this country has been in the small business sector. Small business is responsible for 40 per cent of all employment, and for between 55 per cent and 60 per cent of private sector employment. Women now own 29 per cent of small businesses and are creating small businesses at three times the rate of men. Small business is also the largest employer of the youth of our country.
Yes, small business may not pay the highest wages, have long-term pensions, and job security, but Canadians with ideas and independence seek out the small business sector to fulfil their dreams. Many of the innovations and new products of our society are founded in garages or small laboratories, and grow into thriving small enterprises.
I can assure Canadians that this Government stands solidly behind the small business sector. Challenge '85 is a good example. We will continue to review our policies and laws, whether in the fields of taxation, pension reform, or encouragement of our financial institutions to meet the needs of small enterprises, to respond and to enhance the future contribution of small business to create jobs and keep the Canadian economy growing.


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

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in answer to one of my questions, the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation said that I was not familiar with the programs I had mentioned to him. In Hansard, I mentioned to the Minister the "Programme canadien de renovation et de construction de logement locatif et de logement social". I realize the Minister is not familiar with the French language, so I
Presence in Gallery
suggest he check the briefing papers provided by his Department. In English, the "regime de construction de logement locatifs" is: Canada Rental Supply Plan, and "logement social" is Social Housing.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore suggest that the Minister brush up on his programs before answering questions, so that he can give the right answers.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the ending of hostilities in Europe during World War II. For a great many Canadians, this day holds a special significance. It is a time for both remembrance and reflection.
Canadians have always played a vital role in the defence of democracy and freedom. Over half a million Canadians served overseas during the Second World War, most of them in Europe. From the submarine war in the Atlantic, to the Battle for Britain in the skies, to the liberation of the Netherlands, Canadians fought for the values and liberties that we now cherish so dearly.
The conflict in Europe, like all wars, was a terrible human tragedy for everyone involved; for those who went overseas, for their loved ones who endured many anxious years in Canada, and especially for those who suffered the supreme sacrifice and were never to see their homes again.
It is our duty as a civilized nation to ensure that no Canadian will ever have to endure what our brave veterans so unselfishly suffered for their country. If there is a lesson to be learned in our wartime experience in Europe, it would be to underline the need to commit ourselves to the peaceful resolution of conflict.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DR. GARRET FITZGERALD, PRIME MINISTER OF IRELAND
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. President of the Privy Council on what I understand is an agreement, may I indicate to the House the presence in our gallery today of some distinguished visitors. I had to decide in what order to do this, so I will do it by parliamentary seniority and start, if I may, by introducing to the House the distinguished Prime Minister of Ireland, Dr. Garret FitzGerald. We are most happy for him to be with us today.

May 8, 1985
VE Day


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Accompanying Dr. FitzGerald is a very large delegation all of whom are equally welcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. HASSAN ALI, MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, REPUBLIC OF IRAQ
Mr. Speaker:: In our gallery as well today we have the Minister of International Trade of the Republic of Iraq, Mr. Hassan Ali, and Mr. Shanta, a Member of the National Assembly of Iraq.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversry of VE Day, it has been agreed that each Party would have approximately five minutes at this point in time to pay tribute to the occasion and that the time involved would be added on to Question Period after the conclusion of the remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago the war ended in Europe. This was a day of great significance because it represented a victory over the most pernicious evil ever known to man, Naziism. Naziism and its horrible work against humanity in general and the Jewish people in particular are and forever shall be an indelible stain on the conscience of history. For all those who died, this is a day of remembrance but it is also a day of hope and reconciliation and renewal.

Today we are commemorating the dedication of these Canadian men and women and the sacrifices they made. We remember especially those wives who lost their husbands and families that lost their loved ones in the war. Their sacrifice has made subsequent generations of Canadians realize that peace is our fundamental concern.
By participating in the World War, Canadians helped to liberate Europe. It is our duty today to work unceasingly for
peace, on behalf of a generation of Canadians who died in combat.

In 1939, Canada entered the war immediately, convinced that our freedom and the Freedom of future generations had been gravely and perhaps fatally jeopardized by actions taken in Europe.
Although our population was relatively small at the time, Canada committed all its resources and a million people, all of whom performed with courage and sacrifice. Many were wounded, thousands were killed, the glory of our youth consigned to European soil. Those who returned did so having paid a very high price. It is to all of them-our veterans and their families-who served this country that Canada owes its greatest and its eternal debt of gratitude.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Some who returned are in this House today in all political Parties. One of those young Canadians who went to fight, as did those from other political persuasions, with the very clear vision of what he was fighting for-and he has preserved that belief in democracy and freedom, undimmed and undiminished today-is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen). Because of his very distinguished record of service in the greatest of wars, I invite him to speak now to Parliament on behalf of the Government of Canada.
[DOT] (M20)


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: -it was only nine days after the invasion of Poland that this House of Commons 45 years ago, without a single dissenting voice, declared war on the totalitarian state that brought it about. Before it was over there were 57 countries around the world involved on one side or the other.
A mobilization was seen here at home in Canada, the like of which has never been seen before in that kind of cause and hopefully will never be seen again. A navy was created in 1910 which, because of the foresight of the planners of the early twenties and thirties, was ready to go to meet the crisis at once and grew to be the third largest navy in the world; an air force was created in 1924 that was the scene of one of the greatest air training plans that the world has ever seen, turning out pilots from every Commonwealth country and others that were engaged in that conflict; we had an army whose roots reached deep into the past history of this country.
Today, ironically, as we move into this period of reconciliation that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke of, we have now as our staunch allies those who were enemies during that conflict of 40 years ago.
May 8, 1985

VE Day


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
If the House might permit me for a moment to focus on some of the words of the Prime Minister with respect to the reason for Canadians going to war, there appears to be an impression in some quarters that those who left their farms and factories, their books and their futures in 1939, 1940 and after, had no clear idea what they were fighting for. I want to tell you, Sir, that that was not the case. You do not mobilize millions of men and women in a cause in free countries around the world without a very powerful motivation. Most of us knew precisely what we were fighting for.
As the Prime Minister mentioned, there are men and women in this House who served. The present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is in Europe today participating in the commemorative services there to mark this occasion. The distinguished Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) and the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who sit with us today, knew exactly what they were fighting for. Nor can we forget the role that was played by
50,000	women and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who contributed as effectively and as fully on the home front as those of us who were there.
To say that those who took part in this tremendous conflict, this tremendous outpouring of blood and resources that was the Second World War, did not have a clear idea of what it was about is to betray that for which they fought: the right to choose our own form of government, the right to free expression, the right to reject a form of government and philosophy that was anti-human and anti-democratic. We were aware of the anti-Semitic foundation of Hitler's philosophy but we were not aware, as we could not be, of the inhuman and lunatic extent to which those philosophies were pursued.
The Holocaust to which the Prime Minister referred, that crime against humanity, could only be possible in a totalitarian state where the truth was kept from the people. At that time we perceived very dimly, it is true, the face of totalitarianism in the face of Naziism, but we perceived that neither could live in a world where freedom was cherished. The concept of freedom is based on an appreciation of the human personality.
Over vast regions of the earth today and throughout widely separated parts of the world, humanity is subjected to indignities and horrors which reveal that totalitarianism, the subjugation of the individual by the state, still lives and breathes. In police states where freedom depends on the colour of skin or racial origin, totalitarianism continues to hold sway. We fought in those days to push back the creeping incubus of totalitarianism and the crushing out of the human spirit. Since the end of the war in 1945, this day 40 years ago, it has been creeping forward. That is what the war then was about and that is why young Canadians went out to serve.
Last month during my visit to Europe to discuss NATO affairs, I could not help but remember the magnitude and magnificence of the effort made by those committed to the concept of freedom, by those committed to the conviction that totalitarianism has no place in any free society.


Erik Nielsen: So yes, Mr. Speaker, it was worth doing. To remember that is something that we owe to the members of that generation whose like we shall not soon see again. They went out with a smile on their lips to face death in a multitude of forms. They went out because they wanted a world in which children could play on the lawn of Parliament Hill and in which the divine spark of creation in every human being was respected. They went out because freedoms were at stake.
Those freedoms cannot be taken for granted. Every diligence is required by all Canadians in order to ensure the maintenance of their continued existence. It should be the dedication of all Canadians, not just that of those who lived and acted in those days, to show how easily the tragedy of war can be prevented, as World War II could have been prevented, and how the malice of the wicked is reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous, as was the case then and as should not be repeated.
We remember 40 years ago. We remember those who made possible our existence as we should be straining and are straining with every fibre of our being to see that war does not happen again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the excellent remarks which were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and particularly to the very eloquent speech which was made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) who spoke on behalf of the generation, both in this Chamber and throughout the country, which went to war. I want to salute him personally for his very remarkable war record and the Distinguished Flying Cross which he was awarded. It is no accident that he chose to wear that tie this afternoon and he is entitled to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister can recall the moment when he learned that the war in Europe had been declared over. It was one of the occasions in the lives of those of us who were living at that time when I am sure each of us remembers just what he or she was doing when the war's end was announced. I was in my final year of high school in Ottawa. Immediately the schools were let out and the whole city spontaneously moved to what is now called Confederation Square to celebrate with joy, pride and relief the ending of that terrible conflict.
Forty years and victory in Europe is at one time and the same time so very close over the millenium of human experience, yet so very far away. The names of Dieppe, Normandy, the campaign in Italy and the Netherlands will always be inscribed on the battleshields of our forces. We remember the valour, pride and suffering. In our gallery today there are some very distinguished representatives of our forces, including one of our very distinguished Field Commanders.

May 8, 1985
VE Day
A whole generation went to war and we are grateful to them. I want to assure the House that we shall not forget. We shall not forget our dead, those who threw the torch from failing hands, our wounded, and those men and women who, because of active service, have remained disabled for the past 40 years. Their lives have been curtailed and they have had to struggle against deep physical problems. In his absence, I also want to salute the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) who ably represents those men and women.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Canadians were not even born 40 years ago, but for the hundreds of thousands who were, the sad memory is still alive of relatives and friends who fell at the front.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind young Canadians that like the generations that went before, we must always be prepared to defend our freedom. Freedom is not something that just happens. We must fight for it continuously. During the two World Wars, two generations of Canadians left this country to fight for the cause of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I would also mention that Canada came of age during the Second World War.

This nation came of age. We entered the war in 1939, primarily as a dispersed agricultural country. During the war we mobilized an unprecedented war effort. We became an industrial nation. Our high sense of unity and purpose during the war years has never been duplicated in the history of this country.
As a young boy, I can recall that my mother worked as a public servant in this town. I recall the hours which the men and women worked who were not fighting, but who came from all corners of Canada to contribute their services to mobilize the war effort. They gave this country standard, distinction and reputation world-wide. They gave Canada its current good standing in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As we stand on a nuclear threshold, let us show fidelity to memory and truth. Let us acknowledge that human history is replete with examples of brutality and inhuman behaviour which result when bigotry, fear and hatred are allowed to guide governments or groups of individuals.
I can recall the fortieth anniversary of the Holocaust which took place on Parliament Hill ten days ago, a day when those memories were very, very vivid in the minds of those who survived those terrible moments and years. We must strive desperately for peace.
[ Translation]
Canada is privileged to be living in peace, protected from the physical and psychological ravages of war, but these are very agitated times we live in, and war continues to be a daily reality for millions of people throughout the world.

Let us realize that we enjoy the comforts, safety and peace of this country. That we must do because we have to maintain the determination, courage and will to meet the challenge of our times the way that an earlier generation met the challenge of those times. If we do not do that, then we will not, in fact, be keeping faith with those who made the ultimate sacrifice which we recall this afternoon. That sacrifice ended in victory, happily, 40 years ago today. We must keep that faith.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to say a few words on this important and historic anniversary.
Forty years ago, the Allies won final victory over Naziism in Europe. Today is a day for remembrance of that great achievement by the united citizens of many nations; it is a day for the celebration of the greatest popular victory of our times, and an occasion for reflection on where we stand in the world 40 years later.

The Second World War was unique because it was a genuine war of the people. We are not celebrating the victory of one group of nations against another, but the victory of democracy over fascism. It is important to remember that, in the battle for democracy, not only the Allies but also the people of occupied Europe were united, including those who fought courageously underground against the fascist powers in their countries.

VE Day opened up a new era of democratic possibility and promise. The aftermath of the war saw the successful establishment, not only of new democratic institutions throughout western Europe, but also of the beginning of the end of colonialism throughout the world.

Today, we ought to celebrate the fact that democracy is firmly rooted in Western Europe and that both victors and vanquished can celebrate the results of 40 years of democracy and friendship. Formerly victims of fascist rule, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal are now genuine democracies.
We must also remember today, Mr. Speaker, on this important anniversary, that the democratic nations achieved a victory in alliance with the Soviet Union, whose peoples experienced unimaginable horror. While we lament the fact that victory for democracy in 1945 was not completed in eastern Europe, we should recall, particularly in these very difficult international times, and recall with appreciation, the shared victory of the Canadian, European and other peoples
May 8, 1985

with the people of the Soviet Union in that historic battle against fascism.

Today, we should commemorate the tremendous contribution made by the Canadian people to the victory of democracy over Nazism. For five long years, Canadians fought spiritedly for a cause that revived and restored our own sense of identity and brought a new dimension to the national ideals we share. Above all, today is a day of commemoration of the ultimate sacrifice Canadian men and women made by giving their lives for freedom.

To remember the spirit of VE Day 40 years ago is to remember a sense of relief, as some Hon. Members who are a bit older than the rest of us have indicated here today, of pride in the achievements and sacrifices of Canadians and of all other members of the human family. They fought in one of the few just wars in history in order to procure freedom. Millions lost their lives.
I would like to conclude with the observation that it is up to our generation to honour those who died by using our talents and energy to extend freedom to all, and to take all the steps now necessary to head off another global conflict in the grim knowledge that such a conflict could be our last.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to our understanding, the Oral Question Period will start now and continue for the normal 45-minute period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will understand if we have to change the mood. He will know that the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court recently ruled that the Government of British Columbia is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of the Canada Health Act in its actions to restrict billing numbers for doctors.
I put the question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The actions of the Government of British Columbia were described by the Chief Justice as "Orwellian", "draconian", and "the antithesis of fundamental justice". In an arrogant response to this judgment of the court, the Government of British Columbia has tabled Bill C-50, the Medical Services Amendment Act, which attempts to do what the Chief Justice said was illegal and against our Constitution. This Bill is a blatant violation of the
Oral Questions
rights of individuals, and a vicious assault on our national medicare system.
What will the Prime Minister, and his Ministers, do to respond to this blatant attempt by the Government of British Columbia to savage our national medicare system in that province?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He would, no doubt, be able to provide a more specific response to my right hon. friend. I can, without commenting on what transpired in other jurisdictions, certainly acknowledge the legitimacy of any concerns which my right hon. friend may have in regard to our national health plan. I think on many occasions members of all Parties in this House have made firm their commitment to the integrity of the health care delivery services in this country which are so important to all of us. And I make that commitment again to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition today. The federal Government will maintain the integrity of that system at all times.


CURTAILMENT OF SERVICES AND BENEFITS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this situation has persisted for a month or two. The Government of British Columbia has introduced this Bill which, and I quote from one sentence in that Bill, "imposes limits on services and benefits available to different classes of insured persons". It goes right to the heart of our medicare system in trying to destroy it.
The federal Government should have already acted, in our opinion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to ensure and sustain the integrity of a national medicare system which the Prime Minister contends he supports. I ask the Prime Minister once more, would he instruct his Minister to take action in response to that particular piece of legislation, and use what weapons there are available under the Canada Health Act?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend can receive the assurance that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will have been monitoring this situation, of course, very carefully. My right hon. friend is aware of his commitment to the values contained in the legislation which we have all defended here in the House of Commons.
In a federal state there is a matter of provincial jurisdiction in terms of it coming before the House of Commons-the manner in which it is raised. But I give my right hon. friend the assurance that we shall maintain the integrity of our much admired-and properly so-health care system in this country at all times.

May 8, 1985
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the Canada Health Act is a federal piece of legislation and he has a duty to defend it.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS NEGOTIATION OF ERDA AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, now that I have managed to persuade the Prime Minister to focus on the affairs of British Columbia, let me tell him that the people of my province are getting a little tired of the stalling by his Minister, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, particularly on the renegotiation of the ERDA agreement. Would the Prime Minister tell his friend, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, to get the lead out, to come to grips with the problem, and to complete the negotiations? Don't give us the kind of answer you gave one of our colleagues yesterday. He should really try to resolve this problem, sign that agreement, and put the money into the hands of the people of British Columbia.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Official Opposition may I say that I am very pleased that he has now joined us in pressing the Province of British Columbia-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -to conclude an agreement. The Leader of the Official Opposition will be very pleased to know that I had a very worth-while conversation with Mr. McClelland only last night, and I anticipate an early response from him concerning our suggestions.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On November 16 I found that the Deputy Prime Minister announced that six of his 11 teams which are working to find cuts in government programs would report their findings by April 30, 1985. One week ago the Deputy Prime Minister told this House, and I quote from Hansard, that he would be "making announcements about the results of the task force on program review when they are ready". It is clear from the leaked document from Indian Affairs, about which we learned yesterday, that at least that report was ready on April 17. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, who, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is known for his velcro lips, soon to be known for his teflon hands, please table that report immediately?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That's awful.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I guess things must be pretty slow in the practice of law for the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Indeed, if he has been following the very energetic activities of the work that we are undertaking in program review, he will have read with care the speech that I made to the Canadian Club which set out in some detail the timetable that we expected to meet in program review. As those reports come forward they will be considered by Cabinet, as they have been and continue to be. Any government policy which arises from them will be announced in due course.


REQUEST THAT REPORTS BE TABLED
Donald James Johnston: As 1
pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we know that at least one of those reports is ready. The timetable I read shows that reviews were to have been reported by now on services and subsidies to business, job creation, training programs, agricultural programs, real property management, and regulatory programs.
Out of courtesy to parliamentarians and to those hard working members of the committees to which he made reference, I suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister immediately table the reports which are ready so that they can be reviewed by Members of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who is a former Minister of the Crown, knows, or should know, that those reports are in the form of advice to Cabinet Ministers. The contents of those reports, along with all other useful and constructive suggestions, will be taken into account in our work on program review. If the Hon. Member has any constructive and earth-shaking suggestions to make, as I am sure he has, because he certainly addressed them during the last election campaign, I would invite him to send them along.


NATIVE PEOPLES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Native Canadians have the poorest health, the lowest level of education, and the most impoverished housing standards of anyone living in our land. Yesterday I released a report produced by the Deputy Prime Minister and supported by 11 Departments which recommended that the Government cut back, as incredible as it seems, some $300 million in spending affecting all of these areas of social policy for native Canadians. My question to the Prime Minister is straightforward. What is the status of these recommendations ?
*******Hi
May 8, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the status of the recommendations is unchanged from yesterday when I mentioned our deep commitment to the native people and gave the assurance that, if the Hon. Member believed they were going to be treated any way other than very fairly and generously, he will be disappointed. Our intention is to work very closely with the native communities across the country to correct the abysmal statistics which my hon. friend quite properly points out. We believe in helping the natives help themselves. That is what it is all about.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the answer might be of interest to some people, but it did not deal with the question that was asked.


PREPARATION OF REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: People in the House, including the Prime Minister, if I have understood his statements in the past, take the condition of our native people very seriously. Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that the report in question was prepared by the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and had the support of 11 Departments? Will he now respond yes or no to that question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the report that my right hon. friend referred to in the House yesterday is one that I had never seen. It may very well be part of a task force review. I do not think anyone would quarrel with the obligation of a society to make an objective review. In this case, with the help of labour, the private sector, and public service officials, a review was made of all ongoing programs.
Having said that, I can assure my hon. friend that any staff work, study group, or ideas floating around that might be unhelpful to the native people will, under no circumstances, be accepted by the Government.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a report prepared by labour groups or other interested people. We are talking about a report that was prepared by the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. That is what is under discussion here.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has skated around the question again, I will address my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. We were told that the report was in fact prepared by the Deputy Prime Minister and had the support of 11 Departments. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether or not he was responsible for this report?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering when the hon. gentheman was going to get around to me, the work being my responsibility. I apologize for being a little late coming into
Oral Questions
the House yesterday. Apparently the matter was raised yesterday. I still do not know what "report" the hon. gentleman is referring to. If it is the one that was raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena-


John Edward Broadbent: No it wasn't, and that was said yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: -in the first part of April, the question has been answered. The Prime Minister issued a press release on April 18 setting forth the very clear principles upon which the Government intends to approach the problem. In any event I can see no purpose in the hon. gentleman's questions because, as he knows, the whole broad range of native policies has been referred to a Cabinet committee chaired by the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is with regard to Marcia Clark, the wife of government appointee and Tory bagman, Peter Clark, and sister-in-law to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is with regard to her appointment to the National Parole Board on December 23, after the lights had dimmed on Parliament Hill and everyone had gone home for Christmas.
In a campaign promise on patronage made on July 9, 1984, the Prime Minister said: "We are going to reform this instrument of our national life". In view of that, can the Minister tell us specifically which reform criteria were used in selecting this particular candidate, if any? Or is this just another example of patronage being a "relative" expression?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to read the report of an independent public servant quoted in one of our leading papers this morning. It described Mrs. Clark as one of the most outstanding and best qualified people ever to serve on the Board. We are honoured to have made that appointment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now, I also received the black paper on Tory patronage by Don Boudria, M.P. The most devastating criticism was of appointment No. 1, John Bosley, appointed Speaker of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This will indicate the reliability of this list. However, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, quite properly and enthusiastically, seconded your nomination for Speaker, and we are proud

May 8, 1985
Oral Questions
of that. Therefore he should dismiss this list and the Rat Pack that prepared it, right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nunziata:: You're nothing but a bloody hypocrite.


REQUEST THAT LIST OF APPOINTMENTS BE TABLED
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, not only does the Government partake in porkbarreling, but it has no manners at the trough.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. In keeping with the commitments he made last summer to the Canadian people, is he prepared to table in the House, within the next 48 hours, a complete list of relatives of Ministers of the Crown who were awarded contracts or given political appointments, just so everybody will know the truth about this Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: A Liberal who is talking about patronage, what a lot of nerve! They used to be in it up to their necks, talk about nerve!
In the black patronage list, number 2 is Lloyd Francis, appointed Ambassador to Portugal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just want to say to my hon. friend, who takes such pride in being a member of the Rat Pack, that rats usually come to an abrupt and inglorious end.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is everyone finished? The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The memorandum from the Deputy Prime Minister points out that its recommendations were acceptable to DIAND, so I presume that they were to the Minister as well.
The Minister knows that Indian self-government depends upon a land base, and that without a proper land base Indian self-government becomes a kind of meaningless concept. How can the Minister agree to any recommendation that would
defer comprehensive land claims? Will he assure the House and Indian people that comprehensive land claims will not be deferred?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, since it was stated in the House yesterday, I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that the matters which the Leader of the New Democratic Party raised in the House yesterday do not constitute government policy. With particular respect to land claims, the Hon. Member should know that I met approximately five weeks ago with all of the land claimant groups. We have embarked upon a policy of review which we are just beginning now. The commitment of the Government to land claims is as strong as it always was, and indeed I think it will result in a policy of which the Hon. Member will be proud.


HOUSING ON RESERVES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing. Given a continuous shortfall of some 10,000 houses in Indian communities, why would the Minister agree to recommendations that would cut the reserve housing program and force Indian people to move from their traditional homes?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not too sure to what the Hon. Member is referring, but I can assure him and other Members of the House that this Minister did not agree to any such thing in any form. 1 have no idea what the Hon. Member is speaking about.

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport.
The Minister recently bragged publicly about imposing a moratorium on Air Canada concerning the decentralization of pilot training. Can he explain to the House today why, last month, the job of supervisor in the flight simulator crew assignment service was transferred from Montreal to Toronto?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, we did not brag about imposing a moratorium, we simply stated that there would be no unnecessary transfers to Toronto while Air Canada discussed flight operations.
Still, Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question and I will get back to the Hon. Member concerning the specific job he is referring to, because I obviously do not have the particulars in mind right now.
May 8, 1985


AIR CANADA REQUIREMENTS-PURCHASE OF MODERN FLIGHT SIMULATORS FOR USE IN MONTREAL
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister should want to check his files, but at the same time I would ask him to make sure that he will at least try to keep his promises to the Association des gens de Fair. More particularly, when he does answer my first question, 1 would like him to tell me when the Department of Transport intends to buy modern flight simulators to meet Air Canada's current needs in Montreal.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I might tell the Hon. Member for Papineau that it is up to Air Canada to decide when to buy the flight simulators mentioned by the Hon. Member, keeping in mind its budget priorities and its operations. Since company management are expected to make profits, the Government does not intend to intervene directly and tell them exactly when they ought to make the purchase. However, we have said it before and we say it again, whenever the company decides to buy flight simulators, it will do so while keeping in mind all commitments concerning bilingualism.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to be very specific. I am not referring to the 395-page "Buffalo Jump of the 1980s" task force report, but to the document which we released outside the House yesterday and that he refused to take birthright for yesterday. He refused to do so again today in the House. It is called "Memorandum to Cabinet: Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Native Programs. April 12, 1985. Deputy Prime Minister". It lists 11 Departments that are in support of the recommendations within the 61-page document.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister show some openness and honesty, either here in Parliament or outside the House, and tell us whether this is the document he produced to go to Cabinet?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Member is waving a document around. I don't know what document he has in his hand-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, come off it!


Erik Nielsen: I have not seen the document. If he wants to sent it over or send it to my office, I will be happy to look at it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Bow when you go past the Speaker.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister issued a press release on April 18, and set forth four principles which were being followed in our addressing the native policies in this country which are under review by a special Cabinet committee. That committee has been set up for the purpose of addressing that broad policy question and is chaired by the Minister most responsible, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


James Ross Fulton: It is an interesting turn of affairs. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development came to my Leader's office yesterday to get a copy. I have now provided the Deputy Prime Minister with a copy. I am sure he recognizes it.


ORIGIN OF RECOMMENDATIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, all the deputy heads of those 11 Departments have concurred with the recommendations in here. Senior deputies in selected provincial Governments have concurred with it. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has the responsibility to tell Members of the House and native and Inuit people whether or not the recommendations contained in here have come from under his pen.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in what can hardly be called traditional conduct by the Hon. Member, he has thrown a copy of a document on my desk which, quite frankly, I cannot even read because of the atrocious material. It is an unsigned document and it is fairly bulky, so that even I would have to take the opportunity to examining it to see if I recognize it. But right now I cannot even read it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Like the people of British Columbia, the people of Nova Scotia are getting quite fed up with the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion and his stalling on various economic development projects for the Province of Nova Scotia. As the Prime Minister knows, in 1981 the Primier of that province issued his policy paper on energy. It said very clearly that it would provide for the high utilization of Cape Breton coal. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether he is in favour of such a policy and, therefore, will he instruct his Minister to get on with providing moneys for new coal development on the Island of Cape Breton?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the Hon. Member was in the House last Friday when I gave the good news about the Cape Breton Development Corporation now being in the

May 8, 1985
Oral Questions
black for the first time in a decade. In fact we have decided to divide the profit on a profit-sharing basis with the employees of that fine company.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I could add that the Hon. Member will be also pleased to learn that we have given an authorization to proceed with the second tunnel that is required with respect to one of the mining operations.


FEDERAL FUNDING
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my point is well made. The Cape Breton Development Corporation has turned a profit. That is all the more reason for the Minister to continue with new economic development on the Island of Cape Breton.
Will the Minister provide new moneys for new coal mines on the Island of Cape Breton, thereby supplementing the energy policies of the Government of Nova Scotia, or is this a repudiation of John Buchanan and his Tory Cabinet?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member does not understand it costs money to open new tunnels. I have announced a new tunnel is going to be opened.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Robert Pennock: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. As a result of a recent government announcement, this summer a large number of the additional 1,200 soldiers assigned to foreign duty will start deploying to Europe. In addition, the first CF-18 Squadron will arrive in Baden, Germany.
Can the Minister tell the House whether a decision has been made by the Government on a short list of the companies that will participate in the final phase of the competition which will provide low level air defence for our forces in Europe?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the low level air defence system is very vital to protect our air bases in Germany. We are proceeding with a short list. There will be a minimum 70 per cent spin-off benefits to NATO countries. We are now proceeding with the final selection from a short list of three. Representatives of the interested countries have been briefed on the Canadian Government's decision. In addition, briefings have been offered to companies that were not successful. Letters have been sent to the Secretary General of NATO and the Ministers of Defence in the United Kingdom, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, and France.


REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF EXPORT CREDITS TO NICARAGUA
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I asked the Minister whether the Canadian Government was prepared to extend export credits to Nicaragua, and indeed also to send a special envoy there. In demurring, the Minister said he was not prepared to say yes on a Tuesday. Let me quote what he said. He said that he wanted to see the exact nature of the sanctions that are being imposed by the United States on Nicaragua.
Now that it is Wednesday, and now that the Minister has seen the exact nature of the sanctions, namely, a total trade embargo against Nicaragua by the United States, will he reconsider the request I made yesterday about enlarging export credits, and immediately send a special envoy to Managua to assess the situation there?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the detail of the sanctions which, as the Hon. Member will know, is what is important here. Naturally, Canada wants to continue a policy of being helpful to the people of Central America. We are looking at the situation in the context of two decisions. One is a decision by the Government of the United States to impose sanctions. The other, of course, is the decision of Mr. Ortega to deepen his relations with the Soviet Union. We will be reviewing appropriate Canadian policy in the context of those two decisions.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that Mr. Ortega is also deepening his relations with Spain and France, and would like very much to deepen them with Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTADORA GROUP'S SUGGESTION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since the Minister is a strong supporter of Contadora and indeed only yesterday repeated his support, will he endorse the Contadora group's call on the United States to resume bilateral talks with Nicaragua? Will he offer Canada, should this be suitable, as the host country for those talks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is full of suggestions today. I welcome them.


Pauline Jewett: I don't get anywhere.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Government of Canada, which has mounted a successful aid and development program in Nicaragua which has made it clear that we want to contribute in every possible way to the development of stability and peace in that area, is now reviewing what it is most effective for Canada to do in these circumstances. Naturally we will be
May 8, 1985

consulting with members of the Contadora group, as we will be consulting with countries in western Europe which share our interests, and with countries in Central America.


Pauline Jewett: We can do things ourselves.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will consider the Hon. Member's suggestion as I will consider the recommendations and the advice that come from others with whom we will be consulting.

[ Translation]


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister.
In the light of a recent report made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the House, according to which the Government did not intend to meet the deadline set by the Americans on Star Wars, and in the light of the Government's decision to appoint Mr. Arthur Kroeger to examine this matter, does the Secretary of State intend to let Mr. Kroeger receive representations from the public before the Government makes a final decision?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kroeger's mandate is to look into specific information concerning the U.S. Government's invitation to Canada and the other Allies. That being the case, I do not think there is much the Canadian public or a series of public hearings could add with respect to the details of an invitation by the U.S. That is what we are talking about. We want to have further details regarding the content and implications of the U.S. Government's invitation.


REQUEST THAT DR. KROEGER APPEAR BEFORE LIBERAL PARTY COMMITTEE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the Canadian public cannot participate in that process. Can I make just one simple request of the Right Hon. Minister? As our Party has received hundreds and hundreds of letters on these problems, we have decided to establish a Committee on Security, Peace, and World Disarmament. Will the Right Hon. Minister permit Dr. Kroeger to appear before the Liberal Committee on Security, Peace, and World Disarmament?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Hon. Member who, I know, has been away and busy, has not had an opportunity to understand exactly what it is that Dr. Kroeger has been asked to do.
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am here all the time. I am here more than you.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have received an invitation, as have other countries, from the United States to consider participation in and research into the Strategic Defence Initiative. Some people are prepared to come to a judgment on that question without knowing its details and without knowing its implications. We are not. We want to know the implications.
Consequently we have asked Dr. Kroeger to go to the United States to get details about exactly what is being offered by the Americans to the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada will then come to a decision on the appropriate policy that we should follow.
As to the role of Members of Parliament, we would be quite prepared to have Dr. Kroeger provide a briefing upon his return, at the end of his conclusions, to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons, but it would be most inappropriate to have him take part in some Party's study of another question.


NATIVE PEOPLES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Earlier in the Question Period we had the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing all refusing to answer directly a question about a certain document. To my knowledge there is one Minister who has had it overnight because he got it from my office. I will direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Considering that it is indicated in the document that his Department supports the recommendations but that it is concerned about the reaction of native peoples to them, will he confirm that this document was in fact one prepared by the Deputy Prime Minister?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the document to which the Leader of the New Democratic Party refers was obtained by my office, because we have adjacent offices. It was an unusual document because it did not contain the normal regal things which one finds on Cabinet documents.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: It didn't; that is the fact of the matter. It was very difficult to tell exactly what it was. In so far as the subject matter relates to any policies, my Department and I would only support those policies which conform to the principles laid out by the Prime Minister and are helpful to the Indian people, and support and strengthen Indian communi-

May 8, 1985
Oral Questions
ties. That is the policy of this Government, and it will continue to be.


DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has had up until now-and I hope it will continue-a reputation for candor. He knows that he did not answer the question. In that he has had the document since last night, has he checked with his officials and have they confirmed that this was a document to which they lent their support in terms of the recommendations in it? Will he tell us whether he checked with his officials, and is it the document prepared by the Deputy Prime Minister, which we claim it is?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I do not think, even if I read Hansard tomorrow, I can follow exactly what it is the Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking. I do not know exactly what report you have that you think he had. Therefore I can't tell you whether the one I got is the one that goes with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The CSCE Conference on Human Rights has begun by denying a right, the right of people to know what is happening in oppressive countries. I have been advised that the media have been excluded. Yesterday visiting parliamentarians were ordered out after the opening ceremonies. In view of the status of parliamentary observers being clarified as recently as this morning, would the Minister use his good offices to persuade other Governments to support the opening up of this conference so that the truth can come out to the world?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, through discussions which literally lasted all of the night before last, Canada and other countries argued precisely that case. As Members of the House who are seriously interested in human rights will know, the CSCE conference is one that is governed by a rule of consensus. The host country, in this case Canada, is not in a position to impose its standards upon that conference simply because it is the host. We could make a great fuss about it. We could make a great Canadian public issue about it.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't we?


Charles Joseph Clark: An Hon. Member from the other side asks: "Why don't we?" I will come to that. I think there is
an obligation upon all of us who are seriously interested in human rights to make a choice. We have a choice to make between seeking a public tribune where we can express our unhappiness, our deep dissatisfaction with human rights situations in the Soviet regime. However, if we do that, we do it knowing that it is at the cost of the success of the conference. The other choice is for us to respect the procedures of the CSCE conference which have been set down and respected by other countries over the years. The Government of Canada wants solid progress on human rights. The best way to achieve solid progress on human rights is to respect the processes of the conference. That, as host, we propose to do.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. It concerns statements which he made as reported in today's edition of The Toronto Star. He said:
The Progressive Conservative Government's approach to multiculturalism will be a bid to persuade minorities to consider themselves Canadians first and foremost... Anything done in the multicultural area has got to be done on the basis that you're a Canadian.
The fact of the matter is that ethnic minorities have always considered themselves to be proud and loyal Canadians. It is only this Conservative Government which has had problems in recognizing that reality, and now it raises redundant and dangerous theories.
Is the Minister trying to usher in the concept of a melting pot theory like that of his American friends, which says that, if one is of a heritage other than English or French, one is somehow un-Canadian or less Canadian than one's neighbour? Canadians are awaiting a clarification, and I invite the Minister to provide one.


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, of course we are not talking about a melting pot theory. The Hon. Member knows that, and should realize that. Ethnocultural groups in this country are the best Canadians. We are all from different cultures. The point is that under the previous Government the multicultural policy always tended to ghettoize various ethnic communities. We are trying to reverse that trend or thrust. We are doing it under the auspices that we are all Canadians first and foremost, but that we will allow our culture, heritage, religion, and colour to flourish under the guise of being Canadians first.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, this Party and this country are not ashamed of a progressive policy which was undertaken in 1971. This Party also recognizes that we have to be Canadians first and foremost. However, I give the Minister another opportunity to retract the assumption that
May 8, 1985

ethnic minorities were not Canadians until today, and I challenge him to do so.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I am not retracting any assumption which the Hon. Member may make. My answer to his first question still stands. We are proud of what we are doing in this Government, and by God, we are going to do a better job than the Liberals ever thought of doing.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. It concerns some confusion surrounding voluntary labelling, metric and imperial, of herbicides for agricultural use.
Farmland in the West is laid out in square miles and acres. Chemical containers are metric. Therefore the farmer in the field requires usage instructions in acres per litre. Could the Minister assure the agricultural industry that blended information, utilizing elements of both imperial and metric, can legally be placed on herbicide containers?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, on February 28 the Minister of Agriculture announced that his Department would be changing the regulations to allow for dual and voluntary labelling in metric or in imperial for farm chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides. That process is well under way, but not yet completed. The Minister has given assurances that in the meantime there will be no prosecutions. In direct answer to the Hon. Member's question, farmers can ask for labelling in litres per acre, or in any other combination they want.
As a result of the policy announced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Government is moving away from the heavy-handed and forceful tactics of the previous administration.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of 47, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, May 7, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on eligibility for spouse's allowance, the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East on the steel industry and employment, and the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and by the Hon. Member for
Petitions
York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on nuclear disarmament do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to an exchange which took place during Question Period. It refers to my response with respect to the low level air defence system. It would appear that some may have heard me use the figure of 7 per cent when I referred to the industrial and spin-off benefits to NATO countries. The figure which I used, should have used or intended to use was a minimum of 70 per cent to NATO countries.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in terms of House business to indicate that Friday will be a further allotted day this week.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, pursuant to Standing Order 46, the Annual Report of the Public Service Commission of Canada was tabled in the House of Commons and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The Report should have been referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to fulfil my duty as

May 8, 1985
Petitions
a Member of this House and defend the interests of my fellow citizens. More specifically, I have a petition signed by the people of the riding of Gatineau, and since their Member is not there to defend them, the people of the riding of Gatineau-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that since yesterday, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that he may give just a summary, and I think he knows what I mean.
I am not referring to a summary of the problem, but to a summary of the petition.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important subject and concerns the elderly.
The people of Gatineau have asked me to table a petition asking the Prime Minister to extend the spouse's allowance to all persons in need who are living alone, whether they are single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition today from the people of the riding of Restigouche in New Brunswick.
They urgently request the Government and all the Members of this House to ensure that the House does not discriminate against the elderly, and they particularly urge the Prime Minister to consider the elderly, in connection with Bill C-26.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by another group of citizens who live in the constituencies of London East, London West and London North, in Ontario, and who are just as important as the others. In my opinion, the people of those ridings are entitled to voice their views.
They are asking the Government, and more particularly the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), to consider their representations concerning single, separated and divorced persons, and the petitioners expressly urge the Government to make sure that such persons are not disregarded under the provisions of Bill C-26.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a request from other very important citizens of Calgary Centre, in Alberta, which is a long way from here.
Those people have asked me to express their viewpoints, to be here to make sure that the Government listens to their representations to have amendments made to Bill C-26 now under committee consideration so that all needy senior citizens aged 60 to 64, be they single, separated or divorced, are eligible for the spouse's allowance program.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Gatineau came to see me too and asked me to present a petition to remind the House, and particularly their Member of Parliament, that needy single, separated and divorced people aged 60 to 64 are among those who most need Government assistance. To those people, it seems unwarranted to assess eligibility for a social program on the strength of the marital status of a person.
To their mind, the Government policy under which eligibility for the spouse's allowance is restricted to needy widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 amounts to discrimination, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is allowed to make a very brief summary, and I think he is perfectly aware of that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that there are some more people who have asked me to table a petition, namely the people of the riding of Rosemont, who said they would like to ask the House more or less what the people of Gatineau are asking, but I promised them I would make a special request for the people of Rosemont and that I would inform the House that they also feel that people between the ages of 60 and 64 who are single, separated, or divorced and who are in need, are among the groups that are most dependent on government assistance. Mr. Speaker, the people of Rosemont have asked me to say that the Government's decision to make the spouse's allowance available only to widows and widowers in need between the ages of 60 to 64 discriminates against people in need who are single, separated or divorced and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well he may give a short summary and that speeches are not permitted at this time.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I agree, and I am sure that after I have tabled all these petitions, you will agree that the people of the riding of Edmonton South also have a right to be heard here in the House. These people have also asked me to inform the House that it is unconscionable for the Government to limit the spouse's allowance to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. They feel that those people who are single, separated or divorced are being discriminated against, and these people in the riding the Edmonton South have asked me to advise the House of that fact, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to table a petition on their behalf.
Mr. Speaker, this concern is felt not only in Edmonton but also in Calgary West, Calgary North, Calgary South and Calgary Centre. The people in these ridings also believe that the discrimination that will result from Bill C-26, more specifically with respect to people who are separated, divorced or single, is unacceptable. People in that part of the country have also asked me to request that the Government of Canada extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all persons in need between the ages of 60 and 64 who are living alone, whether they are widowed, divorced, separated or single.
May 8, 1985


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a number of petitions.
I have received a petition from the residents of the New Brunswick federal constituency of Restigouche who wish to petition the Prime Minister to accept the amendments to Bill C-26 so that Canadians aged between 60 and 64 who are single, separated or divorced will be able to reap some of the benefits therein.
I have another petition to present from the constituency of the City of Montreal. Individuals in that area of the Province of Quebec wish to petition the Prime Minister as well with regard to those individuals who are aged between 60 and 64 and are single, separated or divorced so that they too may avail themselves of the benefits which are tied in to the amendments to Bill C-26.
I have another petition from the federal constituency in the great Province of Manitoba of Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Canadians in that province wish to petition the Right Hon. Prime Minister with regard to single, separated and divorced individuals who are between the ages of 60 and 64 availing themselves of the amendments that we have submitted with regard to Bill C-26.
My final petition comes from the great Province of British Columbia where they too are somewhat fed up with some of the stalling tactics by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). This petition concerns amendments applicable to Bill C-26 so that those individuals between 60 and 64 years of age who are divorced, single or separated will be able to have the benefit thereof.
I see that you are waving, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if you wish me to continue on with additional petitions. If you so desire, I can accommodate. If you will give me a few moments,
I can go back to my office and retrieve additional petitions, if that is what your body language and motion is exhibiting here.


Mr. Speaker:: I was only indicating to the Hon. Member that I presume he was petitioning the House in his petitions. I am sure he would want the House to be petitioned, not an individual.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from the residents of my riding of Outremont. They are asking me to put pressure on the Government so that the spouse s allowance, which will now be granted to widows and widowers, can be extended to people who are separated, divorced or single.
I also have a petition from the residents of the constituency of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who ask me to put pressure on the Government so that the allowance paid to widows and widow-
Petitions
ers can be extended to single, separated and divorced people between the ages of 60 and 64.
In addition, I have a petition from Richmond, whose residents are asking me to put pressure on the Government to extend the spouse's allowance to people who are separated, divorced or single.
I also have a petition from Chibougamau, in Quebec, asking the same thing. The petitioners urge the Government to change its spouse's allowance policy for people aged between 60 and 64, so that there is no discrimination against those who are single, divorced or separated.
I have another petition from Chicoutimi. It asks the same thing, namely that there be no discrimination against people who are separated, divorced or single, compared with widowers and widows between the ages of 60 and 64.
The last petition comes to me from Lotbiniere. The residents of this area also ask me to put pressure on the Member of Parliament for this riding and the Progressive Conservative Government so that there will be no discrimination against those who are single, separated or divorced.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of a group of citizens of the City of Saint-Leonard in the constituency of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, I have the honour to present to the House a petition urging the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to extend the spouse's allowance program to all needy persons living alone and aged 60 to 64.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from a group of citizens of Ville d'Anjou, again in my constituency of Saint-Leonard-Anjou urging the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to extend the spouse's allowance program to all needy single, separated or divorced persons aged 60 to 64.
I have another petition from the City of Montreal in the western sector of my constituency, and the petitioners also urge the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to extend the social security program to all single, separated or divorced persons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to know very clearly whether or not the Hon. Member realizes that petitions to the Prime Minister himself are out of order. If he is presenting petitions to the Prime Minister, it should be done at a different place in the building.


Alfonso Gagliano: These requests to the Right Hon. Prime Minister are addressed to the House.
Mr. Speaker, my last petition is also from the people in northern Montreal. I therefore have the honour of tabling in the House a petition that again asks the Right Hon. Prime Minister to have the Old Age Security program cover all persons in need between the ages of 60 to 64 who are single,
4528

May 8, 1985
Petitions
separated or divorced. It states that social injustice and discrimination will be the result for 80,000 people, if the Right Hon. Prime Minister does not make the suggested change in Bill C-26.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour of tabling in the House a petition signed by a group of residents in the federal riding of Victoria in British Columbia, who, with so many other Canadians, deplore the fact that Bill C-26 blatantly discriminates against people between the ages of 60 and 64.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a group of residents from the ridings of London East, London West and London North in Ontario, who deplore the discrimination with respect to people between the ages of 60 and 64 and more specifically those who are single, separated or divorced. These people would like to see the provisions of Bill C-26 expanded to cover them.
1 also have another petition, Mr. Speaker, this time from residents of the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine-East, Quebec, in which the signatories deplore the blatant discrimination against people aged 60 to 64, specifically separated, single and divorced people.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from the constituency of Timiskaming, Ontario, where 18 signatories petition this House to extend the provisions of Bill C-26 to single, unmarried and divorced people in the 60 to 64 age bracket.
A last petition, Mr. Speaker, this time from the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie, whose Member is a staunch advocate of the rights of single, unmarried and divorced people, and which stresses once again that unmarried, single and divorced people aged 60 to 64 are discriminated against and unfairly treated. These petitioners, like all the others, strongly protest against such discrimination.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, a petition from residents of the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth, Ontario, who petition the House to take their views into consideration, namely that it seems unjustifiable to determine the eligibility of an individual to a social program on the basis of his or her marital status. They request that the spouse's allowance be extended to every single needy person.
I also have another petition to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, from residents of the federal constituencies of London East, London West and London North, Ontario, who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted rights to ask this House to extend the spouse's allowance to every single person in need and to amend Bill C-26 accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition to present to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled,
from residents of the federal riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Ontario, who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted rights to present a grievance to this House. They are asking that the spouse's allowance program be extended to all single people in need to correct the social injustice and discrimination they are subjected to.
I have a fourth petition, Mr. Speaker, to present to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, from residents of the federal riding of Timiskaming, Ontario, who ask the House to extend the spouse's allowance program to all single people in need and to eliminate any social injustice or discrimination against them in Bill C-26.
I also have another petition, Mr. Speaker, to present to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, from the residents of the riding of Peterborough, in Ontario, who are asking that the unfair practice of determining access liability to a social program on the basis of the marital status of the applicant be eliminated in Bill C-26 and that the spouse's allowance program be extended to all single people in need.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this petition meets the requirements as to form, and as we promised yesterday, we shall continue tomorrow.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the residents of Calgary Centre, I have the honour to present a petition regarding Bill C-26. The residents of Calgary Centre humbly ask Parliament to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance which has been granted to needy widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 to all other Canadians, whether they are single, separated or divorced, who have identical needs. Some 80,000 people will be discriminated against if the Prime Minister overlooks the proposed amendment.
The residents of Saskatchewan East are also asking me to table in their name a petition to the Government of Canada asking that it include the single, separated and divorced people in Bill C-26.
The residents of North Vancouver, Burnaby, Capilano and Vancouver-Kingsway are asking that the pension benefits which have been granted to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 be extended to include single, separated and divorced people in this country. If that is not done, 80,000 persons will suffer from that discrimination.
The residents of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, in Ontario, are also asking the Parliament of Canada to extend eligibility of the spouse's allowance, which has been granted to needy widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64, to all other Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced, who have the same needs.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of Bills.
[DOT];.?f *
mm

i-
May 8, 1985


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions to present to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not seen the Hon. Member rise before. For now, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) has the floor. He is the last one I saw and was the last one to rise.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to the House, and I thank you for your patience and understanding, a petition signed by residents of Barachois, Robichaud Office and She-diac, who deplore the injustice that will be done to 80,000 people if Bill C-26 is introduced without the suggested amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition, signed this time by residents of the charming town of Bas-Cap-Pele, who also demand that Bill C-26 be amended so that all needy people between the ages of 60 and 64 are extended the benefits of that Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by some good people from Haute Aboujagane and Scoudouc, two beautiful towns in my own riding who also demand that Bill C-26 be amended so that people between 60 and 64 not included in this Bill will not be treated unfairly if it is passed without amendments.
Mr. Speaker, without abusing your good disposition, I have still another petition from residents of Moncton, New Brunswick, who deplore indeed the injustices that will be done to some 80,00 people if Bill C-26 is not amended.
Mr. Speaker, here is another petition signed by residents of Shemogue and Shediac who also humbly ask that the spouse's allowance be extended to needy widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 years.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition-


Mr. Speaker:: No, I indicated that that was the last Member 1 had seen rising on petitions. I am sorry. 1 indicated that no one else had risen and 1 proceeded to Introduction of Bills. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) said that he had risen and I agreed to recognize him.


Carlo Rossi: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but still, I rose when there was not even-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the Hon. Member did not rise when I said "Introduction of Bills".


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to-
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member did not rise, nor did the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


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


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques on a point of order.


Jacques Guilbault: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Let's not bother with it. I realize what is going on. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques on petitions.


Jacques Guilbault: I rise on petitions, Mr. Speaker, but all I am trying to do is-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising to present a petition?


Jacques Guilbault: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Member's point of order? [Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate that the Chair, at the swift pace at which it is proceeding, may have had difficulty seeing my colleague from Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), but he was allowed to present petitions just the same. The Hon. Member for Bou-rassa (Mr. Rossi) must wait until the previous speaker is through before presenting his own petitions.
Therefore, since we are still on petitions, I simply submit that the Hon. Member for Bourassa has the right to present petitions, and besides-


Mr. Speaker:: I interrupt the Member with great respect, but there is a limit to my patience. When petitions are called, Members should be in their place and ready to present their petitions. Members who arrive later-in fact, 20 minutes later-it would seem were not in their places when petitions were called.
I indicated that I did not see the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent, but I know he was here. He rose. I am prepared to recognize the two remaining Members who have indicated that they have petitions to present. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques and the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Jacques Guilbault: I rose after.

May 8, 1985
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not listening to me. If 1 call something in this House, whether it be statements or whatever, Members must rise and indicate their intention to the Chair. Members who have not risen when I say "Introduction of Bills", which I have already said once today, cannot later inform the Chair that they wish to present a petition.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, they can.


Mr. Speaker:: No, they cannot. The petition must be presented before Introduction of Bills is called. Members who have not risen prior to Introduction of Bills being called are in some difficulty. I am now willing to accept petitions from the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques and the Hon. Member for Bourassa. However, I suggest that in the future Members who wish to present petitions ought to be in their place when petitions are called. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Bourassa, then the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques and those are the last petitions I will receive today.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of the federal riding of Rosemont, in Quebec, who oppose the government's decision to restrict eligibility for the spouse's allowance to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. They believe it is a social injustice toward the people who are single and they ask that the Government extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people between 60 and 64 living alone, who are either single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition on the same subject from the residents of the federal riding of Restigouche, in New Brunswick, who ask the Government of Canada to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people living alone, who are either divorced or separated.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the residents of the federal ridings of Calgary West, Calgary North, Calgary South and Calgary Centre, who ask the Government to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance, which has been restricted to widows and widowers, to all Canadians who are either separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the federal riding of Saskatoon East who exercise the same right and ask that the spouse's allowance be granted to all Canadians who are either separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which comes from residents of the federal ridings of North Vancouver-Burnaby, Capilano and Vancouver-Kingsway, who ask the Government to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people between 60 and 64 living alone, whatever their marital status.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which comes from the federal riding of Rosemont, in Quebec asking the Government of
Canada to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people between 60 and 64 living alone, irrespective of their marital status.
I can see the Minister of Finance making faces, but we shall see what he does May 23, which is Budget night.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Thunder Bay-Nipigon, in Ontario, asking the Government to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people between 60 and 64 living alone, irrespective of their marital status.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I listened carefully to what you said earlier regarding the point of order, as well as to your response to the point of order raised by my hon. friend from Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) when you said ... What I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not I can ask for information. My point of order is ... You stated that-


Mr. Speaker:: A Member is not allowed to make comments on a point of order on which the Chair has already ruled.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order raised by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Member, according to you, must be in the House at all times if he wants to speak on a motion, on a speech or on anything else. This is absolutely-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member pushing? If Hon. Members want some clarification of what I have indicated, they have the right to come and see me about it. I invite them to do
so.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will push if it is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: They cannot come and see me until I leave the Chamber. I cannot leave the Chamber until the petitions are finished. It is up to Hon. Members.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques on petitions. [Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the House could be quiet, I would draw to its attention a petition from residents of the Montreal area who want to exercise their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance to Parliament.
May 8, 1985

Those people humbly state that single, separated and divorced individuals in need, from 60 to 64 years of age belong to the groups most dependent on government aid and therefore call upon the government of Canada to extend the spouse's allowance program to all needy persons 60 to 64 years of age living alone, whether they are widows, divorced, separated or single.
1 have another petition also from the Montreal area, more specifically from the constituency of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve whose petitioners state that they think it is unjustifiable to determine the eligibility for benefits under a social program on the basis of marital status. Those people maintain that the government decision to grant the spouse's allowance exclusively to needy widowers and widows 60 to 64 years of age is a social injustice and discriminates against the single, separated and divorced persons with the same needs and belonging to the same age group.
I have here another petition from the Montreal-Sainte-Marie riding in which the petitioners state that needy people between 60 and 64 years of age, either single, separated or divorced, are among those who are most dependent on government assistance, and that they consider it totally unacceptable that the eligibility of an individual for a social program should be based on his or her legal status.
I have another petition, this one coming from my own riding of Saint-Jacques, whereby the petitioners exercise their right to present a grievance to the House, with the assurance that the House will remedy the situation.
These petitioners claim that the government's determination to extend eligibility for spouse's allowance only to needy widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age is discriminatory and socially unfair to people within the same age bracket and having the same needs who are single, separated or divorced.
These petitioners humbly call upon the government of Canada to extend eligibility for spouse's allowance to all needy people who are single, irrespective of their legal status.
Those are the petitions 1 had to present today, Mr. Speaker.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 68 and 100.


Mr. Nunziata: 1.	In the Department of the Solicitor General, what specific independent advisory boards exist and how many members are on each board?
Order Paper Questions
2.	For (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85, what were the expenditures including salaries of each board?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1.
The following lists the Ministry's independent advisory boards which report directly to the Solicitor General:
Advisory Committee to the Solicitor General on the Management of Correctional Institutions (Carson Committee). There are six members (one chairperson and five members under contract). Expenditures in 1983-84 were nil; 1984-85, $350,000.
Dangerous Offender Consultation Committee (15 members, including officials and private citizens). Expenditures for 1983-84 and 1984-85 were $30,000 each year. There are no salaries or honoria paid to the private citizens. The only expenses of the committee are the annual travel and living expenses.
National Advisory Council on Firearms (25 Members). The Chief Provincial and Territorial Firearms Officials are exofficio members. This is not a salaried council. Each member is reimbursed travel and living expenses while absent from his/her ordinary place of residence while on official duty for the council, in accordance with the Treasury Board Directive on duty travel in the Public Service.
2. (a) and (b) See above.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs order special gold embossed stationery and, if so, what was the cost over and above standard House of Commons issue?
2.	Has any other Minister ordered such stationery and, if so, how many and at what additional cost?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1. It
has always been the standard practice for the Department of External Affairs to provide Ministers with gold embossed stationery.
2. To date, seven Ministers including the Prime Minister are using new or existing gold embossed or thermographic printed stationery.
Furthermore, please refer to the most recent directive from Treasury Board issued under Circular No. 1984-74 dated December 21, 1984.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 8, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Should all Notices of Motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 7, consideration of Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and Motion No. 2 (Ms. Jewett).
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today, Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts, is a very serious matter in the development field. The Bretton Woods Agreements, of course, arouse all of our highest expectations for aid by way of loans to the developing world. We are dealing today with an amendment which attempts to deal with some very serious problems in the actual functioning of world credit agencies at the present time.
The motion before us that Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 7 would require the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to provide a detailed review of Canada's participation in lending as a member of the World Bank group and the International Monetary Fund and, in particular-and I want to go through this in some detail-there are four criteria which would add considerably to the functioning of the World Bank group in order to have it achieve the objectives which were certainly set out in spirit for it. These criteria are: (a) Canada's use of its voice and vote to promote internationally recognized human rights; (b) Canadian initiatives to promote the use of loans to meet the basic human needs of the poorest and to provide for an equitable distribution of income in recipient countries; (c) policy actions taken by Canada to protect the neutrality and multilateral character of the World Bank group and International Monetary Fund and to resist the excessive pursuit of rigid bilateral policies by other member nations; and (d) Canadian initiatives to promote financial adjustment policies that do not impose additional hardship on the poor.
Why are these amendments needed, Mr. Speaker? Let us go to the issue of human rights. Canada's record on this issue is not particularly good. We have not opposed, for example, a loan to Chile, to a very repressive military dictatorship there, when even the United States Government abstained. Chile has one of the most atrocious records but even in this extreme case we failed to speak up on human rights issues. The demand here is that Canada use its opportunity and its vote to speak on these crucial loans in order to give better recognition to human rights issues.
Let me be clear as to what is meant by "internationally recognized human rights". We are not talking about an elaborate and difficult test of democratic rights. This is getting down to what is very, very minimal. Let me refer to what the Interchurch Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility have proposed as internationally recognized human rights. There are three points: freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and execution; freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment; and freedom from internal or external exile.
These are all perfectly obvious and it is quite clear that we are not talking about the imposition of certain democratic traditions or certain cultural expectations by our country on countries which do not have them and which, nevertheless, have their people in need of development aid and loans.
The second criterion is Canadian initiatives to promote the use of loans to meet the basic human needs of the poorest. It is necessary to specify this because, unfortunately, the very poorest countries are sometimes unable to get loans, and sometimes loans are used to divert resources and develop aspects of the economy which profit the better-off members of the country rather that the poorest. We must provide for an equitable distribution of income in recipient countries rather than merely promoting the strength of powerful groups within those societies, assisting them to get economic advantages which further entrench their power.
This money comes from public funds to which all Canadians have contributed. Canadian standards of decency and sharing should be respected in the according of loans, in so far as that is possible. I would like to make it very clear that the recommendation is that even in countries with bad human rights records, where the money is for the purpose of meeting basic human needs such as food and shelter, it should go to all people. Otherwise we should be demanding and encouraging respect, at least for these very basic human rights.
The third criterion deals with the issue of politicization. We do not want these funds to be politicized in any possible way. The amendment reads in part, "Policy actions taken by Canada to protect the neutrality and multilateral character of the World Bank group". This amendment arises from a number of very specific examples of abuses in the management of these funds. I refer particularly to American pressure to stop a loan to Nicaragua. This is in furtherance of American policy, which is an affair of the United States. However, the
May 8, 1985

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are international multilateral agencies which gave different economic criteria. If those economic criteria are respected, that loan should have gone through.
If one is going to argue, as the United States has, that Nicaragua's abuse of human rights is so excessive that it should not get a loan, then we must ask why El Salvador, Honduras and South Korea are getting loans. Should there be a number of different standards depending upon the politics of the regime in question? If these countries can get loans it demonstrates that the human rights standards are not very good. To bar another country from getting loans by applying different standards is absolutely unacceptable. I am sorry to say that Canada did nothing to object to the dropping of the Nicaraguan loan. Canada did not protest.
The fourth matter, Canadian initiatives to promote financial adjustment policies that do not impose additional hardships on the poor, comes once again from hard experience. We have a number of recommendations from the Task Force on Churches and Corporate Responsibility. They refer to the long history of the International Monetary Fund imposing very severe conditions on debtor countries. The debtor countries must then cut back on Government expenditures. They may cut back on social, health and food expenditures. They have often been required to increase food prices. The result is great hardship for the poorest members of those countries.
The Interchurch Task Force recommended that social impact criteria be an integral part of the adjustment measures that are negotiated. In other words, when negotiations are ongoing, the country should be asked very specifically how different groups within that society would be affected by the various cut-backs that would be required. This process would ensure that the burden not fall as much as it has in the past on the poorest members of those countries. Unfortunately, this has not been the case before. These criteria must be spelled out concretely in order for them to be taken into account.
One of the results of the imposition of very severe measures in a country is that people resist. There have been food riots and other kinds of disturbances as a result of these repressive measures in very poor countries. Governments then have to react to that and there is an escalation of repression as a result of the imposition of what was supposed to be a measure of aid to the country in question.
The Task Force on Churches and Corporate Responsibility, which appeared before the standing committee, made a number of comments and very good recommendations on these various points. I would like to quote from their testimony on these basic issues. They refer to the social tensions which in turn have given rise to repression on the part of the state. The testimony reads in part as follows:
Where debtor countries are already ruled by repressive dictatorships, repression is often severely increased and potential for a return to democracy is diminished.
We therefore recommend to the members of the standing committee-
-and I recommend in turn in passing on these remarks, that the economic analyses and adjustment recommendations
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
should include a projection of the distribution relative to the income distribution of the debtor country.
The testimony continues:
Where such projection indicates that the main economic burden will fall upon those with the least income, adjustment measures should be revised to correct the balance and to safeguard the living standards of those most vulnerable.
These are extremely relevant words of counsel, Mr. Speaker. We want humane policies. We need specific criteria to change the rather sorry record we have had. I hope Hon. Members will support this motion of amendment to bring provisions into effect which would respect the humanitarian concerns that we all share.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Motion No. 2 of the motions put before the House by the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). This set of amendments is designed to bring about more openness in government and to provide the recognition of parliamentary control of spending.
Motion No. 2 would make the permanent requirements part of the annual report. The annual report of an agency such as this is quite important because it presents the opportunity for the provision of a great deal of information about the agency and about the way in which Canada's role is being carried out in supplying moneys to the World Bank group, the International Monetary Fund, and related agencies. This amendment requires the annual report to spell out four or five definite items which would be reported on annually.
Some of the Government Members who spoke on Motions Nos. 1 and 2 seemed to think that the purpose of the motions was to provide an opportunity for Opposition Members to hold up the amendment of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act each time it came before Parliament. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would provide a series of pertinent information in an annual report. In that way Members of Parliament would have that information available to them and would not have to use the guise of a parliamentary debate to attempt to get information concerning this particular agency. We would not have to force it into committee so that witnesses could be called and information could be gathered.
In addition to the information required by the amendment of the Government, our motion would require the inclusion of a small report on the use of Canada's voice and vote to promote internationally recognized human rights. That is something that coincides with international funding. Many cases have been outlined during this debate where the influence of some countries on the boards of these financial institutions has meant that moneys end up going to Goverments with repressive regimes that do not live up to the international requirements for the recognition of human rights. However, money is granted to those countries in any event. Therefore, I think it only fair that Canada should annually report its stand with respect to votes regarding loans to those kinds of regimes.

May 8, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
It is my hope that Government Members have seen the light, will understand the importance of annual and full reports and realize that it reflects their commitment to an open government that will keep citizens and parliamentarians fully informed.
Therefore, in terminating this debate, I hope Hon. Members will support this amendment so that information may be made available through an annual report rather than forcing the Opposition Parties to bring the Bretton Woods Agreements Act before committee to obtain this information at committee stage each time it comes before Parliament.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Ms. Jewett). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
That being the last motion for debate, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of C-30. The first vote will be on Motion No. 1. Ms. Jewett, seconded by Mr. Murphy, moves:
Motion No. I
That Bill C-30, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 12 to 20 at page
3.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to test the House, you might find a disposition to have the vote that was just recorded similarly recorded for the next motion, which also stands in the name of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is a disposition with the addition of one Member rising who chooses to ask that his vote
May 8, 1985

be added to this vote. There are two. There was one on this side. The Clerk will note that. There are three Members to be noted by the Clerk. It is assumed that they are voting in line with their friends.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is the following one: Ms. Jewett, seconded by Mr. Riis, moves:
That Bill C-30, be amended in Clause 7
(a) by striking out line 32 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "including the resources and lending of the International Monetary Fund and the".
(A) by striking out line 36 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "goods and services and also including a detailed review of Canada's participation in the lending activities of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, with particular attention to: (a) Canada's use of its voice and vote to promote internationally recognized human rights: (A) Canadian initiatives to promote the use of loans to meet the basic human needs of the poorest and provide for a more equitable distribution of income in recipient countries; (c) Policy actions taken by Canada to protect the neutrality and multilateral character of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund and resist the excessive pursuit of rigid bilateral policies by other member nations; (4) Canadian initiatives to promote financial adjustment policies that do not impose additional hardship on the poor."
I take it there is agreement on the way the motion shall be tabulated.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is therefore lost.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is consent that the Bill be read the third time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.

May 8, 1985
Meat Inspection Act


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this is really a very sad day. This is the last time, the last day that this Parliament will have an opportunity, as it has had today and yesterday, to engage in a debate on the activities of the World Bank group and the International Monetary Fund. We lost the power to debate the other financial institutions here in the House a year or so ago. Now we have lost the power to debate the International Monetary Fund and World Bank activities. We have lost the power to add any new criteria for them. I only want to commemorate this as the last day on which we will be able to do this and to say to all Hon. Members that when the New Democratic Party forms the Government of Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -we will restore the authority of the Parliament of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a short comment. I want to know what members of the NDP are having for breakfast these days as it is affecting their ability to think clearly.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


MEAT INSPECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, an Act respecting the import and export of and interprovincial trade in meat products, the registration of establishments, the inspection of animals and meat products in registered establishments and the standards for those establishments and for animals slaughtered and meat products prepared in those establishments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (WOO)


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak very briefly on this Bill. The House will recall that when we discussed this issue some time ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) made an address to the House indicating that he was informing Hon. Members that Canada had one of the Finest meat inspection systems in the world. Hon. Members on all sides of the House acknowledge that. At the time this issue was discussed previously, one Hon. Member across the way insinuated that Liberal Members were not of that view. Of course, that was utter nonsense. Liberal Members do in fact acknowledge that the meat inspection system in this country is indeed excellent.
In the speech he made, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture seemed to describe this Bill as though it contained a major new discovery and a major new area of policy. However, most of the things contained within this Bill are simply to ensure that the Act will conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If one were to have read the speech as it was made by the Parliamentary Secretary without knowing better, one would have thought that the greatest thing ever to happen to agriculture would be the passage of Bill C-33.
When discussing in this House the entire issue of meat inspection, I think it is incumbent upon us to remind the Government across the way of what it is doing regarding inspection fees as they relate to the agricultural sector. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and, more particularly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are perpetrating an increase in these fees on the people of the country.
We all know that the agricultural industry is indeed in very serious difficulty. It is suffering and in general has fallen on very hard times. I see many Hon. Members across the way who are members of the Agriculture Committee as 1 am. Lately, the Finance Committee, which at the time was composed of most of the members of the Agriculture Committee, met in order to discuss the problems of farm financing. At that time we discovered that the farming industry is indeed in bad shape. I bring this to the attention of the House to indicate that the farm community is least able now to support major increases in inspection fees.
The Minister of Agriculture has told us that he has finally succeeded in coming to an agreement with a few commodity groups though not all of them. I frankly wonder how the Minister of Agriculture managed to come to this agreement. I suppose he probably said to the farmers: "You either take this agreement or you will not get anything else," and the farmers had to agree with him. I know that the farmers would have preferred seeing no increase in fees and no implementation of fees where they did not already exist. That is what the farming community really needs.
While discussing meat inspection, I think we must also seize this opportunity to talk about the whole problem not only of meat inspection but of meat imports. I see that the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) is sitting across from me. I know he is quite involved in agricultural matters
May 8, 1985

and I am sure the farmers of his constituency, like the farmers of my own, have discussed with him the very important issue of meat imports from the European Economic Community and, more particularly, those from Denmark and Ireland. These imports will very shortly be invading the Canadian market again at below the fair price.
Over the last three or four days, I have been receiving calls at the rate of about a dozen a day from the beef producers of my riding, each one asking me to voice the message to this Government that the beef farmers need to be protected. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you will probably tell me that that does not directly relate to the subject at hand, and perhaps you would be correct in so stating. However, we are discussing agriculture, the meat sector and inspection fees. I wonder if the Government would not consider a whole variety of measures to ensure that there is no unfair competition in the Canadian market-place caused by the subsidized imports invading our market. This unfairness is now compounded by the fact that Canadian farmers will have to pay higher inspection fees, thus making it more difficult for them to compete with imported products.
When we spoke of this Bill previously, I asked some questions regarding it. I hope I will still have the opportunity to find out about the state of certain clauses of this Bill and, more particularly, those that apply to the penalties for infractions against this piece of legislation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us exactly what penalties will be imposed upon those who choose not to respect this new law.
As the Bill was originally drafted and presented in the House, offenders against the legislation would not have been subjected to jail terms, and that was specifically stated in the Bill. The concern that I had at that time, and that I still have to a certain extent, was the fact that the Bill almost contained an advertisement saying: "If you do not respect the law, do not worry about it because we cannot put you in jail anyway". I cannot help but feel that that is not a good signal to send out. It does not provide the kind of motivation necessary to ensure that the very good and stable reputation that our Canadian meat inspection system has enjoyed throughout all these years will continue.
1 am not saying that all people who are in the meat processing business are not trustworthy. That is not the case. Of course, most of them are good business people. The ones who are good business people want to ensure that the law is strong and powerful and that it protects them in case people entering the business are not as trustworthy as they are.
Again, we want to be assured that the law protects our good meat processing plants and mostly that the law protects the inspection system. The inspection system is what retains credibility in the fine products produced by our farmers and, more particularly, in the meat products that are stamped and have enjoyed throughout the years a high degree of credibility.
Those are the words I wished to put on the record regarding this Bill. To reiterate what I said in the beginning, I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the very lengthy and decided speech he made when this legislation was introduced.
Meat Inspection Act
In his speech, he almost claimed that he had written this legislation himself and that he had saved the farming industry by changing the meat inspection system to make it adhere to the Charter of Rights. Of course, the Bill does not do all the things the Parliamentary Secretary said it would do. However, we want to ensure that the Bill is as good as it can be in order to retain and protect the valuable and trusted meat inspection system which we have enjoyed in Canada for many years. Hopefully, we will enjoy that for many years to come.
Finally, I hope that the red meat industry, and more particularly the beef industry, will still be there. There will not be much to inspect unless the producers are protected from the foreign imports which I described a few minutes ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete very briefly the parliamentary activity on this Bill. What we have with this meat inspection legislation of 1985 is a combination-excuse me, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member wish to speak on debate?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does anyone have questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) on debate.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, what the House is doing today is the last parliamentary step in making the new meat inspection legislation of 1985 law. After this, it will simply have to be proclaimed by the Government and signed by the Governor General.
This Bill did nothing terribly radical. In fact, only one or two minor changes were made in this Bill that was taken from the three old Acts. The only difference is that it is now easier for people to check the law because it is written on one piece of paper. The new activity is not very radical. It simply spells out the procedure which a meat inspector will have to go through if he wishes to enter a dwelling house in order to get evidence or inspect meat which he feels is within his ambit. The inspector will now be required under the Charter of Rights to obtain a warrant for such an activity. That is a very minor change and probably it would have been upheld under the Constitution without the change being made to the legislation. Basically, we are left with a peice of paper which contains three laws.
The process did not receive a lot of debating time, nor did it deserve a lot of debating time. Members of Parliament, farmers, meat packers, processors and consumers are convinced

May 8, 1985
Meat Inspection Act
that we have the makings of a very good meat inspection system. If it is not the best in the world, it is certainly among the best in the world.
We heard witnesses in committee who were inspectors and we heard witnesses from the Canadian Meat Council, which represents 70 or 80 of the 530 or 540 meat processors whom we have in Canada. The Canadian Meat Council generally represents the larger of those operations. We also heard from departmental officials whose responsibility it is to carry out the inspection service.
In second reading debate it was noted that this law provides, in very broad terms, the power to the Ministry of Agriculture, and to the Minister of Agriculture in particular, to make regulations. It is the Minister of Agriculture and the Cabinet who will ultimately set out the regulations which will decide whether the high standards in the meat inspection service will continue or whether they will be downgraded. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will decide whether the frequency of the inspection level program, which began under the last Minister of Agriculture, will continue, and whether the attitude under that program, which allows plants some discretion in the amount of time in which they will be inspected, should be extended further, or whether inspection periods should be relaxed.
The legislation gives responsibility to the Minister of Agriculture and the Cabinet to set the fees and charges for inspection services, whether the product is being imported or whether it is being inspected at the first slaughter or at the processing level. It also gives the Minister of Agriculture the responsibility to designate the various categories of plants and the establishment of standards for those categories.
Likewise, this Bill sets out who is the operator. In the process of hearing witnesses before the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we did not receive a particular definition of who would be considered to be the operator. That becomes very important with the new levels of penalties and fines which can be put into effect by the Minister of Agriculture. It begs the very serious question as to who is responsible if an inspector finds that someone in a plant is breaking the law. Is it the responsibility of the plant's management or the plant's ownership? How does the inspector trace whether the worker was simply carrying out a verbal order from head office or whether he was acting of his own volition? We will not know the answers to those questions until such time as inspectors take the cases to the courts. I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the Cabinet will tighten up those definitions in such a way as to permit the meat inspection regulations to be carried out so that the operator and owners of the plants will be made responsible for the way in which they instruct their workers to behave in those plants.
Basically, we have the same framework and guidelines which were set forward by Parliament for the meat inspection service to operate. We have given, and continue to give a great deal of discretionary powers to the Minister and the Ministry. I hope they continue to carry out those responsibilities in a fair manner and in the best interests of the farmers, processors,
workers in the processing plants and ultimately, the consumers who eat the meat. We are vesting a great deal of responsibility with the Minister of Agriculture. Parliament is passing the responsibility to the Minister and I wish him well in carrying out those responsibilities. I hope that he will continue, as have previous Ministers, to carry them out in the best interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech? If not, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points concerning the difficulties which people in the Territories have experienced with meat inspection in the past. One problem which has occurred is the difficulty of shipping meat, particularly beef, from northern Alberta into the southern Territories. For instance, there were no federally-regulated slaughterhouses in the High Level area. Federal plants are located in the more southerly part of the province. So if one wanted to bring meat into the Territories across the provincial border, one had to bring it in from southern Alberta rather than from northern Alberta. That is a problem which caused us some concern.
Another problem was what to do with wild game products, particularly musk-ox. There is a lot of interest in the commerce in musk-ox meat, in buffalo, in reindeer and in caribou, and it is not possible in many circumstances to comply fully with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture. But there is no reason why that type of trade should not be engaged in. Of course, there has to be a system of some kind of inspection. Everyone knows that. But we might not be able to do that in a plant which meets all of the special requirements.
So I am pleased that in the Bill with which we are dealing today there is, in subsection 20(r), a provision for the exemption of certain of the requirements. I am sure that many of my constituents will be pleased to see that that provision is there and that the Governor-in-Council can make regulations pertaining to these exemptions so that in the future we will be able to bring in beef from northern Alberta and we will be able to encourage the trade in wild game meats.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, 1 also welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate, and I shall, if I may, express to the House a certain number of concerns. First of all, I think everyone will agree that our Canadian meat inspection system is one of the best if not the best in the world. Over the years, Canada has acquired an enviable reputation in this area, and the legislation before the House today may affect this well-deserved reputation, a reputation that has taken years to build up.
Everyone will also remember that not very long ago we had a rather embarrassing and even dramatic situation in Quebec,
May 8, 1985

and quite recently, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Garon, said:
I do not see why some people insist on having "Canada inspected" beef, since Quebec's inspection standards for beef are just as strict if not more so than Canada's.
When people think that "Canada approved" means that the standards are stricter, they are wrong. Standards are actually stricter in abattoirs built according to Quebec regulations.
We must have these standards to make a good product. We start with the proper conditions. We cannot produce a good product in a shack.
1 think this is a rather significant statement that shows even the Quebec Minister of Agriculture acknowledges the enviable reputation of our inspection system.
The purpose of the Bill may be entirely praiseworthy, and I support its objectives in principle, but practically speaking, I think the Bill is going to make for a relatively confusing situation and will, in the final instance, make the Canadian consumer feel pretty insecure. There may be something behind all this, and it is probably the Government's resolve, which it has demonstrated several times, to reduce spending, which in itself is important and entirely praiseworthy, except that I think 1 would like to consider for a moment what the consequences might be. I think that our reputation on local, provincial and foreign markets has gained ever wider currency over a number of years. This sector makes a very significant contribution to the Canadian economy. I would suggest that anything at all to do with inspection must remain under Government jurisdiction, and I find it hard to believe that our inspection system will ever so slowly be dismantled piece by piece so that it will eventually be taken over by private interests.
The ultimate aim of this inspection process would likely become rather fuzzy if people were to question our objectivity, and 1 think that consumers and buyers of our products would rightfully express doubts about our standards, which in turn would be considerably lessened. That is why I fail to see the rationale behind a measure such as Bill C-33 which, in a way, will lead to insecurity and confusion, when we are talking about a sector that is running very smoothly and that has gained wide-ranging acceptance.
The private sector is here to stay, of course, it has earned its laurels and, oftentimes, private enterprise will give much better results than will any public agency. But when we are talking about security and consumer protection, I do think that the Government must play a leading role and resort to every means at its disposal to improve consumer protection mechanisms.
I am not at all sure that, from a structural standpoint, results will not be short of disastrous. If I may, I should like to mention some of the consequences which, I think, might result from the implementation of this Bill. What guarantee do we have that this will not result in an inadequate control over quality inspection and appraisement of meat and meat products? 1 am almost certain there will be an immediate reduction
Meat Inspection Act
in inspection standards. Probably, there will also be a definite drop in the quality of all food products, especially meat products. Most certainly, there will also be a lowering of sanitary conditions in industries. Clearly, there will also be inadequate control over meat and meat product receiving or shipping. I am not sure there will also not be inadequate monitoring of the preparation of processed meat products. There will certainly be a quality decline in the production of processed meat preparations, a lack of control over the export of meats and meat products.
I could go on and on and show that our success on the markets has been due definitely to the reputation we developed over the years, our excellent reputation in terms of extremely drastic standards. At this important juncture, where we do have as great a need for our agro-food economy as ever, it seems to me both ill-advised and extremely dangerous to tamper with anything that has proven effective.
Let me tell you that meat processing is the major manufacturing industry in many provinces, and the fourth one nationally in terms of shipping value. This in itself is the most convincing proof that here is an industry that is vital to the Canadian economy.
Also, the Canadian Government has contributed over these last few years to the expansion and growth of this industry, not through direct intervention on the market place, but rather by supporting the infrastructure that links the various components, which allowed Canada to enjoy a respected worldwide position as a supplier of meat.
The help provided by Agriculture Canada in the carcass grading system also served Canadians well in the industry, because it has provided them with a quality product that is still envied in the world at large.
Such are my concerns, Mr. Speaker, and I very sincerely believe that Bill C-33 could threaten the objectivity of a system that has proven itself over the years. The whole aspect of consumer protection, the concern for consumers has been left aside. In other terms, they have been completely ignored, although the vivid recollection of past experience still raises fears, and I am referring of course to the situation we have experienced in Quebec. Under the circumstances, it seems to me very dangerous to give the Minister absolute, unrestricted control over an area as important as our meat market.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments, debate. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Thank you Mr. Speaker. 1 also welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-33, respecting meat inspection in Canada. I am especially pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais), in the absence of the Minister, because the Parliamentary Secretary

May 8, 1985
Meat Inspection Act
made a very eloquent speech, and I would like to ask him to congratulate the public servant who wrote it for him. However, I must add that the officials who wrote this elegant prose may have forgotten to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that Bill C-33, which was based on very worthy principles-and who is not for virtue and motherhood-and I think the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette), who, I am sure, is very familiar with this area, could tell us that the objectives of the Bill are praiseworthy, and I think that Hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that the Bill, also thanks to Hon. Members on the Standing Committee, is well drafted.
I think the Minister of State for Small Businesses is referring to the Committee on Agriculture, and of course as the critic for external trade, I do have other obligations and I have to rely on the experts. Unfortunately, I am just a country lawyer, and I have not had the honour and the privilege of being involved in the agricultural industry like the Minister of State for Small Businesses. However, Mr. Speaker, I do know that under all the praiseworthy principles, the reality is not as rosy. With all its principles, the Government is in fact undermining the intrinsic value of the Canadian inspection service.
It is common knowledge that as a result of a policy referred to as the reduced inspection system or inspection frequency, the Government is undermining the whole credibility of "Canada Approved". This concern is shared by the inspectors themselves, who have to live with the practical implications of Bill C-33. I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister that even the Canadian Meat Council said not long ago, I think it was on June 13 last year, that Canadians depended on Agriculture Canada's help in providing a system of carcass grading, and so on, and the Council said: Although we understand that the Federal Government is going through a difficult period financially, and that it is looking at every way it could possibly save money, we must also understand that meat inspection, grading services, and the like, are in the national interest and must continue to be financed from the public purse.
This is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stir up the interest of my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, and congratulate him for his work. Nonetheless I would like to obtain his assurance that once this legislation is passed it will not be shelved but that indeed it will be enforced and even extended if possible. It would be terrible to alter among other things the various groups, the A, B, and C assessment system advocated for processing plants for example, when we know that the Department wants to compel all plants in the C group to pass in the B group thus reducing inspection services and in the short term to compel all plants in the B group to move into the A group thus reducing the inspection. In the end, the industries are entrusted with the responsibilities of sanitation and inspection. In fact, the concern which has been expressed, especially by inspectors, is that this could pose a very serious
danger for the Canadian public. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that this Parliament is not being used only to pass a Bill which will not be actually implemented. I know very well, Mr. Speaker, that you would not be happy yourself to witness passage of a Bill which would not be actually implemented. As you know, we all feel very safe when we see the "Canada Approved" stamp on a cut of meat, and if this stamp were to be used without any effective control, it could become very worrying for consumers. The inspectors therefore met last weekend to express their concerns to some of our colleagues, and they took due note of the absence of 25 of the 26 Progressive Conservative Members they had invited. I think there will be other opportunities in the next few weeks to hear the same inspectors express their concerns and I hope that, before asking us to agree to this Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary will take all their grievances into consideration. They are the most knowledgeable in this area. For our part, we can certainly talk about the principle of the legislation, on which everyone agrees. However, as far as the actual administration of the act is concerned, the revelations of Agriculture Canada inspectors are disquieting, Mr. Speaker. For instance, they say that, if this policy is pursued, the quality control and assessment of meat and meat products through inspection will be inadequate. They say that inspection standards are about to be lowered. They even say that the quality of all food products, especially meat, will be lower. I know this is of particular concern to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
I am convinced that the possibility of lower health standards within the industry is also of concern to the Parliamentary Secretary. Should the lack of control over the shipping and delivery of meat and meat products not give the Parliamentary Secretary something to think about? I think that no one would tolerate a lack of control over the preparation of processed meat. Mr. Speaker, who would accept lower quality control in the production of processed meat preparations? It is therefore my view that no one would agree to any lack of control over the export of meat and meat products.
Mr. Speaker, I think-the Minister of State for Small Businesses is telling me I have said that three times already-I will have to repeat it again and again in order to get him to understand. This is worrying all those involved in the area of inspection. They know very well that the Minister of State for Small Businesses, despite all his good will, did not understand their brief.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that inadequate control over imported meat products is also a genuine concern for inspectors. Worse still, they are telling us that this could lead to no control at all on stamped meat and meat products. If this were to happen, 1 think our stamp would lose much of its credibility, for it is now well looked upon not only across Canada but around the world. We are even warned about a sharp decline in the nutritional
May 8, 1985

value of meat and meat products. Imagine that! I hope there is nothing in that legislation that could bring about such nefarious results.
Mr. Speaker, there is even the prediction of a significant increase in black market operations. I know that no Member of this House could support such practices.
Of course, we are told consumers should be on the alert, we are told that if the process is allowed to continue, there may be a significant increase in the volume of meat and meats products on the market unsafe for human consumption.
Mr. Speaker, we have all lived through the times when tainted meat was sold openly, we were very concerned about the findings of some Quebec commissions of inquiry, and nobody would like to see a return to such dark days in the history of Quebec's food industry. Unfortunately, those incidents were attributed to the private sector, which the Minister holds in such high esteem.


Mr. Masse:: They were Liberals.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I think the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) should continue to read his documents instead of indulging in petty politics, it would be of great help to him when he has to answer questions.


Marcel Masse: A flashback to history.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications keeps interrupting me because he knows that if any such thing were to happen again he would be blamed for failing to take part in today's debate.
Meat inspection services are of course reduced and finally we are informed by meat inspectors of the danger of the situation because the Canadian public is less protected in an environment described as open to fraud. And I know that the Parliamentary Secretary would never want that to happen. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to dispel all those concerns before we have the final vote on this bill because we . . . This bill was not drafted by people who were unaware of the situation; this information came directly from the inspectors involved. This is why I am anxious to get assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary before a vote is called on a bill of such significance to the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions. Comments. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm what was said by my colleague, the Hon. Member from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). During the weekend, I attended a meeting in Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil with about forty people who work in areas covered by this legislation. Forty persons who wanted to meet with their elected representatives, something quite
Meat Inspection Act
normal in my opinion. They wanted to meet the members from ridings which are mostly rural.
To my surprise, Mr. Speaker, out of 26 invitations, including the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent), only one Conservative showed up. This is an important question, and the people working in the field, who have the best possible knowledge and expertise of the application of such a legislation, wanted to meet their elected representatives to inform them of the possible, or even probable, consequences of the legislation. They were told that it is none of their business. All they wanted to do was warn the Members of the possible dangers of such legislation. That is the attitude of the Minister of State, the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary. They draft a bill which, in theory, might be excellent, but which is in fact very dangerous for the Canadian consumers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais).


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it will take me 30 seconds to reply to my hon. colleague. Instead of having lunch with the meat inspectors in the Quatre Saisons Motel in Drummondville, the Hon. Members for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) would have been better advised to appear before the Standing Committee where I heard representatives of the meat industry as well as representatives of their party and of the New Democratic Party who did agree with me.
But I am now somewhat surprised to see that they seem to have changed their minds this afternoon. You may be sure, Mr. Speaker, and the opposition can be sure as well regarding the main concern of the meat inspectors whom the hon. members met but who actually invited me 48 hours in advance. I am not sure that they sent a letter of invitation to everybody for their meeting and even though I am not such an important person, I still expect to receive my invitations early enough. As I said, they had the opportunity to state their concern and they suggested that they were worried about their jobs. We provided them with figures showing that their jobs were not at stake at all and that we were simply streamlining the industry, something that has not been done since 1905. 1 believe now that at this very moment everybody supports that legislation and that we must go ahead with it, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that meat inspectors will carry on their work so as to preserve a reputation that Canada has had for years in that area and that we will continue to enjoy for years to come.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say briefly to the Parliamentary Secretary how pleased 1 am that he was able to assure us that no jobs are at stake, that in fact it is strictly a matter of streamlining the industry and that inspection standards will be as good as they have been since 1905.

May 8, 1985
Meat Inspection Act
However, I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should not blame Hon. Members for not sitting on the Standing Committee of Agriculture. The Parliamentary Secretary should understand that within our party, we have a right to speak whatever the opinion of our colleagues may be. I can assure him that nobody could prevent me from making representations on the floor of the House on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Shefford. I know that the Hon. Member has not enjoyed the same kind of right since he entered politics, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary should know that on this side of the House, even when we were sitting on the other side, we were never afraid to express our views on behalf of our constituents, and that is my main concern, not the commitments of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary. While we are not able to ask questions directly of him or of the Minister, 1 have a question that arises from the testimony during the committee process. This matter has disturbed me since before the committee process when the new frequency of meat inspection was instituted approximately a year ago.
The Parliamentary Secretary will know that under that program the meat inspector is responsible for the stamp that goes on the meat carcass. However, with the new frequency of inspection, employees in some plants are apparently applying those stamps under the aegis of the inspector even though he may not be there because of his responsibility for inspecting several other plants.
Should the meat that bears the stamp be found wanting at a future date, who is responsible? Is it the plant operator, is it the employees, or is it the inspector? It is our understanding that the inspectors will be held responsible, but their instructions from the Department make it virtually impossible for them to be on hand to inspect the use of those stamps. Is the Department proposing any regulations to make this procedure more fair to the inspectors as well as to the consumers of Canada?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of liability. My hon. friend knows that this problem was dealt with in the standing committee. Dr. Anzengruber had the responsibility of answering for the Department on this question.
It is impossible to say what will happen in a month or two if such a problem arises or to know exactly who has the responsibility.
We will see at that time. It is a very hypothetical question for which we had no answer and Dr. Anzengruber answered the best way he could at that time.
As our colleagues, the Hon. Members for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) have indicated earlier, we have trusted for many years our inspectors and our inspection system. We cannot either solve all the problems of the world, today, but we will attempt to respond-


Don Boudria: What kind of response is that?


Pierre Blais: Of course, had he been present earlier, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) would perhaps know. I cannot start over again every five minutes, each time someone enters the House. All I can say is that the Government will take on its responsibilities in this area as it did in the past and should a particular problem occur and should we have to determine whether the inspector or the company is responsible for some damage, we shall investigate and the responsible person or organization will pay the bill, which I suggest, is the normal thing to do.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, we had a reputation of passive spectators but we are now faced with representations of very silent mummies when it comes to defending the consumer's interests.
I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary. If this legislation is so open, why did 26 members of your party refuse to meet with those people who work in the field? That is the first question.
Second, should an institution which is now controlled seven hours a day, five days a week be controlled one hour a day, five days a week, because in my opinion, inspection means control, and when there is less control, there is less inspection as well and we are now substantially diluting the meaning of "Canada Approved".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Pierre Blais: Regarding the first question asked by the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), he could put it directly to the 26 members when he meets them. As for me, 1 said why I was not there. I had been invited two days in advance and I had the opportunity to meet those inspectors here in Parliament when they had the opportunity to explain their position.
As for the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I cannot make an analysis of the hundreds and the thousands of businesses working in the meat sector in Canada today; it is absolutely impossible to take specific cases, and my honourable friend knows it full well. The departmental officials have answered all the questions, to the satisfaction of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), one of your colleagues and a member of your own party. He expressed his agreement on the legislation, on the guarantees given to him by the departmental officials about the follow-up to this Bill. I cannot elaborate further today, I refer hon. members to the guaran-
May 8, 1985

tees given in committee. It is pointless to set up standing committees and have them sit for days to study a legislation if we are to take up the whole debate again in this House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) on a supplementary question.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, when we have to pass legislation, it is here in this House of Commons that it is to be done. I would like to ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary a question since he claims to be on top of the issue. Could he tell this House how many packing plants and processing plants there are in Quebec? Since he knows all the facts of the matter, those are figures he must certainly know-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Pierre Blais: My hon. colleague can put his question on the Order Paper. I will enquire and I give him an answer in the next few days, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a question or comment.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I recall, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated earlier, in answer to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), when he asked to what extent the system would be damaged by the fact that inspectors would not be on the premises as often as previously, that he could not deal with that hypothetical question at the present time, and that he would deal with the case when an infraction occurred. However, would he not agree with me that for instance when there are fewer inspectors in the field, when the inspectors are not on the premises all day long as most of them are presently, it is much more likely, or if you will, there are many more opportunities to break the law? Does he not think that the inspection system, which he praised in his recent speech, saying that it was very good, which it is, does he not think that it will be damaged by the action of the government?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, on this particular matter, again, if the Hon. Members who just spoke, the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) had been there, they would know that the figures show that, in the last year alone, there were 32 more person-years than the previous year, strictly at the inspector employment level. Thus, far from decreasing, the maximum standards for the protection of slaughterhouses and meat inspection have increased.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over.
Is the House ready for the question?


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


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although Bill C-25 is the next order of business planned for the day I see that it is about 5.57 p.m. I presume we can call it six o'clock and take up this Bill at the beginning of the next day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 9, 1985