1985-12-17

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Prud'homme (p. 9258).
Mr. Speaker:: Before resuming debate, may I advise Hon. Members that through an administrative error, and only that, today's Order Paper and Projected Order of Business are incomplete. Pursuant to the Order made Monday, December 16, 1985, that is yesterday, all questions necessary to complete the third reading stage of Bill C-74 now before the House will be put at 4.45 o'clock p.m. this day.
Resuming debate. When the House adjourned on December 9, 1985, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) had the floor.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are down to the final period in the debate on Bill C-74, I want to reiterate that the Party of which I am a member will be voting against this Bill. We are in opposition to the Bill and, in this final stage 1 want to make it clear why we are in opposition to it and what it is we find objectionable.
We regret very much that there is not more time to debate. We think we have sound arguments and given time more and more members would agree that there are deficiencies in Bill C-74 and would be prepared to support us.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, time allocation has been imposed. That has been dealt with and I cannot go over the arguments of objection that we have to the use of time allocation in a Bill like this. It is essential to indicate, though, that we believe this to be a parliamentary Bill, that there should be full debate, much more consultation and that we should be proceeding by way of agreement.
Why do we have Bill C-74 anyway? What is the reason for which we have, as a primary order of business, Bill C-74? If we accepted the work of the previous boundary commissions under the Act of Parliament brought in by the last administration the House of Commons would be growing to 310 members. That seems to be the basic objection and the main reason for Bill C-74. As it is with the legislation before us, we will have 295 Members of Parliament instead of 310. The argument is on the basis of cost efficiency and of reducing expenditures at the federal level, something no Member of Parliament objects to at all. Nevertheless we will have 15 fewer Members of Parliament than in the previous proposal. We may create some injustices and some unfair situations in the country.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, if our main concern is to reduce expenditures to be more cost effective, I think other areas ought to be looked at first, the bank depositor's Bill, for instance. We do not know who will receive the large ex gratia payments from the taxpayers or how much they will get. If you want to save money, something in the order of about a billion dollars is there and we might take a serious look at that. If we really wanted to be serious about saving money, perhaps we should be talking about the central question in the parliamentary system of Canada, namely, the existence of two Houses. That is an issue rarely raised or discussed.
In Canada at the present time we have this House of Commons elected for a short period of time. Members are accountable to the people. We have another House whose Members are appointed up to the age of 75, and to whom they are accountable no one is quite certain. In order for there to be cost savings involved with 15 Members of Parliament, the Government has brought in Bill C-74. It should be clearly understood that Bill C-74 does not give us strict adherence to representation by population, not at all. It is not what Members of Parliament want in the first place. If we had strict adherence to representation by population, then I do not think we could consider ourselves to be a federal state. With the vast geography of Canada and being a federal state, it is obvious and clear to every Member of Parliament who thinks about it that we cannot have representation by population. There will always be a pull between urban and rural representation, between the settled areas of Canada and those areas on the developing frontier. That pull will always be there between the two and in a federal state neither can be ignored. Therefore, strict adherence to representation by population makes no sense at all.
For example, I have never heard anyone argue that there should not be a Member of Parliament for Yukon. Yukon has only 20,000 people. No one has argued that the Yukon should not have its representative in the House of Commons. The Northwest Territories has double the population, about
44,000,	and it has two Members of Parliament. I have never heard anyone argue that the Northwest Territories ought not to be represented by two MPs.

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985


Mr. Nickerson:: Fifty thousand.


B. Keith Penner: I hear the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). He is right up to date on those statistics. I stand corrected, immediately. However, since the time 1 have been in the House of Commons, I remember when the Northwest Territories had only one Member. It was unreasonable for that region to be represented by a single Member. It was unmanageable. Even as it is now, with two Members of Parliament, they have an enormous task in trying to give fair representation to the people living and developing that most important frontier of Canada. When the Bill was brought in to give the Northwest Territories a second seat, there were no strong arguments to the contrary. It went forward and was well accepted as being just and as being fair.
Of course, Prince Edward Island has four seats. It has the same population as the City of Thunder Bay, just over 100,000 people. That was part of the bargain of Prince Edward Island when it came into Confederation. Although from time to time there may be grumblings about the fact that a constituency in Prince Edward Island only has 37 per cent of the population that one would find in a constituency in Ontario or Quebec, generally it is well accepted. We want Prince Edward Island to be an active member of Confederation as it is, and we do not argue it should not be well represented in the House of Commons.
Within the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, we challenge representation by population on a strict arithmetical basis. For example, we say that the boundary commissions can take into account such aspects as community of interest, community identity and historical demographic patterns. That allows them to depart from strict adherence to representation by population. We tell them how much they can depart. We say that they are allowed to go above or below a provincial quotient by 25 per cent; that is the allowable factor. When boundary commissions do their work, that is the kind of precise detail they like. They like to know exactly what they are allowed to do.
I have appeared before many boundary commissions and have made arguments on behalf of the region from which I come, the one in which my constituency is located. Very often citizen groups have made arguments, as I have, in a very telling and dramatic way. Boundary commissions have always said: "We are convinced by what you have said. However, if you want us to take these kinds of steps and these kinds of actions, you have to give us more precise instructions. You can't just give us vague directions. Parliament has to be specific as to what it wants us to do". I think that is the difficulty we have with Bill C-74. It lacks the specific instruction and detail which would help a great deal.
I should like to give an example of how the lack of being specific creates problems. In previous Acts it was indicated that when boundary commissions made significant changes, they had to show that there was just cause for making them. That is pretty vague. If they make changes, they have to show
why; they have to explain in a report to Parliament why something has been done. In about 1978, when the boundary commission in fact eliminated an entire constituency in northern Ontario, I argued that it failed to show all the reasons for doing so. It indicated the reasons in two or three lines in its report, that it was adequate reason that it had fulfilled all obligations laid upon it by Parliament. I argued; What do we [DOT]do when a boundary commission appointed by Parliament and a Member of Parliament are in disagreement? How can we settle that? I decided that 1 would settle it by taking the boundary commission to court. That is exactly what happened. I took it to the Appeal Division of the Federal Court of Canada to try to stop the redistribution process before it was in its final stages. The Appeal Division would not grant that stoppage of the action of the commission, so then we went to the Trial Division. The Trial Division listened very carefully to the case put forward by the very excellent legal counsel whom I had engaged. The judge, in his final declaration, said to counsel: "You have made a very convincing case. You have made a strong argument. I comment you for the position you brought forward. However, I regret to say that I cannot see that I have jurisdiction in this matter". Therefore the matter was not resolved.
A great deal of money was expended. Perhaps Hon. Members are interested in knowing how that money was raised. The people of northern Ontario were incensed by the fact that they would lose their level of representation. At that time they had 12 Members of Parliament, running from the Quebec border to the Manitoba border, north of the French River. They had 12 Members of Parliament for a very large geographic area. Mr. Speaker, did you know that that area is more than 80 per cent of the whole landmass of the Province of Ontario? The Province of Ontario is a very large province, and northern Ontario comprises much more than three-quarters of it. They felt that their level of representation ought not to be diluted. When one seat was lost, the communities from the Manitoba border to the Quebec border accepted a levy laid upon them by the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities. It was a small levy, but a tremendous amount of money was raised to pay for the legal costs in fighting that case in the Federal Court of Canada. After we fought the case, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe we still had some S30,000 left over, which was returned to the municipalities on a per capita basis.
When northern Ontario MPs talk with a degree of earnestness and conviction about the level of representation in that part of the province, they are not just speaking for themselves. It is not their own hides which they are trying to save, not at all. It is something about which the citizens of northern Ontario feel very strongly, and they have demonstrated it in a very tangible way by actually putting up dollars when a court case was being fought.
I want to return to Bill C-74 and indicate why we feel there is too much fuzziness or vagueness in the instructions given to the boundary commissions. It is simply not good enough to tell them that they may take into account community of interest
December 17, 1985

and historical patterns. It is not even good enough, as Bill C-74 does-and it has never been done before-to say that when dealing with the northern regions of the provinces with vast geographic areas, they will be allowed to depart from the 25 per cent differential allowed in the Act now. That clause is so imprecise, vague and uncertain that I predict it will be of no use to a boundary commission. Rarely will boundary commissions ever call upon that clause. Perhaps the Government House Leader will say that they have responded to our concerns, that they understand our concerns, and that they have included this clause which allows the boundary commissions to exceed the 25 per cent. If he says that our needs have been met, that we should support the Bill and be happy, it will not work that way because the boundary commissions will say: "You have been too imprecise; you should give us much clearer and unambiguous guidelines". This is why northern Ontario Members of Parliament are arguing for what other parts of the country have, like the Province of Saskatchewan, for example. The populations of Saskatchewan and Northern Ontario are not all that different. The population of Saskatchewan is slightly larger, but it is guaranteed 14 seats. Northern Ontario is much larger in area than Saskatchewan. In fact, our population is just over 800,000 people, whereas the population of Saskatchewan is about 900,000 people. Saskatchewan is guaranteed 14 seats. We are saying that northern Ontario should be guaranteed, in the same way, about 11 seats.
I want to illustrate clearly for Members who may not be aware of how boundary commissions work why this vague clause on manageability in northern regions will not work. Boundary commissioners are busy people. They are taken from the bench or law faculties, and this obligation is placed upon them by Parliament. I do not think they exactly welcome the task because it is not a pleasant and enjoyable duty. However, they are distinguished citizens of this country and accept that obligation.
First, the commission hires bright young demographers and staffers who take the available figures and produce the first set of maps. It is on the basis of this first set of maps that the various electoral boundary commissions in the provinces travel throughout the country for the public hearing stage. Individual citizens, citizen groups or a Member of Parliament may prepare the most compelling briefs imaginable. The electoral boundary commission will listen carefully to all of the ideas for changes that are suggested in the brief and examine the evidence it has received. However, I ask Members of the House if they really believe that no matter how good the quality of those briefs may be, the electoral boundary commission will make radical changes in that first set of maps. Of course not. Once significant changes are made in one region, it begins to affect every other region. That is why there will only be minor modifications and no significant ones.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. He still has the questions and comments period.
Representation Act, 1985


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of your last comment, I want to ask the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) simply to wrap up his speech and perhaps make his final few points to the House. He is certainly well respected on all sides in terms of his credibility and knowledge about the whole question of boundary alignment.
Would he use a couple of minutes to finish his speech, in the spirit that you, Mr. Speaker, had urged on the House with respect to the question and answer period remaining to the Hon. Member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know that he will have some questions that he would like to answer. I am sure the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior wishes to make some other comments. I am sure that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader will listen very carefully to the Hon. Member, who has been here for 17 years and can tell us more about what is happening as far as his riding is concerned.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Naturally we would want to give every Member of the House every opportunity to speak during this debate. There has never been any suggestion that we were trying to cut off debate or stifle comments. With that spirit in mind, we are prepared to listen to the Hon. Member. However, we would not want it to become a habit that Members can use this time to wrap up their speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate that. I am sure the Hon. Member will conclude his remarks in two minutes so that he can respond to questions and comments.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the House has been generous. I only have one additional point which is specific to northern Ontario and the effect that Bill C-74 will eventually have on northern Ontario. Let me say why I believe it violates an even larger principle, namely, the principle of effective and co-operative federalism. The effect of Bill C-74 on northern Ontario will be to dilute and dilute even further the level of representation. As a result of Bill C-74 our present level of 11 seats could very easily be reduced to 10 or perhaps 9 seats by 1988. It is conceivable that in the next century, northern Ontario-being most of the province incidentally-could have only 4 or 5 seats. Where will those additional seats go? They will go to the City of Toronto.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: An Hon. Member says: "Hear, hear". They will go to the conurbation that is now spreading in both directions from Toronto. Of course, the people who live there need to be well represented, and no one argues against that all. However, does it make sense to have 60 Members representing Toronto and its immediate environs and only 4 or 5 Members for the remaining 88 per cent of the resource rich part of the province? Is that the way in which we would have effective federalism? Ours is a resource region that contributes a tremendous amount to the national economy. It is a region of the

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
country that has consistently looked to the federal Government for regional development policies. Those regional development policies have been effective over a long period of time and have given northern Ontario a very major role in the economy of this nation. Consequently, we are asking that we have a voice in this House of Commons.
There is great distress and concern about the impact Bill C-74 will have on this region of northern Ontario. The people of this region are not asking for anything that is not already the pattern in Canada. It is not interfering with the independence of electoral boundary commissions by asking to establish a floor for northern Ontario. We are simply asking for some justice and fairness.
The Hon. House Leader has looked after his province well. There is a guarantee of 14 seats there. That is how it should be, but we are saying that what is good for Saskatchewan should also be good for northern Ontario, because there is a parallel. I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 believe the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has a question or comment.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are dealing with the amendment moved by the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), that the House return Bill C-74 to the committee to reconsider Clause 2. Clause 2 deals exactly with the difficulties of representation by population referred to by the Hon. Member.
It was my understanding that in the amalgam formula which existed before the Bill was presented, we in Ontario were to have 105 seats. According to the formula in Bill C-74, Ontario would have 99 seats, an increase from the actual 95 seats. What does the Hon. Member believe will happen to those four seats? Am I to take it they will not go to northern Ontario?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. There is no guarantee at all that there will be a floor level of representation for northern Ontario.
The number of seats will increase for Ontario, as it should because the population of Ontario has grown. We know that most of the additional seats should be going to the heavily populated part of the province.
We are not asking to be given more representation in northern Ontario. Those of us who represent very large ridings are not crying to the House that we have too much geography to represent and the size of our ridings should be reduced so that we have more Members. If that were our complaint, we could rightfully be accused of self-interest. However, we are not pleading for ourselves, we are pleading on the basis of a well established principle in Canada of providing a floor. We now accept that as a principle because we know that strict representation by population creates unfairness and injustice. It does violence to the federal system.
We are saying that what is good for a great province like Saskatchewan ought to be good for northern Ontario. It is not
additional seats we are seeking, it is a level of representation. Although that level of representation is difficult at the present time, Members of Parliament and the citizens of northern Ontario are prepared and willing to live with it.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak once more on Bill C-74. What we are talking about here today is the very key to representation from all parts of Canada.
Federalism can be defined by its regional structure. If that regional structure is not allowed to show itself in representation in this House, we will gradually move away from a federal Government and we will have more and more regions feeling isolated because of variations in representation. The regions will feel again, as they did many times in the past and will, I am sure, in the future, that they will have to start espousing separatist sentiments.
In the West, not one election goes by when there are not candidates who put themselves forward under a variety of names representing groups of people in the regions who feel that they are being isolated and do not have the kind of representation in the House that they should have. If, over the years, we can satisfy the population of the entire country that it is being well represented in this House, then those tendencies for certain groups of people to espouse a separatist philosophy will hopefully disappear.
Even those people who are the most vocal about separating the West, the East or Quebec from the rest of Canada have a certain desire to remain a part of Canada, but at certain times they feel that nothing is going the way it should go, so consequently they look at a separatist approach. Even though we are only debating today a Bill which deals with representation and the number of Members allowed from each of the provinces, we should be working toward a kind of federalist structure that allows the regional nature of the country to be recognized.
We have made a certain amount of movement toward the recognition that sometimes representation by population cannot be the basic structure for representation in this House.
We have come to recognize that once in a while it is necessary to ensure that a particular area is fairly well represented and that it should have more Members than it would have if the population were simply divided by 300, it being the number of Members allowed.
We have varied the formula for Prince Edward Island, the Arctic, the Yukon as well as certain other provinces in order to make sure that they will have a continued representation even if their population relative to that of the rest of the country decreases. Although this Bill does deal with that factor, we have not put in place as effectively and knowledgeably as we should have the kind of formula which would make areas like western Canada know that by 1991 or 2001 the trend will be to make sure that representation will be adequate for the remote areas. That is the main reason why we are not particularly happy with this Bill.
December 17, 1985

The Bill has no guarantee that after the 1991 census of after the 2001 census, we will have the kind of federal representation which we would like to see. There are, of course, other problems with the Bill, problems which we would like to point out now. Even after the Bill passes, we will be making those points with the boundary commissions that will be established in each of the provinces.
I think that all across Canada, we accept the idea that representation by population, although a basic concept, cannot be the only basis of representation in a federal state. We realize that in order to have federal representation, we must recognize the regions and establish equal representation from all areas of the country. You being a westerner yourself, Mr. Speaker, would know that we in the West often hear that by the time the electorate in Ontario and Quebec has voted, it is no use to vote in Alberta. In every election, westerners feel that the decision has been made in Ontario and Quebec and that the West does not count. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that it does count. However, that very feeling is the source of the separatist movement which continues to crop up every once in a while in the West. That feeling of isolation always exists and we should deal with it more thoroughly than we have in this particular Bill.
We do not always adhere to the basic principle of representation by population, but we do not have in place a formula which recognizes the regional structure of the country. Perhaps that is what we should do. Perhaps we should say that the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and the prairie provinces should have the same number of representatives as Ontario. Perhaps there should be a certain number of balanced regions so that no two regions could together hold the balance of power in this House.
There are many people who suggest that a logical solution to the representation problem would be to divide Canada into five regions and give each region the same number of representatives in Parliament regardless of population. The argument for that is based on the fact that quite often, the homogeneous structure of a large city allows a Member to represent it as well even if he represents twice as many people as a Member from a much larger area in another part of the country. I will not spend much more time on this topic. I just wanted to place on the record the concerns of many westerners with respect to the process of representation.
In the discussions which have been held with respect to this Bill, and the debate which has taken place in the House of Commons, I think that almost every problem with respect to representation has been brought forward. I refer specifically to the problem of representing a very small area and the problem of representing a very large area. For instance, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) spoke about the amount of travel which is necessary for him to undertake in order to reach every part of his constituency. The same applies to Saskatchewan where, for example, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) cannot visit
Representation Act, 1985
anywhere close to his entire constitutency when he goes home for the weekend. His riding covers approximately one-quarter of the province of Saskatchewan. This is the type of representation which possibly needs fewer people but more resources in order to allow a Member to be a good representative of such an area.
We have heard arguments that it is almost as difficult to represent a heterogeneous riding in Toronto as it is to represent a riding in northern Saskatchewan. Anyone who holds that view would have to travel to northern Saskatchewan in order to recognize that it is a difficult job to represent such an area. In the riding of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake there are probably three or four language groups. There is Chippewan, Cree, English and some French, which is spoken by preference. It is not an easy job to be the representative of all these places. As Hon. Members may know, the new boundaries in Saskatchewan give more than half of the province to one constituency. That happens to be the constituency of Prince Albert. Although I know the area very well, I also know it will be a difficult job for one Member of Parliament to try to represent more than half of the province of Saskatchewan.
There have also been arguments with respect to developing regional representation through the reform of the Senate, it is my Party's policy that the Senate be abolished. That is the basic Party position. However, arguments have been presented in the House, and other places, which suggest that we could possibly stay with representation by population but that the regional representation could be established in the Senate. 1 do not think that this is necessarily the best way to solve the western or the Maritimes isolation problems, although it is one idea which could perhaps be thrown into the hopper in the future when we discuss the best representation procedures to be adopted.
In conclusion, if this Bill were to be sent back to committee, the opportunity would be presented to establish a long-term formula which would recognize regional requirements. Perhaps a basically different method of representation by region could be considered. In that way, we might come up with the type of representation by the year 2001 which would satisfy these areas of the country which now feel isolated because of their lack of population.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley).


Mr. Gormley:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the comments made by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). I also wish to thank him for his reference in his remarks to my constituency. I can confirm what the Hon. Member has said with respect to my riding covering one-quarter of the Province of Saskatchewan, which is a riding in excess of 175,000 square kilometres. There are certainly some real logistical and practical problems with respect to representing such a large area. I wish to find out what the Hon. Member thinks about striking a balance between Members who represent large ridings, not so much by making additional ridings but by restructuring the

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
present system. This could also include those Members who represent large population centres. Those who represent large ridings could be given a budget for travel and a budget for constituency services which might better accommodate large geographic areas. Has the Hon. Member given this idea any thought as opposed to the addition of extra seats? Would it not be beneficial in large areas to have a budget which more accurately reflects the service needs of such regions?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that if one ends up serving an area such as the constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake one will need a greater budget and more facilities to perform a good job of representation. Perhaps it would be better to say that one needs this in order to perform an equal job of representation when compared with a community in downtown Toronto that is perhaps ten blocks by ten blocks. It is obvious that more facilities are needed in a larger riding. I still worry about how difficult it is to represent a small community with perhaps 3,500 people such as La Loche, Saskatchewan and still not be able to get to know it. The people in that community speak Chippewan. As far as employment is concerned, there is a small base. The only way to find out what is needed in such a community in order to represent it well is to be able to go there and spend some time there. If there are ten such communities which need this type of care it is just not possible to provide it. To do so would take every weekend of the four years that a Member is elected to the House. I am concerned that we should look at these remote areas and give them more Members and put in place a formula which recognizes size and people rather than just population.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is familiar with the last recommended redistribution plan of 1983 which was not adopted by the House. With respect to northern Saskatchewan, would it not make more sense to deal with the northern communities as one large constituency? The Hon. Member makes excellent points about the difficulties encountered in northern communities. If the financial accommodation were provided to a Member representing such a riding, he could easily deal with the 15 communities on the west side of the north of Saskatchewan and those communities on the east side of the north. In this way communities such as La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, lie a la Crosse over to La Ronge and other areas where Cree, Chippewan and French are spoken could be properly represented. There are problems unique to the north involving mainly resource-based problems and problems with the fishing industry, problems which are not encountered by those who represent ridings which are shared between farming and other industries. If there were to be one riding, albeit a very large one, would it not be better to have a constituency with a uniform set of concerns and, again, a special budget to match the great travel needs and service needs of such an area?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with that suggestion. In fact, perhaps the Hon. Member and I can get together and co-sponsor a Bill making northern Saskatchewan
one constituency. It would probably be represented by a northerner who would know that area much better than either the Hon. Member or I who were raised and grew up south of that area. That could be one solution.
If that were done, it would not add much population to each of the 13 southern constituencies. That is, if we were to divide the south into 13 constituencies and have one constituency for the north with 25,000 people in it, that would not add many people to the south, and it would solve to some extent, at least, part of the problem. The Member of Parliament would still have trouble with travel but he would be much more at home in the sense that his constituency would be much more homogeneous.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I was just delighted to hear the exchange of comments between the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). What they were proposing for northern Saskatchewan, an area I have had an opportunity to visit on a few occasions, was similar to the amendment I proposed to the House a week or so ago, namely, that the area north of the French River and encompassed by the 11 ridings in northern Ontario, have a floor of representation. It would not affect ridings outside of Ontario, but within the Ontario allocation of 95 seats or, as is proposed, 99 seats, there would be 11 seats dedicated to northern Ontario. It might mean a few more people in the ridings of Metropolitan Toronto. But representing 87,000 or 89,000 people, I do not think is really material compared to losing one or two seats in northern Ontario as will happen under the redistribution formula which is being proposed by the Government.
So I believe the principle of having a floor of representation in northern Ontario might well be applied to the northern areas of other provinces such as Saskatchewan, where it might have a population below the 87,000 limit or average, but its Members of Parliament would have a lot of responsibility.
So 1 am just delighted that the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, whose Party opposed a floor formula for northern Ontario, seems agreeable to that concept for Saskatchewan. I believe, by extension, he would agree to that principle in northern Ontario, and if he does, he will have a chance this afternoon or at some time to vote to send this Bill back to committee so that those principles, which will be so beneficial to northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan, northern Quebec and other provinces, could be implemented and applied so that those people would be properly treated.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have just one comment. In order to do that across the country, I think it would be necessary, or should be necessary, to establish some kind of formula so that every area would be treated in somewhat the same way. I think there is a danger of having little pockets of rotten boroughs-if I can phrase it that way-established too easily if we do not have some kind of a formula in place which makes sure that the representation is fairly distributed.
December 17, 1985

In the case of Saskatchewan, I do not think it is too difficult. Where we have 11 ridings, we need to have some formula by which we are going to make sure the representation is fair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments is now terminated. Resuming debate.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak on the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Pru-d'homme), on Bill C-74. As the House will recall, I had a chance to speak on this Bill last week on the motion by the Government to invoke closure on discussion and debate in this House. I felt at that time that it was very fundamental to my work as a Member of Parliament on behalf of my constituents of York West to rise in my place and voice not only my objections but the objections I have received from my constituents.
I am pleased to rise on the amendment which is before the House for debate this afternoon, namely, that we take Bill C-74 and move it back into committee. I think there is a feeling-and it was shown quite well over the last number of days-that Members of Parliament are not entirely pleased with the process which has taken place on such a fundamental piece of legislation. We must look at this piece of legislation with all the objectivity that we in this Chamber can muster because it is fundamental to the way Canadians will be governed and to the way Canadians choose their elected representatives.
We have in this Chamber, as you know, Mr. Speaker, 282 Members of Parliament. The last boundary commission proposed an increase from 282 Members of Parliament to 310. Bill C-74 rejects the previous discussions and public hearings which took place from one coast to the other and put a capping on the number of seats at 295. The feeling I have is that there was too much haste and too much partisanship in the way that figure was arrived at. We had a good illustration of that this morning in terms of one Member from Saskatchewan on the government side talking to another Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan who happens to be a member of the New Democratic Party. It was a fair exchange. It was an exchange which indicated that if we cannot get more seats in Saskatchewan, perhaps we can consider, as a way of offsetting that, ways of beefing up the travelling privileges of Members of Parliament from Saskatchewan, or we can beef up the constituency allocations for Members of Parliament for Saskatchewan. Perhaps we can have more than one constituency office with more than one or two staff members.
It was a fair exchange between the Members of Parliament, and that is the kind of exchange that we on this side of the House are asking for. We are asking that that type of exchange be allowed to percolate through the system. We believe that the ideas and aspirations of Canadians can complement that percolation. That is what parliamentary debate is all about and that is what committee work is all about. We try to grasp these ideas, and other ideas, and mould them in such a fashion that all Canadians and all Members of Parliament
Representation Act, 1985
can feel that the regions are being dealt with in a fair and equitable manner.
That is not the case now. What the Government is attempting to do is to forgo the fermentation of those ideas. It says: "Somehow we know what is right for Canadians. Out of the blue we will grab 295 seats, and that is what we are running with". I would submit, and my Party has been submitting, that that is not the way to proceed. We heard from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), on how Bill C-74 is going to affect Ontario. Under the Bill, the number of seats in Ontario will be increased from 95 to 99. This is a reduction from the proposal in the last Parliament for an increase to 105. I, of course, had a particular interest in the elegantly presented remarks of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior concerning this change because I am a Member from Ontario.
One area which will be a loser is Metropolitan Toronto. Looking at the previous proposal, the number of seats in Toronto surely would have been greater than what this Government is prepared to give. I have some reservations about that because my constituents have some reservations. One of the issues the Government introduced to justify Bill C-74 was the savings involved because of the cost of elected representatives, their offices and staff. Yet, at the other end of the spectrum, we have the bank bail-out and no one on the Government side suggests that it was a waste of money. This is a double standard. More important, how did the Government come to this conclusion concerning the saving of money? I have talked to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). They were Members in the last Parliament when I was not. They were very closely associated with the entire process of boundary realignment. They suggested to me that Canadians who appeared at the public hearings really did not object to an increase in Members from 282 to 310. Had they told me that there was much public animosity over the projected increases, that Canadians were not prepared to support an enlarged Parliament, then I would not get up in my place and suggest that we should not pay attention to those beliefs. However, that is not what they said. The discussions, in fact, were over how best to split up the 310-piece pie. These people did not object to the over-all increase. That is important because this Government is attempting to justify this Bill on a premise I believe to be false.
Another aspect of the debate over increasing the size of the House of Commons are the signals Canadians sent concerning what they want in their elected Chambers. I can tell you what constituents in York West want. I am not suggesting that my riding is an exact mirror of Canada, but I think the aspirations of my constituents as they presented them to me can be associated with those of other constituencies across this country. In a growing impersonalized world, a world which somehow does not have time for the individual, a world that somehow forgets the human element, Canadians are telling me

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
that they want to preserve the personal element in dealing with their Governments and elected Members of Parliament.
Although this is my first term in the House of Commons, I perceive the role of a Member of Parliament as having changed over the years. You know better than I, Mr. Speaker, that a Member has a different role now compared to when he or she first became a Member. A Member now has become almost a social service agency, if you will. Canadians come to us not only to get information and solve problems in our own area of responsibility, but also to deal with problems that are outside of federal responsibility but that are nonetheless very serious. Canadians are saying that they want to maintain personal accessibility to their Governments. They do not want to get a computerized letter in response to a problem which is very real for them and their families. They want their Member of Parliament to deal adequately and sensitively with their problems.
What happens with a Member of Parliament in the normal discharging of our responsibilities? I will tell you what happens. From Monday to Friday Members of Parliament are largely confined to the capital and, more specifically, to this House. Whether we are making representations as I am now, working on committees like those 1 will be attending this afternoon, talking to the bureaucrats in an attempt to solve constituency problems, or replying to our constituents, we are for the most part here in this place. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with our community, caring for our constituents on a one-to-one basis, we have basically a weekend at our disposal to do those things. When we go back to our ridings, most of us have constituency days, whether it be a Saturday or a Sunday. We spend most of the day huddled in our offices trying to meet with our constituents and deal with their problems. However, there are also other parts of the community where people do not necessarily have a particular problem concerning pensions or taxes or immigration. Nonetheless, they require the presence and thoughtfulness of their Member of Parliament. So, afer you have finished dealing with the problems, you try to attend a local function, visit with local senior citizens or attend a dinner in your constituency. You try not to leave out the schools. You try to talk to the young people. Of course, those of us with large industrial parks in our ridings strive to meet with business people on a regular basis, visit their plants, and determine if the economic proposals of this Government are working or are simply some theoretical pie-in-the-sky. If you want to do all those tings as a Member of Parliament and do them well, then I submit that the weekend is not enough time. At the same time, we cannot be in the riding Monday to Friday because then the first question constituents will ask you is: What are you doing here? Are you not supposed to be in Ottawa looking after our needs?
To be a Member of Parliament in 1985 is a balancing act between serving one's constituents while being here in Ottawa, and serving them on a one-to-one personalized basis in the constituency. Canadians request and rightfully demand that personalized service. I suggest that we are running counter to that desire if we arbitrarily, on a very partisan basis, put a cap
or a limit on the number of Members of Parliament who have to represent an increasing population.
A good book, called Megatrends, was written, which most members have read and it was packed, as was Future Shock, with descriptions of the high technology development of our contemporary society. However, it differed from Future Shock in the sense that the author said, "Look, with increased technology, higher technology, you also need higher human touch". One chapter, entitled "High Technology-High Touch" was devoted completely to that concept. The author was right. As we grow more impersonal in today's society, as the computer age arrives, we nevertheless have to increase the human element. The people behind the computers have to learn that the individual still has a place in Canadian society. We should not look at the case of the unemployed or any other case as merely a statistic. We are beginning to move away from personalized service and things become statistics rather than individual challenges that we should be championing.
Therefore, when the Government invokes closure to cap the number of seats in the country, 1 do not think it is acting properly on such a fundamental piece of legislation. I suggest that that is not appropriate on any piece of legislation. However, while MPs are telling the Chamber that their regions somehow feel alienated and that there are not enough seats in their region and are suggesting that we take seats from one province and redistribute them to make things more equitable, we should not be moving on this piece of legislation as we are. We still have a way to go. We still have ideas to percolate through the system. We still have recommendations and suggestions to hear from the Canadian public.
It is useless to conduct public hearings, which will be the next step after the Debate in the Chamber, because the parameters have already been drawn. Therefore, Canadians can only give their impressions within the general confines of those parameters. Canadians from all parts of Canada are going to come forward and reflect the aspirations which we are espousing in the House, Mr. Speaker. When they do, we will have to tell them that we are sorry, we have already put the cart before the horse, we have already capped the number of seats for their regions and that they should, therefore, scratch that point out and give us another one. Canadians are obviously going to leave those public hearings feeling very frustrated and wondering why they were asked for input when it will certainly have no meaning at all.
That is what is at the heart of the debate on Bill C-74, Mr. Speaker. We must allow Canadians, through their elected representatives, to articulate their concerns. It is hypocrisy to say that we have the best interests of Canadians at heart and then to move on Bill C-74, which will determine how Canadians will elect their Government, in such a shoddy manner. We cannot have it both ways.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, in the way I started, by suggesting to the House that this is the wrong method by which to deal with such a fundamental issue as Bill C-74. This
December 17, 1985

issue affects this Chamber and all Members but, most important, it affects the way Canadians elect their Government and the way in which they will be serviced by their representatives. This is not our place, but Canada's place. Therefore, Canadians ought to have the effective opportunity, on a proper basis, to suggest how they want the Government to function and which services they want rendered. We have not allowed Canadians that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is wrong. 1 hope that somehow at the end of this parliamentary sitting those ideas can sift down to the government benches so that the Government will change the direction in which it has chosen to move the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


Mr. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments, and I also have question for my hon. friend.
First of all, 1 would like to say I am entirely in agreement with the line of reasoning he followed when describing the work of a Member of the House of Commons and the problems involved in maintaining a balance between the responsibilities we have here in Ottawa, either in the House or in committee, and those we have in our constituencies. I know, for instance, that especially during the holidays there are a lot of activities in our ridings, organized by the senior citizens' club or municipal employees or whatever, which people would like to see their Members attend. That is of course quite normal, and 1 also think that, generally, people tend to be very understanding.
In any case, I would like to tell him that I share his views on the subject, except that I would like to stress that he was referring to the Toronto area, and what we do not particularly like about the Bill before the House, and I speak as a Quebecer, not that we are opposed to an increase in representation from Alberta, in fact, we suggested that very thing-the Liberal Party suggested it during the previous Parliament. We have no objection to that, and in fact, we fully support an increase in Members from Alberta and Ontario. However, what we do object to most strenuously is that the Bill before the House, the Bill the Government is trying to ram down our throats, will cap representation from Quebec at 75 Members until the year 2001.
And 1 wonder why Conservative Members from Quebec are not taking part in this debate on a non-partisan basis. This is the first time a Bill to change our electoral boundaries has failed to get a consensus from the parties. This legislation is not important to the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberals or the New Democratic Party. It is important to the Parliament of this country. If the electoral map is modified by the wish of the majority, the whole balance of our democratic system will be in jeopardy.
Representation Act, 1985
I would like to ask my hon. friend who just spoke, whether he, as an Ontarian, thinks it is fair and equitable-does he think that my position as a Quebecer, which is to fight against this partisan capping at 75 Members, up to the year 2001, does he think that is a normal position to take?
Does he consider my position too partisan, too regional, or is he, as an elected representative from Ontario, prepared to support a position that is held by the Liberal Members from Quebec? We seem to be alone in our desire to bring to the attention of the general public something I feel is a definite shortcoming, not because we are opposed to what the others are asking, but in the previous Parliament, the Liberal Members from Quebec had agreed, and they were very numerous- that Ontario should be allowed to increase its representation by several seats and that British Columbia should do likewise. We think it is only fair to give Quebec a chance to pick up a few seats. We were supposed to go from 75 to 79, and now we are being capped at 75 seats.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Thank you.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises some very good points, the first about the balance of one's work as a Member of Parliament, and the second about the situation faced in his home province of Quebec. On the balance issue 1 would like to point out that while Members from Toronto, such as myself, certainly have onerous responsibilities in dealing on a personal base with constituents, one must cushion that with the job of other Members of Parliament. The difficulties of other Members of Parliament from Vancouver or eastern Canada are increased ten-fold. I, personally, was used to a personal type of representation when I was a municipal councillor in North York. That is a very different type of elected representation, which I sincerely miss.
With regard to Quebec, that is what 1 meant when 1 spoke about Members of Parliament having the opportunity to offer ideas on the floor of the House of Commons and in committee. It is the inflexibility that we see with the handling of the Quebec situation that I think speaks volumes to the negative aspect of how Bill C-74 is being approached.
The Hon. Member mentions that in a discussion on the number of seats and whether or not that number be frozen at 75, we, on this side of the House, feel that we should not be given that inflexibility. Representations from Quebecers are sorely missing in this debate. The Member is not being partisan in making the representation he just did a few moments ago. He indicated that if Quebec Members of Parliament on the government benches who are of Conservative stripe feel that this is such a good deal for Quebecers and for their constituents, then why are they not on their feet deliberating and telling their constituents the reasons they believe Bill C-74 is an appropriate Bill? Government Members are not doing that with any consistency. Conservative Members are not
9510

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
getting up like Liberal Members debating the needs and aspirations of their constituents. If the Members feel that they have a good deal, he should elaborate on it. It is just like the de Havilland deal. If that is such a great deal for Canada, why is the Government hiding it in some back room until the signatures are dry, Mr. Speaker? You simply cannot offer credibility to Canadians when you say something is a good thing and then fail to have the courage to address it. Therefore, my colleague is suggesting, perhaps in a roundabout way, that Quebecers are looking for leadership and for their interest to be protected and that Government back-benchers are not doing the job.
[ Translation]


Mr. St. Julien:: Further to the Hon. Member's comments, I would point out to this House that I listened carefully to what was said by the Hon. Members for Prince Albert (Mr. Hov-debo), York West (Mr. Marchi) and Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). I would like to say that if we really look at what has been done about this legislation in past years, under the Liberals, for instance, if we refer to the riding of Abitibi, I think there is something very odd because they kept it the same size. If they are interested in what the situation is like in the riding of Abitibi, I shall add that it is located in the largest of our ten Canadian provinces, covers 740,000 square kilometers and has a population of 102,000. And it is going to stay the same size. My comment to the Hon. Member for York West mainly concerns the budget of each Member.
The Hon. Member for York West may think that is bizarre, but the important thing is to tell the Liberals not to travel outside Canada and to stay in their ridings. That is what I have been doing since I was elected to the House of Commons. I avoid travelling outside Canada. I travel in my riding.
And I can guarantee that my riding, which is among the fifteen largest ridings in Canada, is nearly 75 per cent Conservative. And today, among the smallest ridings in Canada, there are about ten that belong to the Liberals, and I am talking about ridings covering five square kilometers, with 69,000 voters.
Personally, I think the Bill is an excellent one, and I live in one of the largest ridings in Canada. I work very hard in my riding, and in my view, this is a very good Bill.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) is doing a credible job in his riding. No one ever suggested that he was doing anything but a credible job. That was an objective statement from the Member for Abitibi. If he feels the way it seems, he has 20 minutes available today to explain to this House why he is so positive about Bill C-74. I urge him to tell his constituents through a speech in this Chamber how good Bill C-74 is.
The Member for Abibiti has one of the largest ridings in Quebec. Do his constituents expect him to be a local constituency man? Do they believe that he should be in Ottawa to
make statements and speeches in this House or to lobby the Government for an industry his riding might be needing? 1 would suggest to the Hon. Member for Abitibi that constituents not only want their Member of Parliament to be in the constituency, as important as it may be, but they want him to do his job in this Chamber through the Government on behalf of his constituents. The Member simply cannot perform both functions. Therefore, the whole discussion of the high-tech, high touch type of evolvement through which we are going as espoused by Megatrend is applicable to his riding. I am somewhat surprised that rather than suggest ways of delivering a more personalized and effective type of representation he is trying to say that the status quo is okay.
In the Province of Quebec we would have looked at an increase of a minimum of four seats as a way of addressing the shortcomings of a growing impersonalized political landscape. 1 would urge the Member to join us in this debate and in our demands by allowing Canadians to join in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in these closing days before the parliamentary break, it is unfortunate that the House has such an undignified, hasty, and ill-thought of initiative as the one before us today in the form of the Government's proposed redistribution Bill. It stands in stark contrast to the noble efforts about which history tells us, namely, the fundamental fights that have gone on for proper forms of political representation.
Americans fought a revolution over the question of representation by population. Other countries have gone through great debates of philosophical and intellectual propriety on how to represent people, which is the fundamental base of any democratic system. But what does this Government do? It tinkers, it manipulates, it short shrifts, it short circuits and it provides closure. That shows to what extent the Government provides respect for the parliamentary political system.
This issue is critical to the dignity and stature of this House and the way it is seen and perceived. But what do we have? We have a Government that treats it as another ad hoc, capricious initiative fitting already into such a chaotic and unplanned parliamentary timetable that it has to use closure. The Government resorts to the unprecedented initiative of not working out an agreement between Members of all sides of the House, thus turning the issue into a partisan one.
That kind of approach will have a certain insidious result. People will no longer be able to have some sense of respect, trust or confidence that this motion on redistribution is a fair and equitable attempt to provide for effective representation across the country. People will see the approach more as another part of the Mulroney master plan to resurrect the Conservative Party in Canada. That is very dangerous, Mr. Speaker. I certainly have no argument against political Parties trying to advance their interests, but they should know when to do it and what issues to pick. There must be a time and place
December 17, 1985

in which partisan advantage is put aside and a more constructive all-Party non-partisan approach implemented.
That is not the way the Government thinks. The Conservatives polls are plummeting. The Government is looking toward the next election. No Government in the history of Canada has fallen faster in public esteem or confidence than this Government-


Mr. Mclnnes:: What about the Liberals in the last election?


Lloyd Axworthy: No Government has fallen faster in the first year of its mandate. The ratings have dropped in such a precipitous fashion that it is no wonder its back-benchers or newly elected Members are now considering what to do when they reach early retirement. They will fight and scrap for every marginal seat which they think they can acquire and, if they can do it through redistribution, all the better. That is the dominant message which comes through clearly in this particular piece of legislation. They are not concerned about the broader issues and questions about how the country will be represented in a federal system. They are not concerned about the roles of Members of Parliament. My colleague from Toronto talked eloquently about the changing roles of Members of Parliament, the services and the sense of responsiveness which must be acquired in this modern age. He was quite right. Whether one represents a rural riding, an urban riding or a downtown constituency, the demands and interests of people have changed. There is now an incredible overload in the system, an incredible sense of demand for response, information and assistance. I fundamentally believe that the Member of Parliament, in this day and age, in many ways replaces the roles of other institutions simply because of availability. The more we grow away from that principle, the more we attempt to cut the cloth of redistribution purely for political partisan advantage, the more the role is injured or deteriorated. Also it provides opportunity for skepticism and cynicism.
Let us look at the reasons for this legislation being brought forward. No one sees any reference to the critical importance of the role of a Member of Parliament, nor is there any reference to how it fits the future needs of our Confederation. 1 expect most Hon. Members of the House would have spent some time reading the report of the Macdonald Commission and its discussion about federal-provincial relations. It pointed out that other institutions were increasingly replacing Parliament as the forum for debate on national issues. We have almost institutionalized federal-provincial conferences of Premiers and Ministers. That tendency deteriorates and erodes the responsibility of every Member of the House. It is not helped by the way in which the Government treats Parliament with contempt. It treats Parliament as a place in which not to provide information or debate. We have asked, in all seriousness, for proper answers about the proposals on trade. What have we received from the other side? We have received jokes and buffoonery.
Representation Act, 1985


Mr. Hopkins:: Incivility.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, incivility, but we have not received any answers. The only places where the Ministers of the Government were prepared to address the free trade issue were in a speech in Chicago and in two speeches in New York. They were the only places from which we were able to obtain a broader interpretation of what they planned to do about this crucial issue. They do not involve Parliament in the debate; God forbid that Canadians should know what is going on! We get that kind of information from a wire service story out of New York. I suppose that reflects the basic disregard and disrespect for this institution. Nothing is more clear than the way in which the Government has approached the problem of redistribution.
Earlier the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) pointed to the area of northern Ontario which has a very special set of requirements and interest in Confederation. If the formula in the Bill is allowed to continue, over the years that part of Ontario will find its democratic rights severely eroded, almost abolished. That is not only true in that one part of the country. This goes back to my basic point-there has been no thought given to the consequences of the Bill. There has been no attempt to provide Hon. Members with any sense of what will be the repercussions of the legislation.
There was a series of committee meetings, but the Government brought in a brand new amendment at report stage, with no by your leave or attempt to relate it back to principles of representation and how regional responsibilities would be affected. Therefore, the only conclusion one can draw from that hasty and capricious initiative is that it was done purely for political advantage, because each day Government members saw their electoral advantage widowing away, disappearing and evaporating. Now they resort to the worst refuge of political scoundrels, that is, an attempt to manipulate the political basis of representation in order to gain some political advantage. That is the shame and tragedy of this piece of legislation. It really disrupts and undermines the principle, practice and tradition of the House of Commons which have existed for decades.
Perhaps, all said and done, it is worth-while, in that once again it will provide a good, clear example, if Canadians need another example, of what motivates the Government. It is not motivated by principle, practice or traditions; it is motivated by political advantage. Perhaps Canadians do not need that lesson brought home; there have been enough examples in the past several months to make the case as clear as possible. However, it is another example; perhaps the most grievous example of all. In this case the Government is reaching back into hundreds of years of traditions and eroding them. Perhaps that is what is most serious about it. It will have its just desserts, because Canadians basically understand that kind of political chicanery. No doubt the Government will pay the price. In that sense, I suppose in our own interest we should be applauding this kind of political manipulation, this abuse of parliamentary tradition. However, the fact of the matter is that Hon. Members on this side of the House feel strongly

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
about those traditions. That is why we believe and have brought in amendments-


Mr. Stewart:: What a joke!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I am glad Hon. Members opposite are amused when we talk about parliamentary tradition. Obviously it is a matter of great hilarity to them; obviously it is a matter which they treat with contempt and amusement. We do not treat it with amusement; we take it very seriously. This is why we made an effort, in a variety of debates at second reading, in committee and under closure, to try to convince them that this is not the time and place to resort to the street tactics which have been a hallmark of the Government. It is time to get out of the back alleys of political discourse and to try, for once, to do something which lives up to the standards, reputation and traditions of the House. Obviously it is too late. They have the bulldozer on and they are proceeding. All we can do is simply to use these last hours of debate to bring some once again the fundamental issue that this is not the kind of Bill which will provide any redemption for the Government. It is too late, but the Government might have shown some class, some style and some integrity by at least treating this matter with the kind of tradition and respect of the principles that it deserves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gar-neau), for questions or comments.


Raymond Garneau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for his remarks. Of course the Province of Manitoba will fare much like the Province of Quebec under the Bill now being considered, in the sense that Manitoba does not stand to gain seats or Members under Bill C-74, but worse still the number of constituencies will be frozen until the year 2001. That is a very long time. I would like to ask the Hon. Member how the people of his province react to this procedure whereby, in a partisan approach, a group of Members are attempting to force all parties to approve an electoral map such that redistribution will be frozen for 15, 16 or perhaps even 20 years.
We in Quebec will end up with 75 seats, whereas we were supposed to get 79. So we lost four seats. We agree that Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario should have more, but do Manitobans react the same way as Quebecers?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member properly points out that according to the formula that is being imposed, not only regions but provinces themselves will, in effect, have their rights and responsibilities denied for an extensive period of time.
Since September, 1984, as far as Conservative Members of Parliament from there are concerned, the people of Manitoba have become accustomed to the fact that they do not receive representation.


John Kenneth Gormley: You are one to talk about representation.


Lloyd Axworthy: In fact, I should point out that this morning I received a brochure that the Conservatives put out at their provincial convention in Brandon three weeks ago. That brochure listed 14 accomplishments of the Conservatives since they came to office in the Province of Manitoba. The only problem is that 13 of those were Liberal accomplishments. All the agreements and initiatives were started under our Government. Suddenly these are achievements which happened under the Conservative Government. In fact, I was surprised that they were able to list one achievement that we had not initiated.
The title of the pamphlet was: "What the media wouldn't tell you". Of course, the subtitle should be: "And what the Conservatives refuse to tell you". The accomplishments which they listed were projects that we initiated and implemented.
It is even more ironic that several of those were projects which the Conservatives cancelled or refused to implement. Obviously, the printer was in too great a hastle to distribute the brochure. However, the people of Manitoba have become accustomed to this.
The Province of Manitoba has its own demographics, with a very large city and a large rural area. Even with such a balance there is no attempt to provide additional seats as was originally proposed under the redistribution brought forward to Parliament in 1984. There will be no opportunity or flexibility to respond to the shift which is taking place within the province in regard to the change of population in the city and suburban areas. More particularly, certain rural areas have grown faster than others and certain parts of the City of Winnipeg have expanded. Therefore, this will mean a major disruption only of existing boundaries. We have pointed out that this leads ultimately to severe temptations for manipulation of those boundaries that are not based upon the classic formula or representation by population but by political judgment and advantage. That is what I believe concerns the people of Manitoba most deeply.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-74. However, I am keenly aware of the fact that this debate is taking place in the context of time allocation. The Government is forcing us to come to a decision at third reading stage of this Bill.
In addition, there is a proposal to refer the Bill back to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in order to consider the matter further. I will speak in support of that amendment which has been proposed by the Liberal Party as well as on the Government's actions and the greater issue which gives us reason to justify calling for further consideration of this matter before the committee. It must be considered further in order that there can be proper development
December 17, 1985

of the Constitution of Canada, of which the redistribution Act is a fundamental part.
Members of the Official Opposition have spoken much more than they did when this matter was under consideration in the committee. I suggest it is somewhat ironic that the Liberal Opposition has moved an amendment calling for further discussion in committee on this very important matter. The fact is that Liberal Members did not take much part in the committee deliberations and may well have blighted the possibility of dealing properly with this whole matter. Liberal Members, who should have been before the committee to deal with this crucial matter, were absent. Consequently, we see the posturing in the House which has been taking place recently. 1 believe more discussion is necessary, so why was this matter not kept before the committee and discussed adequately as it should have been? I suggest that the Official Opposition must bear some responsibility for the Bill being brought back to the House for report stage and third reading so quickly.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) did his best in the committee to raise the large issues that the legislation involves. He did his best to ensure that witnesses were brought before the committee and that there was sufficient discussion before the committee reported and the House considered third reading.
1 want to recognize the accomplishments that resulted from his work. The Bill has been amended to recognize the vital principle that redistribution should respect community of interest in ridings, that there should be appreciation of geographical factors that exist throughout the country which give a constituency a certain historical and social reality, and that the boundary changes that may be necessary should be carried out with care in due regard for these historical, geographic and economical considerations. These amendments came about as a result of vigorous representations by the Member for Churchill in the committee.
While I recognize those achievements, as a Member from northern Ontario, I would have liked the Bill to enshrine the principle of stability for a number of ridings in northern Ontario, as proposed by the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). However, I appreciate the fact that community of interest has been recognized.
The basic difficulty that faces us is that this Bill put forward by the Government scraps the work on redistribution done in preceding years and makes fundamental changes to the structure of representation which we have known for decades past all the way to Confederation. We have before us a Bill which is properly entitled amendments to the Constitution Act. It is a departure from such fundamental principles as the decision on the numerical basis of riding size being developed out of the Province of the Quebec and applied across the country. Beyond that, we have seen a deflation in the number of constituencies that will be added to the ridings of those provinces which have grown substantially since the preceding
Representation Act, 1985
census. They will not, in fact, experience the full increase in constituencies which they had expected. It is those two principles in particular that quite astonish me coming as they do from a Conservative Government which had a large electoral success in the Province of Quebec and then makes this fundamental change in our Constitution which carries through a certain kind of constitutional revolution.
My colleagues have wondered why Government members who represent Quebec ridings have not spoken on this matter as forcefully as they should have. My colleagues have asked a very good question. We in the New Democratic Party who represent northern Ontario spoke on second reading on this matter and put the issue forcefully for our ridings. We spoke forcefully on that matter quite early on and were pointing to some of the issues which were involved. At that point, there was little enough echoing of our sentiments from other parts of the House, and even now we see government Members quietly at work here in the House or in their offices without raising their voices. They clearly have not done so in caucus, or at least not to any effect, and they are not doing anything in the House to slow down the Government.
Looking at the rules that were applied to distribution in the Representation Act, 1974, we find that Subsection 51(1) of the British North America Act, 1867, was amended to read as follows:
The number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces therein shall upon the coming into force of this subsection and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following Rules:-
Rules 1 and 2 are the rules I wish to note in particular. Rule 1 reads as follows:
There shall be assigned to Quebec seventy-five members in the readjustment following the completion of the decennial census taken in the year 1971, and thereafter four additional members in each subsequent readjustment.
That provided a cornerstone for the distribution pattern of seats in the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I cannot seem to see the Hon. Member who is speaking. Thank you.


Abram Ernest Epp: Rule No. 2 of the Act, which is now being amended by the Bill before us, reads as follows:
Subject to Rules 5(2) and (3), there shall be assigned to a large province a number of members equal to the number obtained by dividing the population of the large province by the electoral quotient of Quebec.
In the following rules, there are provisions for small provinces and intermediate provinces, but it is quite clear that representation from Quebec with 75 Members, or 79 Members in recognition of the population growth in that vital province, was the very cornerstone of the distributional structure of the House of Commons.
What do we find in the new Bill that is before us, the Bill which we want to send back to committee for further consideration? We find that Rule 1 of Subsection 51(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is to be amended as follows:

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
There shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members equal to the number obtained by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and seventy-nine and by dividing the population of each province by the quotient so obtained, counting any remainder in excess of 0.50 as one after the said process of division.
This is the cancellation of a fundamental principle that has prevailed in Canadian Confederation since its very beginning. This is a declaration that the House of Commons shall contain about 280 Members and that the total population of the country shall be divided simply by the number 279 to arrive at a figure which will then be divided into the population of each of the provinces. Of course, in the next stage will come the further nuances which will be necessary to make the system work.
I marvel that a Government with the kind of strength it has in the Province of Quebec-or is it actually strength-would do a thing like that. I would say that a preceding Conservative Government, the one of 1957 to 1963 led by the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, was not known for having very much sensitivity to the aspiration of Quebec. To have had the Diefenbaker Government do a thing like this would not have astonished me at all. However, it seems quite astonishing that this Government would change the cornerstone of our system of representation which is based on the Province of Quebec and replace it with a numerical system which has one concern alone and that is to hold down the growth of the Canadian Parliament.
This concern over the growth of the House of Commons is supposedly based on the cost involved in increasing the size of the House of Commons. This leads us to wonder whether the expenditures we incur in representing our constituents are regarded as wasted money. If we were to facilitate the representation of people in isolated communities and make it easy for the citizens who live in my riding to be in touch with me, would it be money wasted? It seems to me that at some point, we would gain to move toward tyranny. What Conservative Members said many a time about the application of closure by the preceding Liberal Government is what Conservative Government members are in fact on the brink of doing. When they suggest that money spent for additional Members of Parliament who would provide good representation in money lost, they are not very far away from saying that all of our deliberations are rather a waste of money. I recognize, however, that that may be a long way away.
There have been seven impositions of closure in just a few weeks on matters that have had precious little debate in the House of Commons. We have a small Opposition which is using a six month hoist motion in order to renew its opportunity to debate these matters and keep them before the public so that we may discover whether or not the people of Canada are critical of measures the Government wants to put through. We see Government members reacting to these attempts to keep matters before the Canadian public in this way even though they themselves are past masters at it. When we see this Government, which has been in office only 15 months and
some days, acting in this kind of high-handed and authoritative manner, then surely everything Government members ever said to the last Liberal Government about tyrannical tendencies is fairly enough applied to them.
The consideration of fundamental changes to our Constitution is being pushed through by closure. This is happening because Government members seem to think that, somehow or other, adding to the number of Members of the House will waste the money of the public. At the same time, the Government presumes to sweep away the work already done by commissions and to spend more money developing redistribution that results from its feelings. What is one to say about a Government that behaves that way?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Orders of the Day are called later on this day, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) will have five minutes left in his debate and ten minutes left for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party seems to be getting more ineffective by the day, as we hear more about the unfortunate exploits of these powerless unknowns.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House some comments allegedly made by the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) at the official opening of the indoor parking garage at Dorval Airport, the same day it was announced that Toyota had decided to set up its plant in Ontario.
The Minister of State for Transport indicated that she had been aware for some time that Toyota would be going to Ontario. If that was the case, why didn't she say so to her caucus? Why didn't she say so to the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), who had people's hopes raised when he promised that Toyota would be coming to Brossard? Why did she let the Conservative caucus move its unanimous resolution to bring Toyota to Quebec, if she had already known for some time that Toyota was going to Ontario?
December 17, 1985

The Cabinet could not care less about the Conservative Members from Quebec. In fact, it is far more easily influenced by the non-elected friends of the Prime Minister who meet at the Ritz than by those illustrious unknowns, elected when their leader's popularity crested, but it won't last.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Transport explained Toyota's decision, pointing out that the automobile industry was already located in Southwestern Ontario and that it was therefore perfectly natural and normal for Toyota to go to Ontario. These remarks by a Minister who is more interested in trips to Europe than in getting jobs for Quebec have demonstrated once again that she does not belong in Cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last January, Weston and McGavin, two large bakeries in Saskatchewan, started a price war which threatened to put smaller local bakeries out of business. Bread which normally sold at $1.05 a loaf retail was being sold at only 58 cents a loaf and sometimes as low as nine cents a loaf. This appeared to be a clear case of predatory pricing designed to intimidate small bakeries, to drive them out of business and, in the long run, to drive up the price of bread.
However, after an investigation, the Director of Investigation and Research in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ruled that this price-cutting did not constitute predatory pricing. According to the Director, "the wholesale prices of the major bakeries covered their variable costs at all times". Given this ruling, McGavin recently followed Weston's lead and increased the price of bread in rural areas by 13 cents to 15 cents a loaf, bringing the current price to between 95 cents and $ 1.29 a loaf.
With the price of both wheat and sugar down, and with recent wage settlements falling behind the current rate of inflation, there is no good evidence of increased input costs. Until Weston and McGavin produce evidence which legitimately supports these price increases, Canadians can only conclude that they are being gouged by unfair pricing practices while the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) stands idly by.
If 58 cents was found to cover the variable costs of these bakeries last year, why must consumers bear these large price increases this year?


FORESTRY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday at Laval University, I had the pleasure of announcing, on behalf of the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), the names of 13 students who were awarded a scholarship for studies in forestry under the Canadian Forestry Service's Human Resources Program. The total value of these scholarships is $150,800. In Canada this year, 50 students will each be receiving $11,600 under this program.
The Canadian Forestry Service promotes research in Canadian universities offering a master's degree and Ph.D. in this subject. The Service's Human Resources Program also offers practical training periods for students, university grants, R&D contracts for universities and training for Service staff.
The Canadian Forestry Service is trying to improve our schools of forestry and attract more students to this area. To this end, it has increased the grants paid to each of the six schools from $48,000 in 1982 to $381,000 this year. I am very proud to be part of a Government that is concerned about the future of our forests and that also recognizes the importance of providing first-class training for our future forestry experts, to ensure the prosperity of this sector. We must not forget that it includes Canada's most important industry.
This program, with the $150 million provided under the Canada-Quebec agreement on forestry development-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


EDUCATION
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the recent success of Quebec candidates in the chartered accountants' examination. There is now a standard final examination throughout Canada whose purpose is to assess the professional judgment of candidates and their ability to make sound recommendations based on the aptitude to analyze and synthe-tize which a C.A. is expected to have.
Fifteen of the first 20 candidates who successfully passed the final examination were Quebecers. Better still, eight of the first ten were also from Quebec City. All told, Mr. Speaker, 678 young men and women from Quebec passed the final examination. Given such an achievement, no wonder Quebec has

December 17, 1985
experienced an economic renewal in recent years. Like their predecessors in this profession, they will continue to serve the business, industrial and agricultural communities, as well as the public and near-public sectors.
Mr. Speaker, all these young people will help to protect the interests of Quebecers and serve the community.
Having passed the examination, C.A. candidates will have to undertake a two-year stage with a firm of chartered accountants duly accredited for such training.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the 678 Quebec candidates who passed the examination and, more particularly, the 15 young men and women who ranked among the first 20 in Canada.


TRANSPORT
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to bring to the attention of the Government a resolution which the Canadian Dump Truckers Federation passed recently at a metting in Moncton, New Brunswick. The Truckers Federation is very concerned that haul rates on federal Government contracts do not conform to prevailing rates set by provincial Departments of Transport or Highways. The fact is that the federal Government does not have a minimum haul rate for dump trucks on federal projects. The absence of a minimum haul rate means that contractors on federal projects take advantage of the truckers they engage on the contract by offering them less than the prevailing provincial rate.
This is not a revolutionary request. The Government is requested simply to agree to the minimum provincial rates existing in each province when it tenders out contracts. I ask the Government to eliminate this predatory pricing situation which exists because of the lack of firm guidelines.
The establishment of a minimum haul rate on federal government contracts would stabilize the trucking industry and prevent the bickering and predatory pricing which are now sabotaging the trucking industry.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, holding the line on government expenditures in the name of deficit reduction can be a dangerous business. The Inspector General of Banks has stated that Treasury Board prevented him from obtaining the staff he needed in the late 1970s to deal with a much enlarged banking system in Canada. Mr. Kennett sough 11 new people in the 1984-85 fiscal year but was given only
four. He sought to hire 14 more this year but was only allowed nine. "As recently as last June", he says, "we received a missile from the Treasury Board suggesting we reduce our staff over the next couple of years".
Only after the Canadian Commercial and Northland Banks had failed, at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars, did Treasury Board authorize an increase in the Inspector General's staff.
In the same week the Great Lakes region is reported to be the most contaminated in North America but the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) finds himself "subject to government restraint" and unable to fund more research. He is unable to fund the Toxicology Research Centre at Guelph which the Government scrapped last year when it slashed $46 million from the budget of Environment Canada. Meanwhile, his Department works on the terrifying problems of cleaning up the St. Clair River.
How large will the cost be in dollars and, perhaps, in lives, because of deficit reduction applied to the Department of the Environment?


RADIO-CANADA ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT NEWS SERVICE ON UPPER NORTH SHORE
Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a lot of pride and enthusiasm that, last Sunday evening in Forestville, the people of the Upper North Shore welcomed the official announcement by Mr. Pierre Juneau, President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that there will be a permanent news service of Radio-Canada in the region.
This was certainly good news as all members of the social and economic community of the area had been requesting it for nearly fifteen years.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should applaud the management of the CBC, its President, Mr. Pierre Juneau, and the Minister of Communications, the Hon. Marcel Masse, for being so sensitive to the needs of a region which is certainly disadvantaged as far as communications, information and an accurate portrayal of its difficult way of life are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, the regional services of Radio-Canada provide much more than critical and factual information. They are first and foremost a great agent for social and economic development.
They are also a powerful agent for dialogue and the motivator for an improved sense of identity.
In Forestville Sunday evening, Mr. Speaker, we indeed felt a greater sense of our identity as Canadians when we heard the words: "Ici Radio-Canada, Haute Cote-Nord".
December 17, 1985

[DOT] (MIO)


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention some more good news about the economy. According to data published this week by Statistics Canada, our total commodity exports in the third quarter of 1985 increased $460 million over last year's figures for the same period.
More recently, in October, our commodity exports were valued at nearly $11 billion, with $8.5 billion going to the United States. As far as our balance of commodity trade in concerned, we have a surplus of $2,353 billion with the United States.
Spurred on by increased shipments of coal and refined petroleum products, exports continued to rise in October 1985, reaching a record level of $10.9 billion. This is an increase of 2.1 per cent over September and the third consecutive monthly increase.
Considering the size of our domestic market, Canadians are far more dependent than Americans on foreign markets for exports of goods and services. In fact, exports of goods and services as a percentage of our gross national product are three times the percentage attained in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, here we have the positive results of policies initiated by the Conservative Government that have helped to stimulate the Canadian economy.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the city of Niagara Falls, New York, is home to several toxic dump sites. The City is already four months behind in meeting a Federal Court request for a clean-up schedule. Now City Council has rejected the recommendation by City staff to hire a consultant to help and develop a clean-up plan. Why? The consultant's fees would drive up water rates. This act of political cowardice is indicative of the lack of political will to find a solution of how to clean up the dump sites. The lack of political will does not stop at the Canada-U.S. border, though; it is contagious and has infected the present Tory Government.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) refuses to let Canadians know the contents of an American plan to clean up the toxic dumps, a two-month old document which is public in the U.S. Indeed, the Minister will not go even so far as to express an opinion on the contents of the plan. Decisions affecting Canadians are being made behind closed doors, keeping the Canadian people in the dark. I urge the Minister of the Environment to come clean with the Canadian people and tell them what he thinks about the U.S. plan to clean up the dumps, what he intends to do about the shortcomings in
Oral Questions
the plan, and how he intends to convince the Americans that extraction and destruction of the toxic materials are better than containment, and that action should start in the immediate future.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1974 the Liberals embarked on a bail-out of de Havilland which was in grave financial trouble. The Liberals ignored all advice and moved ahead with their pipe dream, a dream which was to see an ever increasing role for Government in the market-place through the setting up of hundreds of Crown corporations. Along with their bosom buddies from the NDP, they endeavoured to teach the business world a lesson. They appointed new managers at de Havilland and opened wide the taxpayers' purse. After pouring in $830 million of taxpayers' money it was obvious that they had failed miserably, de Havil-land's long-term survival was in jeopardy.
Now, through my Government's move to privatize de Havilland, the future of the company and its workers looks bright. The Official Opposition seems to have lost touch with the mood of Canadians. Canadians know that privatization costs the taxpayers less and means more jobs. The Ontario Liberals know this. They are trying to sell UTDC and other Crown corporations. The Quebec Liberals have just appointed a Minister of State for Privatization.
We, the Progressive Conservatives, acted to stop the haemorrhage of public funds and ensure the survival of de Havilland. We acted to save hundreds of jobs. We keep our promises, and Canadian taxpayers recognize that fact.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister who, according to the House Leader, should be here shortly, I will put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Even he, who has a talent for secrecy, should have recognized that the handling of the de Havilland affair by the Government has been deplorable, even by the Government's own standards.
No thanks to the Government, we have obtained a copy of the secret prospectus which was given to prospective purchasers of de Havilland. It confirms that the Government has been spreading misinformation about the deal.

December 17, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister once more whether the Government will come clean to the shareholders of de Havilland, they being the people of Canada. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, who has just entered the House-


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister has just asked the House Leader what this is all about. I want to tell him. We want the documents, the acquisition agreement, the memorandum of understanding, and the secret prospectus given to prospective purchasers in the de Havilland deal.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has quite rightly been asking for details about this deal. We have been very forthcoming with that information.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What a statement.


Robert René de Cotret: At the time the Government made the announcement we made available to all Members of the House a summary of the memorandum of understanding, a summary of the letter of intent, background material on de Havilland, and background material on Boeing. Since then I have answered questions on price, book value, tax limitations, credit notes, world product mandates, government equity, royalties, product liability insurance, corporate liabilities, government programs and access thereto, Canadian government content, supplier development, R and D, insurance, new investment, and technology. What more do you want?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROJECTED LOSSES AND PROFITS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is once again risking his reputation in responding to these questions. He has repeatedly said in the House that the reason for selling de Havilland is that it will lose $200 million next year. The prospectus we have, which was prepared by Burns Fry, Merrill Lynch, and S. G. Warburg of London, England, and sent to all prospective purchasers of de Havilland, proves that this is simply not true. The prospective loss for 1986 was not $200 million, but $14 million. The prospective profit for 1987 was $5 million; for 1988, $16 million; and for 1989, $27 million, for a total of $48 million. Would the Minister be good enough to reconcile his version to the House with what the prospectus to potential purchasers said?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer as I have been throughout the last few weeks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Tell the truth.


Robert René de Cotret: The estimates that were received from the Department responsible and from the company in question indicated potential losses for the coming year of between $50 million and $75 million-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You said $200 million.


Robert René de Cotret: -and the necessity of injecting a further $125 million in equity, which meant a cash loss to the Treasury, the CRF as you well know it is called, of $200 million for the coming fiscal year.


Ms. Copps:: That's nonsense.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, either we have a misleading Minister or a misleading prospectus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I think the Minister and the Government ought to come clean and table in Parliament all the relevant documents so that we can make our own judgment about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the document, under the title Acquisition Opportunities, cites a number of advantages, including these two:
The availability of Government support for development projects under existing funding mechanisms-
That is promised to the prospective purchaser. The second
is:
The prospect that the Canadian Government will continue to support the company.
Will the Minister explain what these two advantages really mean?


Robert René de Cotret: 1
have said time and time again, Mr. Speaker, that de Havilland, under Boeing ownership, will be eligible for all existing government programs as any other Canadian corporation would be eligible. 1 cannot go much further than that-


Mr. Deans:: How much will that cost the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the CRF?


Robert René de Cotret: The company is eligible for those programs as is every other company. I have said that before.
In terms of continuing support, I think this Government has proven over the last 15 months that it supports every company in Canada that has embarked upon growth, job creation, new investment and development. We will continue supporting companies of that kind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 17, 1985


CORPORATION'S LAND HOLDINGS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. The public and the media have been under the impression that de Havilland owned 54 acres of land in Downsview. The prospectus indicates that it owns 96 acres, and that de Havilland may have purchased from the Government an additional 54 acres, which are worth an additional $60 million at least. Just how much land is there included in this deal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to get the exact number for the Hon. Member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Give it to us now.


Robert René de Cotret: 1 can only tell the Hon. Member that $60 million is way out of the ballpark; it is nowhere close to that. 1 will though ensure that the Member gets the exact number of acres.


REFERENCE TO MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I want to ask the Minister about a statement, the most serious statement in the prospectus, namely, the suggestion that the purchaser of de Havilland will have the availability of manufacturing its products in developing countries. What does that mean? That is exactly what it says.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have responded on a number of occasions-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What is its world product mandate?


An Hon. Member:: Which question are you asking?


Mr. Nielsen:: Who is that masked man?


Robert René de Cotret: A world product mandate, Mr. Speaker, 1 think I tried to explain that to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition a few weeks ago, means that de Havilland of Canada has the sole right to produce its existing line of products for sale anywhere in the world.


M. Deans:: It has that now.


Robert René de Cotret: It means we are retaining our technology and what is properly ours and we have the availability to sell it world-wide, a much wider market-place, and with better expertise than ever before.


UNION SHAREHOLDER'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa). Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Has he been
Oral Questions
made aware of a telegram sent to the Prime Minister concerning the fact that the UAW is a minority shareholder in de Havilland, and requesting as a minority shareholder that the UAW's rights to certain information be upheld with respect to information that has not been provided yet in the House of Commons? Could the Minister tell us whether he has been made aware of the content of that telegram, and has the information requested by the UAW been made available to the UAW?
Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the fact that the UAW is a minority shareholder in the company. It owns one share.


Ian Deans: Who is looking after its interests?


Robert René de Cotret: What we are doing in that instance is selling our shares. We are not selling the UAW's share.
I am not aware of the specific content of the telegram. The UAW has not been made privy to information that has not been made available to all those in this House who have been asking questions about this deal.


Mr. Broadbent:: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the Government will hear more directly from the UAW or from its lawyers. I will, however, leave that for a moment.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION-EFFECT ON HOUSE BUSINESS
John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the important right of access by Members of Parliament to documentation relevant to the de Havilland sale. The Prime Minister just before Question Period turned down a suggestion for a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and myself to work out a schedule for the remaining days of this week.
In terms of the mandate which will be given to his House Leader to negotiate that timetable, will he make it clear that in that will be all details pertinent to the de Havilland sale? Will that be on the negotiating table in terms of sorting out the schedule of debates for the rest of this week?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting to which my hon. friend refers is one which is properly conducted by House Leaders in the normal course of events. The proposition put forward by my hon. friend is a most unusual one. With regard to the de Havilland deal, this Party, not unlike my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, who campaigned for the leadership of the Liberal Party on a program of divesting himself of Crown corporations, and now changes his mind-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: But retaining control in this country.

December 17, 1985
Oral Questions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Back to Baie Comeau.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This Party-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Boeing, Boeing!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This Party campaigned clearly on a program of divesting the Government of Canada in those circumstances, which is appropriate, of those kinds of holdings. We sought a mandate from-


Some Hon. Members:: Sh-h-h!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is the air going out of the Liberal Party. We sought a mandate-


Some Hon. Members:: Sh-h-h!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Some of them have more air than others, I will acknowledge that.


John Napier Turner: Not as much hot air.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Not during Question Period.


John Napier Turner: I would like to rise on a question of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader knows full well that we take questions of order-


An Hon. Member:: Read the rules, John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: After Question Period 1 will rise on a question of order concerning the statement of the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: That is fine.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I hope he stays here and listens to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions of order and privilege are normally taken at the end of Question Period.


HOUSE LEADERS' NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has suggested that this is to be negotiated with the House Leaders. I say to him that our House Leader has requested this three times and has yet to receive an answer. Considering that the Prime Minister campaigned on openness in government, will he assure the House that before we recess his House Leader will negotiate with the other House Leaders the right of Parliament to have access to all pertinent information on the de Havilland deal? Will he give us that assurance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we campaigned and we obtained a mandate from the people of Canada to do precisely what we are in the process of doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not to give it away.


Martin Brian Mulroney: While I doubt if there is a more forthcoming Member of the House of Commons than the distinguished House Leader of the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -who meets regularly with the House Leaders of the other Parties, which is why so much effective legislation has passed in this Parliament,-


An Hon. Member:: Ray for Leader.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I can say that the Government House Leader is ready and delighted to meet with his vis-a-vis at any time and with regard to-


An Hon. Member:: His vis-a-vis'!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition said that he would stand to make a point of order. Some of his best points have come when he has been sitting down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PROJECTED GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is either confused or he is misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: The Minister has said repeatedly that additional income is going to be needed for de Havilland. I want to ask him why the prospectus says: "No additional equity funds are assumed beyond 1985". Will the Minister stand in his
December 17, 1985

place and tell us why there is this contradiction between his statement in the House and that in the prospectus?


An Hon. Member:: Come clean.


Robert René de Cotret: will come clean. It is very clear. We expect to close the deal by December 31 of this year and there will be no further capital injections or equity injections from the Crown thereafter. That is one of the reasons behind the whole purpose of this deal. It is to ensure that we stop sinking hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money into de Havilland every year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister continues to distort the facts and distort the House of Commons on the true value of what-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask the Hon. Member simply to withdraw that assertion and finish his question.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will oblige your ruling and withdraw. My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, if he has the intestinal fortitude and the guts to answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: In view of his promise that Parliament would review the transaction with relation to de Havilland, will he not agree to table the memorandum of understanding so that the distortions and misleading facts that the President of the Treasury Board is portraying-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Next question. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


ROYALTY PAYMENTS BY BOEING CORPORATION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. His Party did in fact campaign on a promise to keep de Havilland and Cana-dair in Crown ownership, in Canadian hands.


Some Hon. Members:: No way.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We now read in the pages of The Financial Times that Boeing will not be required to pay a nickel in royalty on the sale of Dash-8s until 400 Dash-8s have been sold. Furthermore, the sum that Boeing may have to pay in royalties will be no more than $22 million, considering $400 or $500 million in development costs have been paid by the taxpayers.
Does the Prime Minister believe it is appropriate that we in Parliament should have to learn such details of the deal, such
Oral Questions
as how much is payable in royalties, through the press rather than having it tabled in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a very long question.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had cared to ask the question I would have been more than happy to answer it. The royalty arrangements, which I mentioned in the House before, apply to the Dash-8 after plane 400 to the tune of $225,000 per plane, and apply to the Dash-7 after plane 122 to the tune of $225,000 per plane. To date we have deliveries and firm orders of 107 planes with respect to the Dash-7 and 51 with respect to the Dash-8.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Do we have to go through this strip-tease day after day in order to get information from the Government? Why cannot Parliament have all of the information, refer it to a parliamentary committee and bring before us the people from CDIC, de Havilland and Boeing to find out whether or not this deal is good for Canada and good for Canadians?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, let me preface my answer by saying once again that it is a good deal for Canada, a good deal for Canadians, and a good deal for the employees of de Havilland.


Ian Deans: Give us the details.


Robert René de Cotret: As far as making all of the details of the deal available, that question has been asked time and time again and answered time and time again. When the final negotiations are completed all of the details of the deal will be made available in the appropriate forum-


Some Hon. Members:: Too late.


Robert René de Cotret: -at the appropriate time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Last Friday, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition regarding the impact of deregulation of the airline industry in the United States on safety and maintenance, the Minister of Transport stated that there was no evidence to suggest that safety and maintenance have been affected by U.S. airline deregulation.
Is the Minister aware of a recent survey of 1,200 American airline pilots which concludes that two-thirds of those pilots believe that safety and maintenance standards have been reduced since the introduction of U.S. airline deregulation?

December 17, 1985
Oral Questions
Would he not agree that such a finding underlines the necessity for the Standing Committee on Transport to study U.S. airline deregulation before the Minister proceeds with his own legislation to deregulate our Canadian airline industry in the new year?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the record and the statistics that have been released as far as safety in the United States is concerned.
In terms of fatalities per million passengers, there has been an improvement of about 20 per cent between 1979 and 1984 in the United States. In terms of fatalities per billion revenue passengers there has been an improvement by approximately 26 per cent.
While I am on my feet, perhaps it is time that the Hon. Member and other Members, particularly those who write editorials, reread the document Freedom to Move wherein it states very categorically: "I would like to indicate unequivocally that this Government will neither propose nor permit any economic regulatory reform that might be detrimental to safety standards". That is the policy of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister does not cite 1985 figures when we have had 1,900 fatalities, a record in the history of aviation in this country.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE EXAMINE SITUATION IN UNITED STATES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that in addition to the U.S. survey of pilots, both the Canadian Airline Pilots Association and the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association expressed serious reservations about the Minister's proposed package on deregulation of the airline industry in this country? Why will he not allow the Standing Committee on Transport to help him keep Canada's airline industry one of the safest in the world by letting us examine the U.S. experience south of our border before we proceed with deregulation in this country? Will he do the responsible thing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken a responsible course of action. It recently passed Bill C-36, amending the Aeronautics Act which had not been amended since 1919. It improves the power of the Minister to detain aircraft that are unsafe or likely to be operated in an unsafe manner; gives power to suspend immediately any licence relating to aviation where continuing to allow the holder to operate the licence would create a safety hazard; power to enter the aircraft on premises; enhanced power to make regulations concerning air-worthiness; power to regulate design, manufacture and maintenance, and power to make regulations to license personnel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! More, more!


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CANADIAN LANDING RIGHTS FOR AIRLINES UNDER INVESTIGATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Minister of Transport, concerns the same topic. The previous questioner indicated what the American pilots said. One even said that deregulation and cheap airfares will be paid for in blood.
Will the Minister immediately withdraw landing or route rights in Canada from any foreign commercial or charter airline that is under investigation or has been fined, until his Department is notified that that airline has received a clean bill of health from the regulatory agencies of the foreign countries governing such matters?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member poses quite a question. Inherent in his question is a premature decision that the accident that occurred was a direct result of the practice of deregulation in the United States of America, and his question implies that that is the reason for other accidents. That has not been clearly established. I wish the Hon. Member would wait until the CASB at least brings forth a preliminary report on the causes of this unfortunate accident.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On his second chance, I hope the Minister will deal with the question.


REQUEST THAT DEREGULATION BE POSTPONED IN CANADA
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that particular airline negotiated a fine of $38,000, half of what it is liable for. It is still under investigation by the FAA. American Airlines just paid a one and a half million dollar fine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the Minister heed these warnings and experiences from Canadian and American pilots and air traffic controllers, and not proceed any further with deregulation of air transportation or any other mode until the Transport Committee has been given authorization to conduct further hearings in Canada and the United States and report back to the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member knows my commitment to safety very well. I think it is very clear that my record is as good as that of anyone in the House. It was under my leadership that the Dubin inquiry was commissioned, an inquiry from which many of the proposals that have been enacted flowed, and I might add that that has contributed enormously to the safety of aviation in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 17, 1985


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Consistent with that approach, I will always entertain any measure or initiative that would improve on that course of action. However, when Hon. Members rise in the House to suggest that they haven't had sufficient time to deal with the document entitled Freedom to Move while the attendance of Liberal members at the committee was less than 50 per cent, then they really have no room to argue. At least the Hon. Member across the way attended the meetings 87 per cent of the time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's a lie, Maz. That's a lie and you know it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I've got the figures right here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It's going to be a difficult enough week. Order, please.


John Napier Turner: You got yourself a real problem.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I've got the figures, Maz.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister recently issued a five-year plan for the National Research Council. As we are moving toward enhanced trade with the United States, and given the importance of research and development, how will the NRC's five-year plan help Canadian business, and particularly small business, to be more competitive in the tough U.S. market?


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Order Paper.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That's a good question.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the sensitivity of my hon. colleague and friend to the fact that any future improvement in our economy and industrial growth will depend very much on research and development of newer, modern, state of the art industrial technology and, indeed, the application of such technologies. This is a priority of the Government and this priority is reflected in the five-year plan of the Research Council. We should anticipate that our industry, particularly the small-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This should be under Statements.
Oral Questions CULTURAL AFFAIRS


OWNERSHIP OF BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. According to this morning's news, Ambassador Niles has said that ownership of book publishing is not a major cultural issue and that it is an item to be on the free trade negotiating table. Does the Minister not agree that if the United States Ambassador, who lives right across the street from the House of Commons, does not understand how our communications policy works and does not understand our book publishing policy, Canadians can only conclude that the Government is saying publicly that it will control its own cultural industries while saying another thing to the American Ambassador right here in Canada? My question is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: Is book publishing on the table or not? [Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal Government will be meeting some time in February or early March. Yesterday, there was a meeting of deputy Ministers to discuss this matter, and to my knowledge, only representatives of provincial Governments and the Government of Canada are invited to attend the meeting.


MEETING WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIAL
Sheila Finestone: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is the Minister not embarrassed and ashamed, first because he did not answer the question, and particularly because he knows that tomorrow morning there will be a meeting between the Minister of Trade and the American Minister of Trade, Mr.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. A substantive question, please?


Sheila Finestone: Is the Minister not ashamed that Clayton Yeutter will meet tomorrow morning to discuss book publishing and putting it on the negotiating table?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me whether there was a meeting or not. The provinces and the Government of Canada will be meeting, and to my knowledge, no one from the U.S. Government has been invited to take part. So, we will have Canadians defining policies for Canadians.

December 17, 1985
Oral Questions


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a letter sent to the Premier of Ontario which commits the federal Government to brief the Government of Ontario in advance of any announcement of the sale of de Havilland. Why was this not done given that the Prime Minister signed the letter which was sent to the Premier?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the question is addressed to me, I want to tell my hon. friend that indeed, in advance of the sale, I had a conversation with Premier Peterson and it was agreed that all of the details available to-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What were you doing with him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East asks what I was doing with Premier Peterson. We were speaking of her, what else?


Mr. McDermid:: And is he ever relieved that you're up here.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I won't tell you what he said.
I then asked the President of the Treasury Board to meet with Mr. O'Neil, the Trade Minister from the Government of Ontario, and I believe that was done on the Thursday or Friday of the Halifax conference in advance of any public announcement. As I indicated that we would brief the Government of Ontario fully, we did in advance of the transaction.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I must say that that is certainly at odds with what the Premier has said. However, I cannot say.
Let me ask the Prime Minister a question on a related matter. Why is it that we cannot see the documents to which the President of the Treasury Board constantly refers and from which he constantly reads? Why can we not have the documents now before the sale is completed in order that we can make a proper evaluation of the sale, as we are required to do?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again that we are working toward concluding this transaction by December 31 and as soon as the transaction is concluded and as soon as the final details are arrived at, we will make all the details available in the proper time and in the proper forum.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Last Friday when he was asked about recent directives to cut Government programs, and in particular employment programs by $200 million, he said the following:
-we asked the departments to reduce their daily operational spending by an additional amount, to ensure that funds not spent at the end of the year are saved to keep the deficit... at a tolerable level-
How can the Minister justify any cut in funds for employment programs when the national rate of unemployment is still at 10.2 per cent, for youth it is 16.2 per cent, for Atlantic Canada it is 15.9 per cent, and for British Columbia it is 14.5 per cent? How can he justify any cuts in employment programs when that situation still exists?
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the directives were quite clear. We are trying to protect the lapse and, as the Hon. Member well knows, every year there is a significant lapse in most Departments and we take very seriously our commitment as a Government to establish through sound financial management a better deficit position with a deficit that is on the way down rather than up. These directives had the purposes of ensuring that the lapses that were predicted for this year were in fact going to carry through.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that it is the practice to recoup the lapses in the last two months of the fiscal year and not in the middle of the fiscal year. Is this not really an attempt to find money to pay for the bank bail-outs? Again, I ask the Minister how he can justify cuts to the employment programs when there is the unacceptably high level of unemployment?
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that the Hon. Member would talk about high levels of unemployment and job creation. In the last 15 months we have created on average more than 9,000 jobs per month in Quebec and 416,000 jobs across the country. We have been working on jobs, jobs, jobs, as we promised throughout the election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 17, 1985


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister has received complaints that new CNR tariffs favour U.S. routes which connect central Canada to the Pacific. Port of Vancouver companies and unions estimate that this will cut Canadian container traffic by 50 per cent and that it will account for the loss of hundreds of Canadian jobs. Does the Minister believe that a railway which is owned by the Canadian people should favour U.S. routes over Canadian routes and be allowed to undermine a port which, as he knows, is already involved in a life and death struggle to survive?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member is concerned, as I am, about the diversion of traffic. I think she will also recognize that CN has had a long history of support for the Port of Vancouver. The fact of the matter is that there has been a tremendous diversion of traffic into the United States, and the CNR was being locked out of that traffic in any event. The CNR thought it most appropriate at least to compete for that traffic and obtain a bit of it.
I think the Hon. Member is also aware of the problems with respect to the destuffing clause, which affects containers in the Port of Vancouver. I am pleased that the ILWU and the BCMEA resumed negotiations today, I believe. I hope they will be able to resolve this matter because I think it is central and critical to the whole problem.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF COMPANY'S POLICY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that a railway which is owned by the people of Canada should be involved in this type of matter? It is really taking away Canadian business and Canadian jobs. Will the Minister undertake a review of this policy which is followed by the CNR? Will he also include an assessment of the effect that future deregulation will have on jobs in the Canadian transportation industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Hon. Member that I have indeed taken this matter up with officials of CN. I repeat, this diversion of traffic was occurring on U.S. lines. There is an affiliate in the United States with which it can compete. As long as the market is such as it is, I think it is in the best interests of CN, at least, to obtain its share of the traffic. Hopefully we can resolve some of the other outstanding issues which will put CN and the American railways on a more equal footing.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the port?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The legislation flowing out of Freedom to Move will clearly help that process very much.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Upon review, his department has found that an estimated $400 million worth of surplus property could be put up for sale. Could the Minister inform the House whether the disposal of these federal properties will result both in savings for the public Treasury and investment by the private sector?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, you will probably recall that about fifteen months ago, the Auditor General was almost offensive in his comments on the way Crown assets were administered.
In view of the circumstances, and I am sure all Members of this House will be delighted with the news, we started by selling $36 million worth of surplus property, which means a savings of $5 million in taxes and maintenance, and, as we had hoped, has led to about $2.5 billion worth of investment by the private sector, for the greater benefit of all Canadians.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This morning, people representing some 500 community groups were here on Parliament Hill. Can the Minister confirm that according to internal directives from her department, which I have here, the maximum duration of training projects submitted by community agencies is limited to 24 weeks or less, and that this is the result of a $16 million cutback in the training budget for the Montreal region?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no. Whatever information the Hon. Member has is not correct. Some 71 per cent of the proposals which have been submitted thus far under the Canadian Jobs Strategy in the Province of Quebec have been submitted by community groups. That is a much higher percentage than from any other type of organization within the province. However, our commitment under the Canadian Jobs Strategy is to help those who are most in need. Therefore, the work that we will be doing is particularly directed to those who

December 17, 1985
Oral Questions
are long-term unemployed-the people who need the help most.


DEPARTMENTAL POLICY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refuses to answer our questions. She refers continually to the number of applications. 1 have in my hand a directive from her Department which indicates clearly that community groups are being discriminated against as a result of the policies of her Department. Will she tell us why she asked community groups to submit projects for a period of up to 52 weeks when internal departmental directives indicate to project officers that they are to limit approvals to 24 weeks? Will she explain this in the House and will she explain it to the press?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Hon. Member is totally confused about the whole Canadian Jobs Strategy.


Mr. Crosbie:: As usual.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is really too bad for the people who reside in his constituency. If he is not able to meet with representatives of the Department of Employment and Immigration and get the facts straight, I do not know how he will be able to inform the people who lives in his riding. We will undertake to inform them directly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of last week's shocking murder of a Guatemalan refugee, Beatriz Barrios Marroquin, and also of the many urgent pleas of responsible Canadians and their encouragement, will the Minister now reconsider and revoke her regulation which requires Guatemalans to have visas before they can enter Canada if they wish to make a refugee application?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government we certainly want to express our outrage at this brutal murder which occurred. However, I would like to take this opportunity to point to the Hon. Member that this woman applied for her visa to Canada on November 29 and it was granted on December 6. The reason she could not leave Guatemala was because she required an exit visa from the Guatemalan Government, which she was not able to obtain until December 10. She was brutally murdered that evening.
While this is a terrible incident, and we are outraged over it, it was not as a result of any lack of speed or processing on the part of the Canadian Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Canadians of Greek origin are most concerned that CF-104 aircraft, partly paid for by their tax dollars, may be used against Greeks in Cyprus. Can the Minister advise the House what safeguards, if any, there are in place to ensure that these aircraft will never be used in Cyprus?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this equipment was offered to Turkey under a NATO agreement. The southern-tier countries of Turkey, Greece and Portugal were offered this equipment at the same time. The condition under which they were accepted by Turkey is that they be used to bolster that country's NATO role. 1 understand that these aircraft will be based in the southeastern part of Turkey, that is, near the Turkey-Iran border, and that they will be nowhere near the Turkey-Greece border, or Cyprus.


PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Ciaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister told Gulf workers that Gaz Metropolitain had not made a serious offer to purchase the Montreal Gulf refinery. Gaz Metropolitain President Pierre Martin later denied that statement.
Here is my question, Mr. Speaker: Can the Prime Minister tell us why he tried to mislead the Gulf refinery workers and discredit Gaz Metropolitain management?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What a stupid thing to say! It is a stupid comment as usual, considering I had an opportunity to meet personally with the Montreal petrochemical workers who commented on the attempts of the Liberal Member to politicize every file he can lay his hands, on. Ah! That is now well known in the House of Commons.
The fact is that-
December 17, 1985


Carlo Rossi: Repeat that outside the House!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I may have a nasal problem, Mr. Speaker, but I can smell a rat-right over there.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it was Premier Bourassa who said Friday that Gaz Metropolitan was to make a new and more generous offer in this case.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Friday, December 13, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
[ Translation]
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Westmor-land-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of two notices of points of order. First the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: The
Prime Minister just said that he can smell a rat. That is not what we learned over the weekend when Mrs. Mulroney said he had no sense of smell.


An Hon. Member:: He can't even smell a diaper.


John Napier Turner: If he had a good nose, he would know this de Havilland deal stinks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


John Horton McDermid: Order.


John Napier Turner: My point of order is that the Prime Minister's favourite pastime of misquoting Hon. Members on this side of the House-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.
Point of Order-Mr. Kaplan


John Napier Turner: -particularly when they are out of the House. This afternoon he claimed that I had recommended during the election campaign the sale of de Havilland and Canadair-


John Horton McDermid: That's not a point of order. That's a point of debate.


Some Hon. Members:: That's debate.


John Napier Turner: What I said, and I have reviewed my statements very carefully-


Some Hon. Members:: That's debate.


An Hon. Member:: It's a point of order.


John Napier Turner: It is a point of order. What I said, Mr. Speaker, was quite clear. I wanted co-production agreements with international partners. I wanted joint ventures with international partners. But I wanted the retention of control left in Canada, and that has been quite dear right throughout the nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order at all.


An Hon. Member:: No, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


An Hon. Member:: No, no.


An Hon. Member:: We have a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: This isn't show and tell time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will deal with the points of order in the order in which I receive them. The point of order next was from the Hon. Member for York Centre.



TABLING OF DOCUMENT QUOTED BY MR. DE COTRET

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, during the Question Period the President of the Treasury Board was asked for some of the terms of the de Havilland sale to Boeing which he has been withholding.

December 17, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Mulroney
In giving royalty figures, he read from a document. I refer to Citation 327 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, and ask that the document from which the Minister was quoting, the terms and conditions of the deal, be laid upon the Table as tradition requires.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if I had a chance to copy my notes, I would be happy to table them, but it is hardly a document. They are handwritten notes.


An Hon. Member:: It's not a state document.


An Hon. Member:: He just copied them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Members know full well the citation refers to state papers or other such documents. Handwritten notes are not covered by that rule.



ALLEGED MISQUOTATION BY MR. MULRONEY

Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wishes to raise a point of order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, I do,


Mr.   Speaker.Ms. Copps@: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As one who believes in true and genuine equality between the sexes-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I want to say a word in defence of those husbands who share equally in the work of the house with the wife at all times, including changing diapers. That is the way it should be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has a point of order?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition seems to think that is beneath him-


Mr. Fulton:: Come on. This isn't Saturday Night Live.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -but we don't.


Ian Deans: There was no point of order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the point of order which was raised-


Ian Deans: But it was not. The Speaker ruled it was not.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, there was. And I have a quote here from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to which 1 was referring.


Ms. Jewett:: What's the point of order?


Martin Brian Mulroney: On May 10, 1984, the Leader of the Opposition-and he represents his Party as well-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Bye-bye, Brian.


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's all right. They deserve each other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What we have here, I take it, is a dispute as to facts, not a point of order.
Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime Minister is claiming he has a point of order. If he has a point of order, 1 would be glad to hear it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Prime Minister now wishes to enter into a dispute with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition as to who said what and when, I suggest that it is a matter for debate and not a point of order, with respect.


John Napier Turner: How about later this afternoon in debate?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: That is equally true for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order, the President of the Privy Council.



RIGHT TO RESPOND TO POINT OF ORDER

['I am perfectly happy to refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne if he wishes to discuss it with me further. I will be perfectly happy to see him about it. He will know that I asked him to withdraw and that I refused to allow his supplementary because he simply repeated himself.']
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that in the course of a-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the course of Question Period and debate, I know there are differences of opinion. 1 want to ask your guidance with respect to the fact that when questions are raised under the guise of points of order, I think
December 17, 1985

the normal process should allow at least equal time to respond-


Mr. Ouellet:: Oh, come on.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -to what was an improper point of order by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All Hon. Members will resume their seats please-and be quiet.
1 appreciate fully the point the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is making. As long as Hon. Members choose to bootleg comments through points of order, there is not a lot the Speaker can do about it, except to come in as early as he deems reasonable to indicate that it is not a point of order, and it would clearly be out of order-


Mr. Prud'homme:: He has a point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: A point of privilege is recognized when the Chair hears and recognizes the point of privilege and not before.
It would clearly be out of order to allow, on a matter I have already said was not a point of order, any further conversation. Now, is there a question of privilege being raised by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Go to it!



Jean-Claude Malépart: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I will not argue with you about points of order in the House. However, concerning the comments the Prime Minister made about me after a meeting to the effect that the workers had said I was trying to politicize the debate, I am convinced they are false. I can assure you that I will get the signature of each representative. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member claimed the ultimate parliamentary step of a question of privilege. He will now, before he says anything else, tell me precisely what his question of privilege is.


George Albert Proud: That is what he is doing.
Point of Order-Mr. Dingwall Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) will please-


George Albert Proud: But that's what he was doing.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is preceding his question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult enough for me to communicate with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) without the noise.
May I advise the Hon. Member that he should precede anything else he wishes to say with a point a privilege, not with any commentary or arguments he may wish later-were there to be a question of privilege found-to use in his argument.
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, 1 was trying to explain why I raised the question of privilege as a result of what the Prime Minister said about me concerning a meeting.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by telling you that the remarks of the Prime Minister to the effect that 1 was trying to politicize the debate and the remarks of the workers are false. Mr. Speaker, you may be sure that his remarks were those reported by the workers before the TV cameras.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Clearly there is no question of privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) rises on a question of privilege?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, again during Question Period the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made certain allegations about private conversations he had with the Premier of Ontario concerning me. I would like to advise the Prime Minister that private conversations are just that-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no. Order, please. Have we now finished with everyone's use of points of order and questions of privilege?


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order being raised by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to indicate why the word "distort" which I used in my first

December 17, 1985
Petitions
question and then subsequently withdrew is unparliamentary? I stand to be corrected, but my reading of Beauchesne is that it has to be "deliberately distorted". That is my understanding. I did not use that expression.


Mr. Speaker:: I am perfectly happy to refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne if he wishes to discuss it with me further. I will be perfectly happy to see him about it. He will know that I asked him to withdraw and that I refused to allow his supplementary because he simply repeated himself.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


TAX REBATE DISCOUNTING ACT-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to report Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, without amendments, in both official languages.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-THIRTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 have several petitions. The first one is from a large number of Canadians concerned about what is known as the Gibbon's Bill in the United States, Bill 2451. They are very concerned that the Government of Canada has taken insufficient action to protect Canadian forest jobs in Canada. Some 60,000 jobs are now at risk because of the Gibbon's Bill.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to family allowances. The signatories from British Columbia are particularly concerned that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits will reach $600 million by 1990. This is far too much money to be taken away from the children of this country. The petitioners call on this House to bring back full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind unfair tax increases.
I also have a petition from a large number of signatories. It may or may not be acceptable because some of the addresses are not as legible as perhaps they should be. However, the petitioners ask that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) restore full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit because the proposed measures will take $55 million away from children in Canada this year.
My final petition is related to the family allowance issue. A large number of Canadians from Brampton, Malton and Toronto are concerned that child benefit cut-backs will take $600 million per year away from Canadian children by 1990.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, 1 have petitions from the undersigned, residents of the federal ridings of Vancouver East, Montmorency-Orleans in Quebec, Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Lanaudiere in Quebec, and Lac-Saint-Jean in Quebec, who urge the Government to restore the full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Kapuskasing, Valrita, Harty and Hearst in my constituency.
My constituents object to the deindexation of family allowances. They urge the Prime Minister to withdraw Bill C-70 immediately.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by approximately 1,670 citizens from the federal riding of Moncton. They express their concern over the future of the CN shops in Moncton. They are concerned that the current assessment of maintenance capacity may have negative implications for the hundreds of people employed in these shops and call upon Parliament to stop any move to downgrade in any way those facilities.
December 17, 1985


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first one is signed by several persons from New Brunswick. They call upon the Government to restore full indexation of family allowances.
The second petition is from citizens from Ontario. The operative clause says that the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.
The third petition is from residents in British Columbia who petition the House for the same purpose. They deplore the fact that $600 million annually will be taken from mainly needy children across the country.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present a petition from a group of constituents of Richmond-South Delta who protest deindexation of family allowances. I have another petition from a group of people in Perth asking that Bill C-70 be withdrawn. 1 have another one from Hamilton West which asks that the same Bill be withdrawn. I have another one from Sarnia-Lambton regarding Bill C-70. They ask that indexation be maintained. I have a petition from Halifax concerning restoration of full indexation to family allowances. Finally I have a petition from a group from Provencher who ask that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) do the honourable thing and restore full indexation to family allowances and child tax credits.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 20 residents of Ottawa West who decry the continued operation in the City of Toronto of the Morgentaler clinic and the failure of the Province of Ontario to enforce Section 251 of the Criminal Code.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present several petitions on the subject of family allowances. The first is from a number of citizens from Saskatoon and other communities in Saskatchewan. In their opinion, deindexation of universal family allowances and massive cut-backs to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single-parent mothers.
The next one is from Peterborough and Lindsay, Ontario. The petitioners say that family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit. Even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990. They call for full indexation of family allowances and that unfair tax increases be rescinded.
The next is from a number of communities in the lower mainland of British Columbia, from North Vancouver, West
Petitions
Vancouver, Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East. They talk about the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits which will reach $600 million by 1990.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the same subject and the Hon. Member needs only to say that it is a petition on the same subject from somewhere else rather than read the petition.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: These people from the lower mainland ask the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.
The next petition is a different one signed by quite a number of people from Ward 5, North York, Downsview, Ontario. These people ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the House of Commons to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit. They say that this budget measure will take $55 million away from family benefits by 1987.
The next petition is from the Strathcona area of my riding in Vancouver and also from North Vancouver. It also calls for full indexation of universal family allowance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, the Hon. Member has done this before. She knows that she must be as brief as possible. Therefore, if she has more petitions, I invite her to conclude within about 30 seconds, otherwise I will have to go to someone else.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The final petition is a different one from Women Against the Federal Budget. They say that children are everyone's responsibility and they strongly oppose budget proposals to reduce family allowances. This petition is from Halifax.
[ Translation]


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a few members of the Cercle des fermieres in my riding who ask the Government to maintain the full indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on the same subject matter as that of the Member who just spoke. It is from Canadians in Thompson, Manitoba, who indicate that they are also against the Budget of May 23 and call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and to ensure that those people who are not paying their fair share of taxes do indeed pay their share of the cost of operating the country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from two places in my riding; Southey, Saskatchewan, in the south end of my riding and Lanigan, located in the middle of the riding. Both petitions are on the same subject. They ask that the House of Commons consider that the deindexation of the universal family allowance and the

December 17, 1985
Petitions
massive cut-back in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single-parent mothers. The petitioners ask that the House of Commons reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and rescind unfair tax increases on families.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on a different subject. It relates specifically to the decision of the Ministry of the Environment to cut back employees at the time when we are facing the most serious pollution problems we have ever seen in the country. The petition calls upon the Government, and more specifically on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), to reinstate those people who have been laid off, four of whom are from the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington. The petition is signed by more than 200 people and calls upon the Government to reinstate these people immediately and to freeze any further cut-backs until we deal with the most serious pollution problems that we are facing in the Great Lakes area.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 140 constituents of my riding of Don Valley East who reside on Postal Walk 127, Willowdale, Postal Station B. The residents of this area are asking that Parliament provide swift action regarding the application of a height requirement regarding postal door slots and that the current mailman on that route, having lost the trust and respect of the residents he serves, be transferred to another postal walk.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions, two from citizens of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and one from citizens of Woodstock and Ingersoll, Ontario. The petitioners say that the deindexation of the family allowance will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 and will fall further and further behind. Therefore, they call on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by many, many residents of Manitoulin Island who call upon the Government to withdraw Bill C-70 to deindex family allowances. They point out that children are everyone's responsibility and that the principle of universality must be maintained.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions with regard to the family allowance which are signed by hundreds of people from my riding and throughout the City of Winnipeg. The petitioners call upon the Government to reinstate the full indexation of the family allowance and point out that the Government's actions will be taking money away from families and children.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to table today a petition from Mrs. Danielle Cou-lombe, Val-d'Or President, on behalf of 104 Canadian women who ask that family allowances and the child tax credit be reinstated.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have three different petitions to present. The first is from residents of Vancouver Island and is with regard to the Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. The petitioners are concerned that the policy of the United States Navy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. vessels is unacceptable. They call for a full public inquiry before the present Canada-United States agreement is renegotiated.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from residents of Ontario who are members of Operation Justice, Families with Children, who call upon the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit. This budget measure will take away millions of dollars in family benefits by 1987.
I have a third petition, Mr. Speaker, which is also with regard to the family allowance. It points out that the present proposals of Bill C-70 will result in massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits which constitute an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially singleparent mothers. The petitioners call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 706 residents of my Quebec East constituency.
Following the initiative of the Chanoine-Cote primary school committee, this petition is a request to ensure the safety of all children, especially those who have to cross the double
December 17, 1985

railway tracks on Plante Avenue, in Ville-Vanier, at least four times a day to go to school.
I am also sending a copy of this petition to the office of the Minister involved, namely the Minister of Transport.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present petitions from persons living in Langley and Surrey, British Columbia, and various other parts of the Vancouver metropolitan area. These petitioners protest the decision of the Government to deindex the universal family allowance and to make cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits. They point out that this will have the effect of reducing benefits to even the poorest families by 1990 and call upon the House of Commons to restore full indexation. The petition from the Vancouver area comes from Operation Justice, Families with Children and underscores this point.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table in the House a petition on behalf of some 400 citizens of various communities in Essex County including Amhurstberg, Kingsville, Puce, Maidstone, Belle River, Windsor, Tecumseh, and St. Clair Beach. These people add their names to the hundreds who have already exercised their ancient and undoubted right to petition the Government by condemning it for its attack on women, children and the poor and by seeking a response from the Government on their demand that there be a return to a fairer tax system and that complete indexation of the cost of living of family allowances be maintained.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present to this Honourable House three petitions on three different matters.
The first-

-is from residents of Fort Frances and it calls upon this House to prevent the Customs and Excise Section of the Department of National Revenue from proceeding with plans to reduce the number of Customs employees at border points because of the adverse effect it will have on the tourist industry in that area.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is from residents of Ottawa and Ignace, Ontario, and calls upon the House to use its influence to assist CP Rail pensioners and survivors of pensioners in convincing that company that the proposed withdrawal of employee and survivor pensioner travel passes is unjust and unfair and a
Introduction of Bills
breach of the implicit contract which existed between those parties.


John Edmund Parry: The third petition, Mr. Speaker, will come as no surprise to you or to any other Member of this House. It is from residents of St. Lawrence and calls upon the House to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an Act respecting the conservation, export and diversion of water resources.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, briefly, this Bill sets out criteria to be taken into account when examining water export and diversion: the long-term water requirements of Canadians; the impact of a gradual increase in global temperatures; the impact of diversion projects on the interests of our native people; the ecological and economic impact of water exports and the political consequences of creating a foreign dependence on Canadian water supplies.
According to this Bill, the ultimate power to approve or reject these criteria would lie with Parliament. In essence, Mr. Speaker, the intent of the Bill is to make each water export proposal subject to full public scrutiny and debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
December 17, 1985
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-91, to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that we will be replying to Questions Nos. 454 and 456 today.


Mr. Parry: 1.	In each of the past three years (a) what amount in dollar value of standing offers has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had with air transportation companies in the Sioux Lookout District (b) what is the dollar value of the services actually used on each of the offers?
2.	During the past three years (a) what was the amount of money spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare's Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital on air charters (b) what was the dollar value of the Zone Hospital's charter services supplied by charter operators from Sioux Lookout?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1. See lists below.
(a)	1982-83	$162,335
	1983-84	$200,950
	1984-85	$248,588
(4)	1982-83	$ 82,336
	1983-84	$127,799
	1984-85	$143,905
The Hospital itself does not pay for air charter services. All such costs are charged to the Zone office.
	Air Transportation Standing Offer Contracts-Sioux Lookout District	
Supplier 1982-83:		
Contractor	(a) Contract	(b) Dollars SpentAero Trades	81,828.00	58,500.00Airdale Limited	26,210.26	26,210.26Austin Airways	85,000.00	76,025.19Austin Airways	362,340.14	254,106.26Bearskin Airways	150,000.00	144,614.91Bearskin Airways	157,163.73	114,391.14Big Hook Air	7,500.00	3,741.20Big Trout Air	25,000.00	21,174.50Big Trout Air	1,224.40*	1,224.40Campbell Air	847.00*	847.00Central Airways	90,000.00	78,840.68Green Airways	12,500.00	2,598.40Green Airways	718.90*	718.90Ilford Riverton	660.00*	660.00Midwest Helicopter	8,500.00	8,500.00Pikangikum Airways	15,000.00	9,846.86Ranger Helicopter	7,334.50	7,334.50St. Air Ltd.	847.00*	847.00Slate Falls Airways	137,746.35	137,746.35Totals $ 1,170,420.28	$ 947,927.551983-84: Aero T rades	46,827.18	691.20Austin Airways	67,500.00	51,689.05Austin Airways	295,582.84	232,331.17Bearskin Airways	162,500.00	120,525.13Bearskin Airways	251,200.00	244,071.96Big Hook Airways	15,000.00	5,907.90Big Trout Airways	30,000.00	16,806.50Calmair	50,000.00	39,780.76Central Airways	100,000.00	72,789.95Central Airways	644.00*	644.00Ontario Central Air	12,500.00	-Pikangikum Air	17,500.00	8,466.16Pikangikum Air	212.00*	212.00Sabourin Airways	22,016.16	17,978.66Slate Falls Airways	107,500.00	71,971.47Totals	$ 1,178,982.18	$ 883,865.91Supplier 1984-85: Contractor	(a) Contract	(b) Dollars SpentAirdale Limited	144,424.97	144,424.97Austin Airways	77,500.00	61,659.03Austin Airways	238,864.94	212,963.78Bearskin Airways	134,500.00	75,374.68Bearskin Airways	158,561.16	158,561.16Big Hook Airways	15,000.00	1,037.40Big Trout Airways	40,000.00	12,252.01Big Trout Airways	1,217.45*	1,217.45Central Airways	97,500.00	84,800.56Central Airways	2,627.20	2,627.20Pikangikum Airways	20,000.00	5,306.00Pikangikum Airways	999.00*	999.00Ilford Riverton	122,050.00	120,039.40Nunasi-Central Airlines	12,500.00	0Sabourin Airways	12,500.00	5,575.50Sabourin Airways	6,720.90	6,720.90Slate Falls Airways	90,783.95	90,783.95Slate Falls Airways	439.80*	439.80Tudhope Airways	5,000.00*	0Totals	$ 1,181,189.37	$ 984,782.79* Awarded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.	All other contracts awarded by Supply and Services Canada.	
December 17, 1985


Mr. Heap: How many medical officers are available to serve (a) the Caribbean and Central American region (6) Europe and Britain for the purpose of verifying medical examinations for prospective immigrants to Canada (c) in what countries do these officers reside?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a)	Two medical officers.
(b)	Eight full-time medical officers and one half-time officer.
(c)	Caribbean: one medical officer resides in Jamaica. Central America Region: one medical officer resides in Mexico. Britain: three medical officers reside in England. Europe: one medical officer resides in Greece, one medical officer resides in Germany, one medical officer resides in Italy, two full-time and one half-time medical officers reside in France.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again I must rise and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) why they are not answering questions Nos. 450 and 451, subsequently renumbered 487 and 486. Why are they not answering questions Nos. 452 and 453? All these questions pertain to the expenses of the former Minister of the Environment when she travelled to Paris in April and to her other junkets in Europe. I know this is terribly embarrassing, Mr. Speaker, but why does the Government refuse to answer these important questions about which the people of Canada have a right to know?


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the Hon. Member that a great deal of time and attention is being taken to establishing what questions were asked.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Derek Lewis: The House will remember that these questions had to be resubmitted after being ruled out of order and this has caused some delay. We are applying ourselves to answering the questions and I expect they will be answered soon.


Don Boudria: You had the answer in your head the other day. Why don't you tell the truth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.

The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Representation Act, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Prud'homme (p. 9258).
Mr. Speaker:: At one o'clock the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) had the floor and had five minutes remaining. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at one o'clock for the lunch break, I was exploring the way in which the Government in pushing through this redistribution Bill is demonstrating tyrannist tendencies which when the Opposition in the last Parliament it made much of. 1 was exploring the way in which the redistribution Bill knocks out one of the very cornerstones of the representational system that we have observed since Confederation in using the population of Quebec and a specified number of seats, namely, 75, to go to 79 as the basis for deciding how many representatives other provinces should have and how large the Parliament of Canada should be.
It is specifically the change that has taken place in that particular relationship that is the basis for the motion to refer to committee the Bill that is before us this afternoon. The motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for further consideration of Clause 2 is what this amendment speaks to. It is about that I want to say a little more.
If we take a look at Part I of Bill C-74, we note the assignment of a certain number of seats, that is to say 279 as the basis to be used in dividing into the total population of Canada for the number of seats.
In rule 3 we read:
If the total number of Members that would be assigned to any province by the application of rule 1 is greater than the total number assigned to that province by the last preceding readjustment of the representation of that province made in accordance with this Act, the number of additional Members that would be so assigned shall, unless the number of additional Members is one, be reduced so that the actual number assigned is equal to one-half of the additional number that would be so assigned plus, where the number of additional Members that would be so assigned is an odd number in excess of one, one other Member.
It is this rule 3 which represents a deflation of the proper representation of Members in the House of Commons. It is here that the residents, Canadian citizens, living in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have the clearest grievance with the Government. It is here that their expectation that population migration in Canada-adding to the numbers-should lead to proportionate increase in the number of Members they have in the House of Commons. It is here that that expectation is violated.

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
A Government that is obsessed with deficit reduction, withholding the line on expenditures wherever it can, is a Government that is prepared to violate the principles of the Canadian Constitution. That is what the Government is proposing in this Bill. The astounding thing is that Members who have been so outspoken in the past when in opposition in defence of Parliament, who present themselves often as the only ones who speak for Parliament, are now prepared to do something as fundamental as violating the structure of Parliament and are rejecting the right of people province by province where there is movement to see additional Members. They are quite prepared to see those expectations blasted and the Constitution of the country violated in these areas. The result for Members in northern Ontario is that the movement to Metro Toronto and to other areas, which deserves recognition, will lead to some readjustment of seats. We in northern Ontario do not look forward to a worsening of our representation or a violation of the rights of citizens to be represented properly in Parliament. We do not look forward to seeing that right violated by a penny-pinching Government which refuses to tax properly and cannot hold back on expenditures in other areas, to save a few hundreds of thousands of dollars by keeping down the growth of the Parliament of Canada; by a Government which is prepared to sacrifice principle in the Constitution of the country for budgetary reasons; by a Government which deserves to be turfed out by the people if they only had a chance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. There is still the period provided for questions and comments. Since there are no questions or comments, I will recognize the Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on debate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is always good to see you in the chair. I wish you, and through you other Members of the House, the best of the Christmas season. It seems to be the quietest time to do it.
The proposal of the Government to impose closure on Bill C-74, an Act which in effect amends the Constitution of the country with regard to the number of Members who have the right to sit in this Chamber, cuts very deeply into the ability of the House to represent adequately the people of Canada. The House of Commons, its make-up, its essence and how we operate should not be tampered with in a careless, callous and cavalier fashion.
I warn those who sit on all sides of the House, particularly those who sit on the back-benches of the Conservative Government, to take heed and pay close attention to what the Government is attempting to do, because it affects all of us and our ability to represent adequately the people who did us the honour of sending us to the House. I look across to those benches and I see one or two Members who happen to know something about the Bill. Perhaps one of them is delegated as a hit man later this afternoon; we will see what he wants to do.
This is about the fifteenth time I have spoken on a Bill or a motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unlike the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


John Napier Turner: Yes, unlike the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has spoken only twice-once on Leaders' day and once, for 15 minutes, to give us his vague ambiguities on free trade. 1 say to the Conservative back-benches and to the book-ends which surround us that they ought to be speaking on a Bill of this importance. They ought to be speaking as well on some of the Bills and other measures against which closure has been applied. I will speak to that. I think it is relevant to this third reading, because we are under the hammer of closure when we speak in the House and before Your Honour. We do not hear much over there. We do not hear much from these silent, invisible, anonymous men and women who pose as back-benchers in the Conservative Party.
This is the first time in the history of the House that a Government has made redistribution a partisan issue. At all times previously, redistribution, a measure to redivide the seats of the House of Commons, has been done in a non-partisan, impartial manner. There was all-Party agreement, in fact for 30 years. I can recall our Leader in the Senate, the Hon. Allan MacEachen, negotiating the deal with the late John George Diefenbaker, who was very close to Your Honour. 1 had the privilege of knowing him well. That accord made by Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. MacEachen held over successive redistributions in a non-partisan fashion for the last quarter century. Under the terms of the agreement worked out by all Parties in the House, that formula, technically called the amalgam formula, but familiarly known to those of us who have been in the House for a number of years as the Diefenbaker-MacEachen formula, provided for an orderly adjustment in seat distribution following every census.
Following the 1981 census, the wheels were set in motion once again. All the work had been done, the commissioners were appointed, hearings were held, maps for the various constituencies across Canada were redrawn, and the proposals were being brought back for final agreement in the House. At that time only a short debate was required to complete that process. Suddenly, out of nowhere, out of the magic confines of the back rooms of the Conservative Party, the Government decided to change all the rules in the middle of the game.


An Hon. Member:: Why?


John Napier Turner: Yes, that question might well be put. All that was required was a short, conclusive debate in the House of Commons. However, the Government reopened the matter in its partisan and insidious greed and produced a White Paper. That paper went to committee-all the work had been done but it was reopened-where many changes were discussed. Then the Government introduced Bill C-74 which was proposed in the White Paper. However, the Bill reflected the White Paper completely. None of the changes discussed in committee by all Parties were reflected or incorporated in the Bill. No account was taken of the argu-
December 17, 1985

merits made in committee to improve the redistribution principle.
1 believe the Bill before the House is a bad Bill in principle. It ends the redistribution process which is already under way, ready to function and needing only a short debate to conclude it and to legitimize it. It starts off another whole round of hearings and discussions.
I have heard the arguments of Government members. They want to save money. They say Parliament is too expensive. I venture to say that we get better value for Parliament than we are getting from this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Under your administration, Sir, we get better value for dollars than we are getting for ministerial staffs and a bloated Prime Minister's Office.
We were told that increasing the membership to 310 Members would be estimated to cost $90 million over the next 10 years. The government proposal will cost an extra $41.7 million. We have here a saving over what had been worked out by all-Party agreement as against this proposal now before Your Honour, of $48.3 million over that period or $4.8 million per year.
When we look at the budget of the Prime Minister's Office, it is $7 million for 1985-86. That does not include other ministerial staff. It far exceeds the potential saving between what was agreed upon by all Parties and the cost envisaged by the Bill. This so-called great economizing measure is proposed by a Government which threw away $1 billion on a tax deal for Gulf Oil, a Government which blew another $1 billion to $2 billion on the first bank bankruptcy in the country for 60 years, a Government which does not know what the words competence, good management and good husbanding mean. It comes to the House and tries to tinker with the democratic process by painting a phoney argument for economy; that is what we have before us. I know the people of Canada want money for value-


An Hon. Member:: Value for money.


John Napier Turner: Value for money, thank you. Let us look at the way Parliament works, generally speaking, with the reforms which have been introduced by our colleague on the Conservative benches, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). We will look at those reforms very carefully. We are trying to give the people of Canada value for money in the way we operate the House. However, you cannot put a price on democracy. You cannot justify a partisan measure overriding a non-partisan piece of work that was ready to be implemented on the phoney grounds of economy.
According to the redistribution-I should call it the re-redistribution-in Bill C-74, if it is passed the new boundaries will not be known until the summer of 1988, according to
Representation Act, 1985
the Chief Electoral Officer. It will be just weeks or months before the usual expiry of a term of a majority Government. But who knows, the way the Prime Minister is addicted to the polls, if he saw a little blip he might go at any time. As a matter of fact, I recommend that he go sooner than later because it is not going too well for him these days.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Bring it on.


John Carnell Crosbie: You certainly went according to the polls back in June of 1984. You have forgotten that now.


Carlo Rossi: Go back to sleep, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: You were leading 11 per cent in the polls. What happened then?


John Napier Turner: The last time the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and I were here in the Chamber alone-there is usually a great audience on both sides of the House when we speak-the Minister of Justice was bringing in his so-called reform of the Senate. That was a great measure and he had a head of steam. However, it is an empty engine right now, puffing and huffing-


John Carnell Crosbie: You will never see the Senate again. None of you.


John Napier Turner: I told the Minister of Justice not to do it because there will be a place for him there one day. Don't eliminate the very House that may be your haven.
Just weeks or months before a general election these boundaries will finally come into effect if this Bill is passed in the House. There will be mass confusion in the camps of all three political parties as we attempt to find out under which boundaries we will be working. If an election is called early, it will be the current boundaries. Will it be the boundaries agreed to under the amalgam method or Diefenbaker-MacEachen formula or will it be the new Tory boundaries-the new gerrymander boundaries? Will we be operating under the new artistically geographically manipulated boundaries?
The cost of the new Tory boundaries is approximately $5 million or $6 million which is in addition to that which is already spent.

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing this Bill does is to take away from the House its right to discuss the redistribution of electoral districts. From now on, all decisions on the subject will be taken by a committee, not by this House and not before Your Honour, Mr. Speaker, and the real reason why the Government wants to bring down the hammer of closure on debate is because it wants to have this Bill adopted. In fact, its reasons are very simple.
First of all, the Government wants to appoint 295 new Conservative returning officers, and since the number of

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
vacancies is very limited, the Prime Minister has found a way to get around this by creating 295 new jobs. All he has to do is have the legislation adopted and limit debate. What a nice Christmas present for 295 party faithful! What a nice Christmas present indeed!
And the second reason is that the Government wants to redistribute electoral districts to its own advantage. It has played around with the seats and manipulated the geographical boundaries of our ridings. They are going to analyze the election results, poll by poll to locate their supporters. They are going to isolate those who voted against them, but as far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we cannot tolerate these manipulations, because they are an affront to the very principle of democratic representation.


Raymond Garneau: We'll beat them anyway!


John Napier Turner: I am not going to analyze the results province by province. I am sure that for you, Mr. Speaker, Alberta is very close to home. But as for Quebec, Quebec is losing four seats compared with what it had according to the Diefenbaker-MacEachen formula, already agreed to by all parties in the House and practically finalized, until the Conservative Government, partisan as always, brought in its own objectives.
Now this is a point that particularly concerns you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, you are responsible for appointing two commissioners in each province to monitor the readjustment of electoral boundaries. They are your responsibility. It is very important that these people be completely neutral, and that you can count on the impartial advice of your staff in appointing them and do not have to ask the Government to suggest candidates. You may be sure we intend to monitor the process very closely.
We have to ask ourselves what the Government's priorities are. I know the Conservative backbenchers don't even know the answer to that question. I am sorry that one of our House experts on the subject, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), is not here-he is chairing a committee of the House that is discussing employment equity. But he would probably agree with us and say: Why are they giving this Bill priority? If adopting the amendments arising from the Budget is so urgent, if it is so terribly important to cut back and de-index family allowances, if it is so important to introduce a Bill presented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to reform divorce proceedings, and all kinds of other measures being insisted upon by the Government House Leader, why adjourn debate on the principle of the Bill for this kind of partisanship? Is it all that urgent? It is just a joke that the Government is asking for and imposing closure to hammer through all kinds of so-called important pieces of legislation- [English]
-after other matters which are more urgent.
Why is there priority given to this Bill when we are talking on third reading? Yesterday, when the Government came in with its seventh closure motion, we had enough. We used whatever legitimate facilities that were available to an opposition, outnumbered as we are in the House of Commons, to ensure that there be adequate debate and that the people of Canada, after hearing all sides of the question in the clash of that debate be able to form an opinion.
Yesterday, after two hours of debate at the report stage of the Bill to cut family allowance, notice of time allocation was proposed on this Bill for the second time. We are absolutely outraged because this is the Bill that deindexes the family allowances, takes away the protection from inflation for families, particularly those low and middle income families. It takes away that protection. In its arrogance, the Government has already printed the cheques and made them ready to mail in contempt of Parliament, before it has had a chance to discuss that Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: Since October, the Government has invoked closure seven times. Let me cite for the record the Bills on which closure has been invoked. One is Bill C-62, concerning employment equity. I have mentioned Bill C-70 dealing with family allowance. Time allocation was imposed twice, once at second reading and once at the report stage. Another is the Bill we are discussing today. Bill C-74 dealing with electoral boundaries. Another is Bill C-79 with respect to depositors compensation. The Government imposes closure on the depositors compensation Bill when we do not even have the names of who we are paying. Parliament is being asked to give a blank cheque of up to $1 billion to people across the country whose names we do not even know.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: Closure was also imposed on Bill C-70, the Excise Tax Bill. Again, closure was imposed on Bill C-84, the Income Tax Act, the Bill which reflects the major provisions of the Budget. Those provisions are clear and include the personal surtax, the corporate surtax and the deindexation of the system. That is to say, every tax bracket has now been deindexed by 3 per cent per year and that means that we have the most massive, hidden increase in income tax in the history of this country. Four years from now, there will be an extra $11.5 billion in taxes collected from individual Canadians and the Minister did not have the guts to say that he was raising taxes.
As well, the Income Tax Bill contains the capital gains exemption which provides $500,000 over a lifetime for those wealthy or fortunate enough to be able to achieve on the disposition of an asset a capital gain. That benefit is not directed to-


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you were to check Beauchesne's Citation 320 at page 107, you
December 17, 1985

would notice that it is unparliamentary to suggest that a Member does not have the guts to do something.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will have to look at that. However, I would hope that the right hon. gentleman could continue.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can say that this is a gutless Government and ask the Hon. Member to try to make that into an unparliamentary word.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This $500,000 exemption over a lifetime is for those wealthy and fortunate enough to receive such an exemption and the asset that is disposed does not have to be a Canadian asset. It does not have to be a small Canadian business owned by Canadians or even a business listed on the Canadian Stock Exchange. It can be a condominium in Florida, a piece of art from Europe or a business in Hong Kong. It is an absolute giveaway and against that-


Robert René de Cotret: You were in favour of it.


John Napier Turner: I was in favour of the capital gains tax exemption for the farmers. I would like to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) for staying here and responding so actively in this debate. When I had the honour of being the Minister of Finance in 1974, I eliminated the capital gains tax on the sale of a family farm from one generation to another and anyone who wants to maintain the health of the family farm will applaud that particular measure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The average Canadian family will be taxed an extra $350 to $500 per year while those wealthy enough to obtain capital gains have a lifetime cash bonanza of $500,000. There was closure on Bill C-84, the Bill which contained that provision. The personal surtax, the abolition of the $50 federal tax credit, the reduction on the child care exemption and many other measures were covered by Bill C-84 against which closure was applied after two days of debate on second reading and after having reduced by fiat of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the hearings of the committee to one week. The most important Bill to come before Parliament every year is the Bill reflecting the Budget.


Mr. Johnston:: Two and a half hours for clause by clause.


John Napier Turner: There were 64 separate measures, 168 clauses and 200 pages in the Bill. The Minister of Finance asked the Members of Parliament who have the responsibility to impose taxation measures to review that Bill in that time.
I can never remember closure having been moved on a finance measure. I had the honour of presenting five Budgets in this House. I would have considered it absolutely obscene to impose closure on a tax measure.
Representation Act, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Every tax expert in the country wants to talk about this Bill because it is a shambles. My friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), who is our Finance critic also happens to be a very reputable tax lawyer. He can tell us that there are now four tax codes in Quebec. There is the Quebec Income Tax Act, the federal Income Tax Act, the personal exemption for the $500,000 bonanza and the minimum tax. It will be an absolute shambles for the absolute taxpayer to try to understand what is happening.
I will list the Bills the Government wants passed by the end of the week. It wants Bill C-70, the Family Allowance Bill upon which it has imposed closure. That is the Bill that deindexes and cuts the family allowances. The Government wants Bill C-74, the Electoral Boundaries Bill which is before the House at the moment. It wants Bill C-79, the Depositors' Compensation Bill, that Blank cheque of $1 billion written to people we do not know. It wants Bill C-80, the Excise Tax Bill. It wants Bill C-83, the tax discounting Bill and it wants Bill C-84, the Income Tax Bill I have described, the main Budget Bill. That is what the Government wants in one delicious week. Have you ever heard anything like that before in your life, Mr. Speaker?
The Government justified imposing closure on the Income Tax Bill because it said that the Budget was introduced in May. The Bill containing the details of the Budget was only given to the House on November 26. It has only been before us for about two weeks. The most important bit of legislation to come before a free, democratic assembly annually has had closure imposed on it after only two weeks. The Government castrated the committee, limited discussion and refused the people of Canada the right to testify and give opinions.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you must be relieved that you are not a part of this gang and that you can sit here impartially and preside over a free assembly. Do you know what the House Leader wants in addition to all that?


Mr. Lapierre:: He wants a vacation.


John Napier Turner: He needs a vacation. However, he wants a 64-page package of procedural reforms approved. We have studied these-


Philip Derek Lewis: But you want to reform the House.


John Napier Turner: We're all for reform. In general terms, we like the report presented by the Hon. Member for St. John's East ably assisted by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and indeed the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). They did a great job, but this 64-page package takes the best of the reform suggestions put by the Hon. Member for St. John's East and presents it to the House conveniently leaving out those procedures recommended by the Hon. Member that were not favourable to the

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
government side. If the report of the Hon. Member for St. John's East and the Hon. Member for Papineau were before us, we would take a look at it. However, this doctored, manicured, censored type of reform that the House Leader is bringing forward is a partisan, diluted document which we are not going to buy.
What about closure? 1 looked up the records regarding closure. It is a legitimate tool available to a Government. It is something that a Government can use from time to time but only after adequate debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: That's a good trick.


John Carnell Crosbie: You should be picking these things up for your leader.


Carlo Rossi: Is that what you do for Brian?


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Justice saw me drop my notes. If it had happened to him, he would not have been able to bend down to pick them up. In fact, he would have been well advised to leave them on the floor where they fell.


John Carnell Crosbie: It's easy to amuse this crowd over here.


David Berger: He and Pat Carney could have picked them up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you offered me some good seats for the Grey Cup game and I appreciated that. Every once in a while, we have to hear from a few people from the bleachers. We need the Minister of Justice here to add a little comedy to the day.
The weapon of closure should only be used after adequate debate and after the issues have been thoroughly debated and presented to the people of Canada through Parliament so that the people can make a sane, cool, collected judgment on the merits of a piece of legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This Government enjoys the largest majority in Canadian history: 211 Members against 30. For a Government with the largest majority in Canadian history having had to succumb to using closure seven times in the last five weeks is an admission of mismanagement and lack of competence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because I know you would want me to be fair I have reviewed the use of closure by Liberal Governments for the period 1969 to 1984. During those 15 years we used it on second reading 15 times. We used it in Committee of the Whole six times. We used it at report stage and third reading 11 times. At third reading only
we used it three times. That comes to a total of 35 times in 15 years.
This Government has used it seven times in five weeks. It is trying to use the pressure of the Christmas vacation to push this legislation through.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because I want to be fair I will introduce some citations to the House, since there are some authorities sitting on the other side.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you going, John?


B. Keith Penner: Is it getting to you, John? What happened to the old funnyman?


John Napier Turner: We have driven the Minister of Justice from the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, have you ever noticed that those who can dish it out cannot take it? That is the way it is in life.
Let me recite the words of the House Leader who, then, was just the simple Member for Saskatoon West.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Still is!


John Napier Turner: I do not think that "simple" is unparliamentary. However, in the case of the House Leader it is devastatingly accurate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You've brought back John.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is what the then Hon. Member for Saskatoon West said on the Crow debate. I wish to cite his remarks as reported in Hansard of May 16, 1983. Your Honour will recall that at this stage the Crow rate had been under review for about 18 months. These are the words of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West:
Throughout the 18 months process of consultation leading up to the introduction of this legislation, the Opposition has been systematically excluded. We now find that on a piece of legislation of this importance the Government has seen fit to introduce closure after two days of second reading debate. I truly wonder about the state of our democracy and question whether the Government will be able to continue to call itself democratic in any way, shape or form.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who said that?


John Napier Turner: That was Mr. Hnatyshyn, the Government House Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Napier Turner: After two days on second reading debate with respect to the Budget the Government introduced closure not 18 months ago but on November 16. Could we find more accurate and relevant words than those?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 17, 1985


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, where did Mr. Crosbie go?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Napier Turner: He is gone again. The Minister of Justice is gone again. He is the Minister of Justice and the Hon. Member for St. John's West. In Hansard he is referred to as Mr. Crosbie. Sometimes when you are quoting directly from Hansard you can use the Hon. Member's name.
I would now like to quote from Hansard of April 2, 1981. These are the words of the Hon. Member for St. John's West:
Mr. Speaker, what we are now debating is another motion by a closure-crazy Government to close debate.
The Minister of Justice has had to swallow his words before and swallow his Party. He has crossed the floor three or four times in his life so that is not unusual for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Today, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) was a little testy. We will deal with that in due course. I would like to say for the record that at the hearings of the committee relating to deregulation and to the report entitled "Freedom to Move", our members were in attendance about 95 per cent of the time. We resent very much what the Minister of Transport had to say about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This is what the Hon. Member for Vegreville had to say on July 7, 1981. It was with respect to the Crow debate. He said: "By virtue of a closure motion today, we have a further contempt for an erosion of the spirit and privileges of this institution." Those are memorable words. 1 did not think Maz was capable of it but they are tremendous words. He went on to say: "I believe tyranny begins when parliamentary debate ends."
That gets you right here, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I could not have said it better. When this Government's short term comes to an end and the Minister of Transport is back to his automobile dealership I think we will hire him as a consultant.


An Hon. Member:: As a speechwriter.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I refer you to some remarks which the House Leader reputedly made to some journalists which I think affect the position of the Chair. I wish to draw them to the attention of the House. The House Leader told some journalists that if this package of legislation which he wants through before Christmas is not passed by the House he will call the House back during the normal time for the Christmas adjournment, perhaps as early as next week.
Representation Act, 1985
I wish to read to the Chair Standing Order 5 in this respect:
Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet-
Thereby, of course, the House will have to come back earlier than the time set out in the rules. Not only is the House Leader repeatedly imposing closure, he is using the full force of his majority to stifle debate and, through his colleagues, he is keeping relevant and necessary documents from us. The President of the Treasury Board could have solved for himself a great many problems by tabling those necessary documents on the de Havilland deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister could have helped the House and the country by tabling the necessary documents relating to free trade and where we are going. The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) could have helped herself and the House by tabling the names of the uninsured, invisible depositors who will be the beneficiairies of a billion dollar bonanza. Thus, we have closure. We see the use of this immense majority and there is secrecy. We now have an implied threat by the House Leader that he wants to call us back next week.
Let me say to the House Leader, through you, Mr. Speaker, that that can only be done, under the Standing Order which I have just read, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that it is in the public interest so to do. It is your decision, Mr. Speaker. It is not the decision of the Government House Leader. I wish to say to Your Honour that you should not feel in any way embarrassed or intimidated by the House Leader because we are not.


B. Keith Penner: Certainly not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We are going to give Your Honour full support in applying this rule in the way in which it is meant to be applied.
Never in history has any Speaker used this authority, except in the case of a real national emergency, such as a paralysing transportation strike. None of the items on the list of the House Leader which I recited to the House, no matter how important, deal with an emergency in terms of application, time or in terms of their passage to warrant, in our submission to you, Your Honour's exercise of that judgment.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


John Napier Turner: Even the income tax legislation which affects the 1985 tax year does not fall into this category. In the past, income tax legislation has often been passed as late as the following February or March. If it had been so urgent to pass this piece of legislation, or the other measures which the Government has recited, why were they
9542

December i7, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
not brought to the House earlier? Why are we playing games with respect to redistribution? Why are we playing games with closure and secrecy and with using the great weight of the greatest majority in Canadian history?
The reason I am bringing this matter to your attention now, Mr. Speaker, is because under the rules you cannot be approached by the Government House Leader while the House is sitting. Standing Order 5 states that that can only be done after the House has adjourned. Only next week, or Friday midnight-whenever the House closes-will the House Leader be able to come to you. At that time we would not have an opportunity to make these arguments to you because the rule states "after consultation with the Government".
1 am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, that the following are the precedents you ought to consider; in 1914 and 1939, when matters of the World War were to be considered, Parliament was not in session and special sessions were called. It was not just a recalling of an adjournment. There were Speeches from the Throne in those special sessions. The same held true in 1950; first, for the railway strike and, second for the Korean War. In 1956 there was a special session called to deal with the Middle East peace-keeping. Those were special sessions. Following are the cases where Parliament was recalled from an adjournment-the veiled threat of the House Leader- August 29, 1966, a railway strike; August 31, 1972, a grain-handlers' strike; August 30, 1973, a railway strike; August 9, 1977, an air traffic controllers' strike; and October 6, 1980, the consideration of a motion to establish a special joint committee of the Constitution. In the latter case, the House was recalled nine days early and the urgency was to get the committee underway before the delivery of the Budget, which was presented on October 28, 1980.
Debate on the Constitution, of course, was not a once in a lifetime matter, but it was the first time in more than a century a Canadian Parliament had been asked to begin so sweeping a change in our basic law. In any case, those citations relate to grave national emergencies, a paralysing transportation strike, grainhandlers' strike and an air traffic controllers' strike, something which goes to the daily convenience and public necessity of this country. Never has that rule been invoked by a Government House Leader, nor applied by a Speaker, just to accommodate the legislative program of the Government-never.
I see some relaxed faces opposite. Those Hon. Members do not want to come back after Christmas any more than anyone else. I say to you, Sir, it would be an amazing affront for the Government to attempt to put the Speaker into this invidious and embarrassing position, particularly when the Speaker has the role in this Parliament of protecting two minorities against the most overwhelming majority in Canadian history.
It may be well-and it is a matter between House Leaders-that some substantial progress can be made on the legislative program this week. However, if the Government continues to abuse the parliamentary system and if it continues to
apply the hammer, the closure, the limitation of debate, before we have had an adequate opportunity to review the legislation, then there will be no co-operation coming from this side. [Translation]
But I asked our House Leader to meet with his friend the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. There are possibilities to accommodate the Government and the Canadian people. But that could be done without the threat of an emergency session next week, without the threat of closure to limit opportunities for debate, without the massive weight of this Government's overwhelming majority.
Mr. Speaker, you know that all Members here have the right and the responsibility to scrutinize measures introduced in the House in the interest of all Canadians. With respect to family allowances, we are against the action of this Government because we want to protect low income families. We speak strongly against the lack of fairness when it comes to the capital gains tax exemption which favours the rich. We object on behalf of average families because at the same time the Government disregards fairness and upsets the balance of our Canadian parliamentary system.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Taxation-Tax reform- Government priority; the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Footwear Industry-Maintenance of quotas-Government position. (b) Request that quotas be retained; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Housing project in Sackville, N.S.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and
December 17, 1985
[Stage Direction]
to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Prud'homme (p. 9258).
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that under the rules there is no opportunity to question the last speaker so I simply want to put two things on the record because I believe they should be put on the record. First, the last time allocation was used was for the debate on Monday, December 9, when Bill C-84, the important income tax Bill, was called. Bill C-84 was called for 11 o'clock in the morning. There was to be one day's debate. Debate was to finish at 4.45 p.m.
1 want to point out to the House that the Bill was called but there was no debate whatsoever on that day. In other words, when the day's debate was called, and the question was called, Hon. Members opposite who have complained so much about closure were not there to debate. Therefore, before anyone starts worrying about time allocation and abuse of democracy, they should realize that the abuse of democracy was when Hon. Members opposite were not there to debate the Bill which was called. The second point I want to put on the record-and I think probably the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) did this unintentionally-was when the electoral commissioners filed their reports in the last Parliament, which commissioners were appointed by the previous Liberal administration, it was my duty as the then Deputy House Leader to file the objections to the commissioner's report.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's true.


Philip Derek Lewis: Well, I want to go on the record for my Party that we never made any suggestion at that time that there was any gerrymandering of any riding.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There wasn't.


Maurice Brydon Foster: There wasn't any.


Philip Derek Lewis: There was never any suggestion that the boundaries of any of those ridings were politically misconstrued.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you.


Maurice Brydon Foster: If those boundaries are fair, why are you changing them?


Philip Derek Lewis: For that reason I think it is unfair and improper to either impugne the work of those commissioners-


Sheila Maureen Copps: No one is impugning your word.


Philip Derek Lewis: -or to suggest that the commissioners who are going to be appointed under this Bill would follow any other course of action than to do what is right for the Canadian people.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a word or two in this debate. 1 want to begin by saying that much of what was said by the
Representation Act, 1985
Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was absolutely correct. His analysis, if you will, of the pressure under which we are put as a result of the Government's use of time allocation is an accurate analysis. It is difficult for people to appreciate that the House of Commons, to a large extent, operates on the basis of goodwill, and goodwill is absolutely essential in the House of Commons if the House is to be able to do the necessary work which is expected of it by the people of Canada.
When the Government chooses-and I say this in this case to the Government across the way-to end debates prematurely by use of time allocation, the goodwill which is necessary becomes considerably lessened. That is true of this Government, and I say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, who was not here during the immediately preceding Government, that it was equally true during the time of that Government.
I can remember the numerous times I rose in the House to ask the Government not to move on time allocation and to suggest that it was an inappropriate way to end debate. 1 want to say, however, in saying that, that I also believe, as I have said on many other occasions, that it is necessary for Hon. Members to be able to discipline themselves. It is necessary for Hon. Members not to simply use up the time of the House without giving due consideration to the over-all program which is before it. I believe it is the responsibility of all Hon. Members to look carefully at the program in front of us and to try to come to grips with the amount of time which may be necessary in order that that program can be adequately dealt with.
I am saying that I agree with what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said regarding time allocation, particularly in the most recent past. Almost without exception on Bill after Bill it appears that the debate is being closed off. I admit it is not happening in every case but it certainly appears that every time the Government does not get its way it moves very quickly to use time allocation. Not only that, it will extend the sitting through the lunch hours so Bills can be rammed through. That is what causes the dissipation of goodwill which must exist in this House if we are going to do the necessary work. I want the Leader of the Official Opposition to appreciate that in the main I support his argument in that regard. I am, however, concerned about what has happened on this particular Bill.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition is fair-minded in this regard. It was very difficult for us, as the other opposition Party, to read the signals coming from the Liberal caucus. Very difficult. I say that in all fairness. It was hard for us to understand where the Liberal caucus was going on this Bill. My colleagues and I thought that the amendments offered were satisfactory. It was reported to us that the amendments met with the approval of the Liberal critic. They were in fact, in the main, the same amendments he had himself offered as being satisfactory. Therefore, it was difficult for us to suddenly

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
be faced with an uprising, if you will, after the process was finished. 1 would say this no matter what side of the House I was on. I am not trying to create a battle between us, I am simply telling the truth.
To go back to the beginning of this issue, we were given a paper to look at. My colleague from Churchill, who was a member of the committee, was unable to attend the initial meetings of that committee and 1 personally attended those meetings in order to be sure we were represented. The process had got to the point where in the final stages of the discussion of the redistribution Bill, when it got to committee, it was felt by most that it had been given reasonable amount of time. I would now be prepared to accept as true that what is being offered is unacceptable. I am not going to argue one side or the other at this point because it is too late in the debate. However, if that was true, if the amendment offered by the Opposition, which became the focal point for the Opposition as being unacceptable, was in fact unacceptable, then why in heaven's name did the Liberals offer it in the first place? That is my problem. Why argue for something and then, when you get it, turn it into a cause celebre to be used to defeat or stop passage of the Bill? I find that difficult to understand. I like to co-operate, damn it, and support what you are doing. 1 do support it. But I expect in return that there will be some consistency. If it had not been the intention of the Liberal Party to support the changes finally brought forward as amendments to the House, then they should not have offered them as amendments in the first place.
On top of all that, there would have then been a built-up Opposition. Surely it is not too much to ask that we be able to see where the points of opposition really lie so we can analyze them adequately and make some determination about their validity in order to come to grips with whether or not they are supportable. We were not given that opportunity. The committee worked itsway through and it was only after that, only after the recommendations came to the House having been agreed upon, that suddenly, without any warning, there loomed this massive opposition. To be perfectly frank I find that hard to deal with.
1 say now that we would have been perfectly willing to have considered any alternative scheme which was seen as satisfactory. My colleague would have brought that to our caucus, we would have looked it over, and gathered our forces to try and support it. That is all 1 ask. The process has within it at least three opportunities for debate. However, third reading is not where you start debating the process all over again. That is not where it happens. On third reading you may go back over the arguments you lost. You may want to state your continued opposition to what is happening. However, you do not reopen the entire process at third reading and expect that somehow or other everyone else is going to fall in line.
I say all that with the best of intentions and goodwill. I entirely agree with the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition regarding the way the Government has handled its business. However, I am personally perplexed that we find ourselves in the situation we are now in over this Bill. The Bill was
given broad discussion and this point of objection was never raised.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We never agreed to this.


Ian Deans: 1 am going by the record. If it was raised, it certainly does not appear as if it was. You can disagree with me and I will accept that we disagree on that. However, that is my sense of it, my reading and my understanding of it.
Having said that, let me say something about the Government. Members opposite said, when they ran for office, that they were going to be an open and forthright Government. They said they were going to deal upfront with what could and should be done in Parliament and in the country. Nothing could be further from the truth! There has been no greater disappointment over the last 15 months than this Government's continued attempts to not provide information to the House of Commons. At this moment we are debating two things and I think you will agree with me on this, Mr. Speaker. We are not only debating the content of the Bill, we are debating an atmosphere or mood which has developed over the last while.


John Napier Turner: Right.


Ian Deans: We are trying to come to grips with it, find a way around it. However, going back as far as I can, every time we ask the Government to produce documentation to show conclusively how it arrived at the decisions it is taking, the Government has refused. Every single time. The Government says it is open. It says it is prepared to co-operate, to provide the documentation. However, on almost every single occasion that we asked for information regarding several issues over the last 15 months it has refused. I take you back not too far to the bank bail-out. Look at the tremendous problem we had in trying to arrive at an understanding over how the investigation would be undertaken. That was much like the position we are in again today. Here was the Government with a crisis on its hands and an Opposition-I was in on the negotiations- which said that it wanted to look at this objectively. Yes, also politically, I admit. That is, after all, what we are involved in. There is nothing wrong with looking at something from a political perspective; we are in fact in politics! Yes, we would anticipate differences of opinion will arise because of different ideologies as we view certain actions of the Government. However, all we asked in the bank bail-out situation was that we be given the relevant information. However, we had to drag it out inch by inch. We were refused at every turn. Every time we said: Can we have this document? No, you cannot get this document. Could we have that document? No, you cannot have that document. In the end all of the documents that we, in the House of Commons, asked to see have been presented to the Estey Commission-every single last bloody one of them. Now they are all public. However, would the Government be forthcoming and sufficiently trusting in the parliamentary process to provide the information to the House of Commons? Not likely. No, Sir. It could not do that. That was a bone of contention.
December 17, 1985

At that point I started to wonder about the forthrightness and openness of the Government. We were not asking for secret information. We were asking for the information the Government used to make a decision which will cost the taxpayers of Canada approximately $1 billion, which the Government neither committted itself to spending nor could have anticipated that it would spend. It was an extraordinary expenditure. I believe that we, in the Elouse of Commons, are entitled to know everything there is to know about the background material to support a request by the Government that it be allowed to spend $1 billion that it had not anticipated it would need to spend.
We said that the original bail-out and the subsequent collapse of the bank should be treated in the same way it would be if it were a bankruptcy. We said that those who wanted to make a claim should come forward and make it openly and be paid in accordance with whatever is available to pay them. That is the normal business practice.


John Napier Turner: Under the Winding-up Act.


Ian Deans: That is the normal business practice and when we said that we should follow the normal business practice the Government looked at us as if we were mad. It said: "My good God, we cannot possibly tell you who is going to get the money". That is because the Government does not want to. It is not because there is any law against it or because there is any rule governing it. People tell me that the Bank Act does not allow it. This no longer falls under the Bank Act. That is the kind of thing which causes people to begin to withdraw from the co-operative spirit which is necessary to make the House of Commons operate effectively.
We then discovered that there are hundreds of millions of dollars that could be collected in taxes that are not being collected as a result of pre-tax rulings. We do not want to know anything about the people involved, but want to know how much is not being collected in order that we can come to grips with what this really means to the economy of Canada. Why is it that those who work for a living can be taxed at source but others can somehow work out fancy arrangements to save hundreds of millions of tax dollars without anyone understanding or knowing anything about it? We asked for some information with regard to that and the Government said: "Oh, no. You cannot have that. That is bad. You should know a thing like that". That is where we end up in that situation and it again undermines the very essence of co-operation that is so necessary for the House to operate.
We cannot, of course, get the details on de Havilland. We will get them if we ask the right questions every day.


John Napier Turner: Morsel by morsel.


Ian Deans: The Leader of the Opposition says: "morsel by morsel". The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) says that he is giving us the answers. Let me assume for a
Representation Act, 1985
moment that he is. However, surely 1 do not have to sit up night after night every night of the week thinking up every conceivable question and asking it in the House of Commons to get to the bottom of the deal. That is outrageous and stupid. If the information was going to be given to me anyway, why can I not have the documents? That is all I am asking. I do not want to get into a personality battle over it. 1 understand that there may well be certain things which cannot be provided because of the delicate nature of the negotiations. I can appreciate that. I am not stupid, and neither are my colleagues. All we ask is to be treated in the way that we are intended to be treated by virtue of the fact that we ran for and got elected to Parliament. We are supposed to be trusted. We are supposed to be able to critically analyse the situation, not after the fact, but before the deal is completed.
I will close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that what is wrong in the House today is simply a lack of co-operation and a lack of understanding which I think the Government has fostered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 84 on Monday, December 16, 1985, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill.
The question is on the amendment. Mr. Prud'homme, seconded by Miss Nicholson (Trinity) moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-74, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 2."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:

December 17, 1985
Representation Act, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say to the House that this was a 15 minute bell, delayed strictly for no other reason than the dilemma in getting the buses up the hill in the snow. It is not to be taken as suggesting that in the future we are in any way changing the practice with regard to a 15 minute bell.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if the House would be disposed to have this vote counted on the main motion, obviously, but unfortunately reversed, and provided that all the names are recorded as if there had been a normal vote.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. If there is a disposition in the House to accept that, I would like to have my vote counted with the correct side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Crofton
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dick
Domm
Dorin
Duplessis
Members
Edwards
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gervais
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hailiday
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Jacques
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Ladouceur
Landry
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mantha Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McDermid
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Save and except for the problem of interpretation which that poses, the question is as follows: Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) moves that Bill C-74, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be now read a third time and do pass. Shall I take the vote in reverse with the addition of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls in the affirmative?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being 5.20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Cyprus


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS- MOTIONS   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ADVISABILITY OF SUPPORTING UN RESOLUTIONS ON CYPRUS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should express concern about the continuing illegal Turkish colonization of Cyprus and the latest secessionist movement of the Denktash regime
1.	by supporting measures for the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus;
2.	by ceasing further negotiations with the Turkish Government on the sale of a nuclear reactor, until the latter complies with the U.N. resolutions on Cyprus and shows a respect for international law;
3.	by calling upon the Turkish Government to provide immediate information on missing Cypriots;
4.	by calling upon the Turkish Government to respect the human rights provisions of the Helsinki accord, especially in regards to Cyprus;
5.	by calling upon the Turkish Government to cease immediately, further colonization of Cyprus and to withdraw all illegal colonists transplanted with a view to changing the demographic nature of the Island; and
6.	by condemning the new secessionist movement of the so-called "Federated State of Northern Cyprus".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given an opportunity to present this motion to the House in order to give the House the opportunity of considering the request that 1 put forward in a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If there are to be conversations, I hope that they would be held behind the curtains. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Hockin), please get behind the curtain and stop the chatter. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) has the floor.


Neil Young: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The idea of putting this motion arose out of a function I attended in July of this year. It was a function organized by the Cypriot Federation of Canada along with the Hellenic-Canadian Federation of Ontario, the Cypriot Community of Toronto and the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto. This function was entitled "Justice for Cyprus". It was attended by Hon. Members from all sides of the House including my good friend, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), and others. I do not want to take too long making my comments because I understand that many other Hon. Members want to say a few words about this motion. I would like to give them the opportunity to do so.
The question of Cyprus and its invasion by Turkey has been raised in the House several times by Hon. Members on all sides of the House, including the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn.). It is well known that there have been many communal differences in Cyprus, some of which are of a long-standing nature. Nevertheless, there has also been a considerable period of time during which the two communities

December 17, 1985
Cyprus
have lived together fairly peacefully side by side. I am convinced that given a chance, those two communities would do so once again but only once the Turkish troops get off the island.
At the function to which I referred, all the participants made it a point that prior to the invasion, even though there were differences between the peoples of Cyprus, more often than not through interpersonal relationships they had got along very well over the years. They were quite convinced that they could do so again provided they were given the opportunity to make their own decisions on their own behalf without a strong military presence on the island.
This is the eleventh year since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus; 11 years since Turkey sent its army to occupy 40 per cent of Cyprus and displace one-third of its population or some 200,000 persons. Turkey also captured thousands of defenceless civilians and shot, butchered or raped hundreds and 2,000 of these are still missing. Turkey then brought in a flood of colonists from mainland Turkey to whom the stolen properties of the displaced refugees were handed over. Despite worldwide condemnation of this action by the United Nations General Assembly, the European Common Market and the Commonwealth, Turkey has ignored all resolutions and pleas for justice in Cyprus and has continued to support the Turkish pseudo state which Turkey alone recognizes.
Justice for Cyprus means the removal of Turkish troops and Turkish colonists from Cyprus, the return of the 200,000 refugees, an accounting of the 2,000 missing Cypriots and their release from Turkish jails. It means a free, united Cyprus as stated in UN Resolution 37/253 which was adopted in 1983.
If we are to achieve justice in Cyprus, we must have a clear understanding of who the aggressors and the victims are. This is not a problem between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and it is not an insoluble problem as the Turkish Government would like to portray it. It is nothing but the occupation by an aggressor of a small island country with a limited defence.
At every appropriate occasion, the Canadian Government at the UN and during Commonwealth discussions on the Middle East and Cyprus should raise the issue of Cyprus with other countries and particularly with NATO and the United States. There can be justice for Cyprus. The problem can be solved but only through outside mediation and influence, particularly through the United States. If the Canadian Government has as close a relationship with the United States administration as it says it has, and if Canada has a direct interest in Cyprus, Canada can indeed bring about a just solution for Cyprus and all of its citizens, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
Although the island was invaded 11 years ago, during all this time the Government of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots have ignored several resolutions put by the United Nations and the European Parliament which call for a just settlement. Turkey is also waging a campaign of intimidation against Greece and threatens the integrity of several Greek islands along the western coast. The continuation of Turkish aggression contemplates a threat to peace in the part of the world and goes against the collective interests of the western alliance.
It is because of the global concern over what has been occurring on Cyprus that the UN General Assembly adopted on May 13, 1983, Resolution 37/253. The vote on that resolution was 103 in favour with five against and 20 abstentions. I believe it is important that that resolution be recorded here. Therefore, I intend to make the House aware of it. The General Assembly Resolution reads as follows:
Having considered the question of Cyprus,
Recalling its resolution 3212 (XXIX) of 1 November 1974 and its subsequent resolutions on the question of Cyprus,
Recalling the high-level agreements of 12 February 1977 and 19 May 1979 Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of occupation and acquisition of territories by force,
Greatly concerned at the prolongation of the Cyprus crisis, which poses a serious threat to international peace and security,
Deeply regretting that the resolutions of the United Nations on Cyprus have not yet been implemented,
Recalling the idea of holding an international conference on Cyprus,
Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is still occupied by foreign forces,
Deploring the lack of progress in the intercommunal talks,
Deploring all unilateral actions that change the demographic structure of Cyprus or promote faits accomplis,
Reaffirming the need to settle the question of Cyprus without further delay by peaceful means in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant United Nations resolutions,
1.	Reiterates its full support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and calls once again for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs;
2.	Affirms the right of the Republic of Cyprus and its people to full and effective sovereignty and control over the entire territory of Cyprus and its natural and other resources and calls upon all States to support and help the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to exercise these rights;
3.	Condemns any act which tends to undermine the full and effective exercise of the above-mentioned rights, including the unlawful issue of titles of ownership of property;
4.	Welcomes the proposal for total demilitarization made by the President of the Republic of Cyprus;
5.	Express its support for the high-level agreements of 12 February 1977 and 19 May 1979 and all the provision thereof;
6.	Demands the immediate and effective implementation of resolution 3212 (XXIX), unanimously adopted by the General Assembly and endorsed by the Security Council in its resolution 365 (1974) of 13 December 1974, and of the subsequent resolutions of the Assembly and the Council on Cyprus which provide the valid and essential basis for the solution of the problem of Cyprus;
7.	Considers the withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus as an essential basis for a speedy and mutually acceptable solution of the Cyprus problem;
8.	Demands the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus;
9.	Commends the intensification of the efforts made by the Secretary-General, while noting with concern the lack of progress in the intercommunal talks;
10.	Calls for meaningful, result-oriented, constructive and substantive negotiations between the representatives of the two communities, under the auspices of the Secretary-General, to be conducted freely and on an equal footing, on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions and the high-level agreements, with a view to reaching as early as possible a mutually acceptable agreement based on the fundamental and legitimate rights of the two communities;
11.	Calls for respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots, including the freedom of movement, the freedom of settlement and
December 17, 1985

the right to property and the instituting of urgent measures for the voluntary return of the refugees to their homes in safety;
12.	Considers that the de facto situation created by the force of arms should not be allowed to influence or in any way affect the solution of the problem of Cyprus;
13.	Calls upon the parties concerned to refrain from any unilateral action which might adversely affect the prospects of a just and lasting solution of the problem of Cyprus by peaceful means and to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in the performance of his task under the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council as well as with the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus;
14.	Calls upon the parties concerned to refrain from any action which violates or is designated to violate the independence, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus;
15.	Reiterates its recommendation that the Security Council should examine the question of implementation, within a specified time-frame, of its relevant resolutions and consider and adopt thereafter, if necessary, all appropriate and practical measures under the Charter of the United Nations for ensuring the speedy and effective implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations on Cyprus;
16.	Welcomes the intention of the Secretary-General, as expressed in his report... to pursue a renewed personal involvement in the quest for a solution of the Cyprus problem and, in view of this, requests the Secretary-General to undertake such actions or initiatives as he may consider appropriate within the framework of the mission of good offices entrusted to him by the Security Council for promoting a just and lasting solution of the problem and to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the results of his efforts;
17.	Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-eighth session the item entitled "Question of Cyprus" and requests the Secretary-General to follow up the implementation of the present resolution and to report on all its aspects to the General Assembly at that session.
Some 86 voted in favour of this resolution, eight against and 25 abstained.
Hon. Members may be interested to know that on October 1 of this year the United States Senate adopted a similar resolution on Cyprus. The Senate resolved the following:
(a)	The Senate hereby congratulates the people of Cyprus on the twenty-fifth anniversary of their independence.
(b)	It is the sense of the Senate that the United States reaffirms its continuing commitment to a just resolution of the Cyprus dispute, and its support for the efforts of the Secretary-General to bring peace to that troubled nation.
At the outset I said that I did not have any intention of taking too long since other Members wish to speak on this matter. What I do say is that the arguments presented by the United Nations General Assembly are much more eloquent than ones I could put forward to the House. This is why it is important that I read the resolution into the record.
Also, it seems to me that as a country we have substantial influence and respect in international circles. That respect goes hand-in-hand with a high degree of credibility in the international arena. It seems to me that we should be using that credibility to use whatever influence we have on other nations to bring about a peaceful resolution of the problems in Cyprus. The number one call is for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island so that Cyprus itself can get on with making the decisions which will affect the lives of its people and future generations.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor to comment briefly on the same
Cyprus
subject. I would suggest this problem has been with us for a long time and it does not seem it will be settled soon.
I have no difficulty with Motion No. 215 of the Hon. Member. I think his motion before the House is logical, but there was really no need to refer to the CAN DU reactor issue since it is the subject of a dispute which has nothing to do with the Island of Cyprus. I think the Hon. Member would have been better advised not to include that reference in his motion.
I think that the position of my Party and of the country in this debate... We believe the people of Cyprus must decide their own future and that there is no need at all-yesterday, today or tomorrow-to have the Turkish army intervene and have 40 per cent of the Cypriot territory occupied by the Turks.
The unilateral declaration of independence for the northern part of the Island of Cyprus has simply become a totally irrelevant element which does nothing to help matters. The problem ought to be resolved along the lines of the United Nations resolution which would enable all Cypriot citizens to express their views concerning the political solution of this problem which unfortunately has existed for a very long time.
Canada started to offer the services of Canadian Forces to keep peace in that country a long time ago. In my opinion, Canada's contribution to peacekeeping in that difficult situation which has prevailed for over twenty years on the Island of Cyprus should be made available to other parts of the world. And I think we should look at Cyprus and realize that U.N. intervention has to a considerable extent prevented loss of life and that the invasion that took place a few years ago proves that military intervention only makes matters worse instead of dealing with the problem, and that in the circumstances, Canada should continue to provide the services of its troops to keep the peace between the warring factions.
At this point, I believe I would say that I prefer Canada to intervene under the aegis of the UN, because when it is done at the invitation of the warring factions, we are making it impossible for the United Nations to maintain its credibility and intervene in an effective manner. Perhaps because the UN no longer has the prestige it enjoyed, let us say, 25 years ago countries are now intervening as the Turks did in the northern part of Cyprus, and we have seen the results. Thousands of people were displaced. Thousands of people have disappeared. Families want to know whether a person has disappeared or is in prison or what has happened to them. In the resolution, the Turkish Government is being asked to provide all the information they have on these individuals so that the human tragedy that has been going on since the intervention by the military can in some way or other be brought to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech. I think my party's position on the subject is well known, and 1 know

December 17, 1985
Cyprus
that the present Government's policy is not any different from the one we have supported to date. To clarify my position, perhaps I could read, for the benefit of the House, a short speech, a matter of minutes, which clearly established the Trudeau Government's position. Or perhaps I could simply refer the House to a speech made on November 17, 1983 by the Permanent Ambassador to the UN at the time, Mr. Gerard Pelletier, who clearly and succinctly summarized the Government's position. I could quote a few paragraphs that might be helpful to the people listening to this debate.
The Government's position was, and I believe it still is-and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm this later on-that we profoundly regretted the unilateral declaration of independence on November 15 of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. We are not prepared to recognize this so-called state on Cyprus. We continue to recognize a single Republic of Cyprus, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected by all concerned. The unilateral declaration of independence has disrupted negotiations that are already delicate and difficult enough as it is. It is the unfortunate result of a situation previously described by the ambassador in June before the Council, that is, the two communities on Cyprus and certain other parties to the Cypriot dispute have not shown the requisite resolve to search for a compromise which, though difficult, will be necessary to find a valid political solution.
Although we are aware of the impatience and frustration felt by the parties as a result of the lasting stalemate, we cannot agree however that those sentiments warrant such a disproportionate reaction. The action of the Turkish Cypriot community jeopardizes chances for a fair and equitable solution within a unified Cypriot State, and for well deserved peace and prosperity.
Canada strongly deplores this unfortunate situation because our participation in the United Nations Force goes such a long way back. Indeed this force was created to maintain peace and pave the way for a solution to the Cypriot problem, not a unilateral solution but one which would be prepared and accepted by all parties concerned.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is a fair and reasonable position. The military intervention is not justified in these circumstances. We have to go back to the United Nations resolution and hope that the Cypriot problem will be solved by all the citizens of the Island of Cyprus in such a way that lasting peace might make people forget this unfortunate situation which has endured for too long but which, in my opinion and that of my Party, cannot be solved by a military intervention such as the one that took place on the Island of Cyprus.


Mr. Chuck Cook (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my comments on this issue because there are two other Hon. Members who would like to speak in this debate and from
whom I would like to hear and, unfortunately, with the vote, there is not much time left. I will have a brilliant speech ready next time the Cyprus issue comes up. But it will not be this evening.
There are two or three points I would like to make. First, Canada's stand on Cyprus is not ambiguous at all. Our efforts have always aimed at helping the peace process and facilitating the UN Secretary-General's efforts. Second, Canada regrets deeply such actions as the 1974 foreign interventions or the 1983 unilateral Declaration of Independence. Third, Canada has supported resolutions aiming at the withdrawal of foreign military personnel on Cyprus except those provided for in the Cyprus Constitution.
The UN Secretary-General is actively pursuing his efforts to reconcile the two communities. Any unsolicited and one-sided action by Canada at this delicate point of the discussions would undermine his initiative and be counter-productive. In his recent speech at the Fortieth United Nations General Assembly, the Cyprus Foreign Minister called for all to support the Secretary-General and to "assist him in finding a solution to the problem". The motion presented today does not seem likely to have such effect.
Canada is a key member of the United Nations force in Cyprus. Its contingent patrols the most sensitive sector of the "green line". While Canada itself recognizes only the Republic of Cyprus, the Canadian contingent must maintain its credibility in the eyes of the Turkish as well as the Greek Cypriots. The adoption of this motion could raise questions as to Canadian impartiality as peace-keepers.
The lives of 25 Canadian servicemen have been lost in Canada's efforts to bring peace to the country of Cyprus. Tens of millions of Canadian dollars have been spent in our peacekeeping efforts over the years. Passing this motion would undermine that impartiality which Canada must maintain if we are to have a loud and clear voice in bringing peace to that troubled island.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, let me again point out that Canada has many years of experience in Cyprus and that its position has been carefully elaborated over the years. We feel that under the circumstances, this position is the one most likely to help the Secretary-General of the United Nations who has been mandated to bring about a reconciliation in Cyprus. The Cypriot question is a very complex one. Not only is it the result of many centuries of sometimes difficult cohabitation between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, but it is also a product of the often violent relations between two peoples whose language, religion and culture differ considerably.
The vagaries of history kept Cyprus from becoming part of Greece like other islands in the Aegean and Mediterranean in the nineteenth and twentieth century, and in 1878, Cyprus came under the control of Great Britain. Nevertheless, there is
December 17, 1985

still a profound attachment to the Greek language and culture and to the Greek Orthodox religion. At the same time, a Turkish presence on the island since the 15th century had produced a cohesive and strong minority, 18 per cent, with strong ties to the Turkish language and culture and to Islam. [English]
We are all familiar with the painful process which led to the independence of Cyprus. Hellenism has been there for a long time but not until 1931, it is felt, was a desire for enosis, uniting Cyprus with Greece, expressed with any seriousness. After the war Britain began to decolonize and grant independence to its colonies one by one. A campaign in favour of enosis, accompanied by terrorist attacks against British interests, was launched in Cyprus in 1955. The Turkisk Cypriots, fearing abandonment by England, tried to resist the pressure for enosis and independence and called for the maintenance of the status quo or, failing that, partition of the island. They finally agreed with the Greek Cypriots on a draft constitution in which the right of the minority were protected. Moreover, when independence was achieved, Cyprus signed with London, Ankara and Athens a treaty which gave the three countries the right to inspect implementation of the agreements. The institutions put in place in 1960 by the Zurich and London agreements have not worked. The Turkish Cypriots claim that they have systematically been excluded from important decisions and that their rights have not been respected, while the Greek Cypriots contend that the Turkish Party has refused to cooperate and abused its veto powers.
We do not have the time to review in this House the many events which have marked the past 21 years. In 1964 civil war was raging and the Government of Cyprus, having consulted with the three guarantor states, appealed to the United Nations. Canada has witnessed most of these events. From 1964 through 1974 Canadian soldiers, like their counterparts from other contributing countries, were assigned to positions in the cities, towns and villages where Greek and Turkish Cypriots were fighting. Their main job was to keep the peace, prevent fresh outbreaks of fighting and create conditions conducive to reconciliation.
After the events of 1974 the Island was divided in two. The UN force was re-deployed along the cease-fire line. The Canadian troops were given the difficult mission of patrolling the old sector of Nicosia where the enemy positions are sometimes only a street's width apart and where the presence of many buildings in ruins makes it very difficult to exercise surveillance over the fortifications and the cease-fire line.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before I go on with my speech, I must pay a well-deserved tribute to those 23,000 young Canadians who, with dignity and courage, have performed an extremely dangerous and I would say frustrating task. It is inspiring to see these soldiers and officers, trained to defend their country against the enemy and if necessary, attack that enemy, acting as referees between opponents whose motivation and courage make them formidable fighters.
Cyprus

One's concept of the role played by the UN force in Cyprus can vary depending on one's own perception of things. This international force, which has numbered as much as 6,800 and is now 2,340 strong, has not always been able to prevent skirmishes from degenerating into widespread combat. It was powerless in the face of the events of 1974. As I said, there must be a reciprocal political desire before the UN force can fulfil its mission. However, many of the soldiers could testify to the lives they have saved, the supplies they have brought to isolated villages, and the hundred of refugees whom they have led to a safe zone. Many times they have passed from one zone to another bringing mail, helping isolated family members visit one another, and watching over the aqueduct work in Nicosia which is proceeding without regard for the Green Line. In short, they are maintaining against all obstacles a state of peace and communications which will enable the political leaders and the UN representatives to continue the dialogue. These soldiers could also tell you about the long nights and days they have spent patrolling the cease-fire line between two rows of fortifications strewn with death-traps. These Canadians are professional soldiers and are always on the look-out for attempts by either side to strengthen an outpost or a barricade, or to move a portion of the cease-fire line. They are also diplomats who, on behalf of the UN, negotiate with each party to resolve initiatives or misunderstandings which might change the status quo and precipitate a confrontation. In 1984 only one life was lost along this line. In 1985, none. Those who feel these troops need not be there have only to imagine what would happen if they were withdrawn or even if their numbers were reduced.
Others feel that Canada is not doing enough. Earlier on, when I mentioned the cost of Canadian participation in this peace-keeping force, I left out what it costs Canada indirectly to send these troops to Cyprus rather than keep them here. Consider also that the services provided by the soldiers are not available to the Canadian people, so that the total cost, not always quantifiable, is actually higher than it appears to be. In sum, those who would like to see Canada take a position on the actions of the parties involved need only ask our soldiers what effect this would have on their ability to keep the peace. I would also ask them to reflect on the effects this motion would have on the mediatory work being done by the UN Secretary-General since the summer of 1984, to mention only the most recent of his initiatives. The Cypriot communities, as well as the Greek and Turkish Governments, recently reiterated their confidence in the Secretary-General's efforts. He earnestly desires to see each party negotiate seriously, with no outside interference and with a willingness to once and for all re-establish the minimal confidence required to produce valid concessions. The two Cypriot communities seem to agree on the principle of setting up a federal state. Yet to be determined is the exact nature of this state, the reciprocal rights each part would have, and the guarantees which would ensure the survival of this federal state and the security of its citizens.

December 17, 1985
Adjournment Debate

Because they are so far removed from Cyprus, Canadians have trouble understanding what is at stake in a situation that has existed for over 20 years. However, they do realize that any definitive failure of the UN's efforts in Cyprus would have devastating consequences, not only for the Cypriots but for the world community and world peace.

Before it is too late we must lend all the support we can to the only person who has a chance to bring the two communities back to the negotiating table and keep them there. For the sake of future generations, patience and confidence must be evident among all involved. Threatening or inflammatory declarations, and attempts by the parties to strengthen their positions by drawing the international community into the conflict, are contrary to the objectives of Mr. Perez de Cuellar and the methods he would see used. For its part, Canada will continue to support with all its resources and prestige the multilateral approach to finding a solution. It will, if asked, continue to lend assistance in the field and quietly encourage the parties involved. In this way, and not by passing motions like the one before us, we will best contribute toward a just and appropriate solution to the problems of Cyprus.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on November 27 I wanted to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) a question about tax reform. In his absence, I asked the question of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). In my question I indicated how confused Canadians are about our tax system and how disappointed they are, and I used other adjectives as well. I did not consider the reply I got to be totally satisfactory. I would now like to outline some of my further thoughts on this vital topic in Canada.
I had the privilege of visiting Washington last spring with a number of colleagues to study the important issue of tax reform. I found it a very worthwhile meeting. As you know, President Reagan has set tax reform as a very, very high priority of his administration and the Americans are moving along that path. It is not easy. We saw several different versions of the so-called minimum tax and flat-rate tax in the United States. However, I believe they have the will and determination to follow through with that. I am confident that we will see the same determination in our country. The Prime
Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that we will move along that path and I think it is time we got that process underway.
I would like to talk about a few of the problems with our current system and give a few examples of it. 1 attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs last evening at which we dealt, clause by clause, with Bill C-84. I will give you just one example of an amendment which we were considering. It reads:
(B) the corporation is, throughout the year, a Canadian-controlled private corporation whose taxable income for the immediately preceding taxation year together with the taxable incomes of all corporations with which it was associated in the year for their taxation years ending in the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year in which the taxation year of the corporation ended does not exceed the aggregate of the business limits (as determined under section 125) of the corporation and the associated corporations for those preceding years, or"
That is just one example, Mr. Speaker, of the complexity of the Income Tax Act.
With great respect to several of the architects of that Act over the years, I think we have ended up with a band-aid solution. There has been change after change after change. I would defy any tax lawyer or tax accountant in the country to try to comprehend that entire Act. The provision which the Government is moving forward with through the last Budget, the lifetime capital gains exemption of $500,000, is a proposal which I personally feel is a good one. However, as we discussed Bill C-84, that one proposal alone touched on over 130 parts of the Act. Therefore, you can see the complexity of it.
Individuals, as well as companies, have a hard time filling in tax returns. Many of them have given up and have had to go to various tax preparation companies. I think that in itself speaks to the unnecessary complexity of the law.
As the Government deals with tax reform, I believe it should move ahead on the basis of revenue neutrality. In other words, Canadians should not perceive that we are changing the tax provisions just to get more taxes into the Treasury of the country. When we do embark on this in a serious way we should follow the principle of revenue neutrality. When the total changes are made, the Government collects the same amount of money.
Some of the things we should be thinking about and considering, which I call important principles, include the current minimum tax. It has a principle in it, to which I object, having to do with the gross-up of dividends on which people are being taxed. 1 do not think Canadians should be taxed on money they do not receive.
As we review this whole topic we should look at a consolidated return for corporations. With my business background, I recall when one deals with the acquisition or selling of a company that the first area to be explored is that of the tax consequence. You do not look at the market-place, how long the company has been in business or what the sales force is like, you look at what the tax situation is. Is there a tax loss carry forward? It is almost like a shell game when annual returns are filed, Mr. Speaker, shifting assets into different
December 17, 1985

companies so tax can be minimized. A simple thing, like a consolidated tax return, as they have in the United States, would go a long way toward that very point.
I have a number of other points 1 want to make on this issue, but let me conclude by saying that as we embark on this important initiative we must ensure that Canadians perceive it as being fair and equitable. They do not at this stage. We have something in the order of over 25,000 employees in Revenue Canada in the excise area-I do not want anybody to lose his or her job-which speaks of the mammoth job at hand, while we have over 12 million people trying to fill out returns. I submit our system is far too complex. We need to get on with strong backing and a strong initiative on tax reform in Canada.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, our Government has shown that it takes the development of a fair and efficient tax system seriously by introducing and proposing a number of initiatives on this issue. These continuing series of steps considered in aggregate represent major advances in fairness.
One of the first actions taken by the Government was to put an end to the abuses of the quick flip mechanism associated with the scientific research tax credit. These abuses by certain individuals and corporations had resulted in a significant loss in revenue for the treasury.
The Government has implemented a number of reforms in the area of tax administration. The November 1984 economic statement introduced measures designed to improve the fairness of tax administration. These measures include requiring a taxpayer to be refunded any overpayment of income tax resulting from a successful appeal-even if under further appeal-restricting the authority of officials for search and seizure, to be consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Government does not believe in being Draconian in its pursuit of the tax dollar, and has made changes to humanize the tax collection process.
The May 23 Budget contained a number of proposals directed toward increasing the fairness of the Canadian tax system. Measures relating to these proposals were tabled in the House with the November 21, 1985 Notice of Ways and Means Motion. Two major measures relating to fairness between taxpayers are the restriction on use of the capital cost allowance losses from certain types of businesses for individuals, and the extension of the income attribution rules to income from property acquired from the proceeds of interest-free loans.
In an effort to prevent tax avoidance, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced on November 26, 1985 a measure to prevent the use of trusts to market security issues in a way that income and capital returns to investors are distributed tax free.
On December 4, 1985 a major step was taken when the minimum tax legislation was introduced. It guarantees that
Adjournment Debate
high income individuals will not escape paying income tax. In addition, on the same day, the Minister of Finance introduced measures ending the use of partnerships in corporate takeovers for increased tax deductions and clarifying the law on the limits imposed on foreign property investments by pension funds. These measures are designed to make the tax system more fair and to safeguard federal revenue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY-MAINTENANCE OF QUOTAS-(A) GOVERNMENT POSITION (B) REQUEST THAT QUOTAS BE RETAINED
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23 I put a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), asking him to act responsibly and maintain quotas in the footwear industry. Now we know that the Government decided to eliminate the quotas, and immediately afterwards, Mr. Speaker, I went to my riding, the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, which has three shoe factories employing 1,000 workers. One of the comments made by the shoe manufacturers in my riding and which they asked me to take down was that, in fact, the worker stands to lose by this decision, because the manufacturers can go on designing Canadian shoes here and have them manufactured in Brazil and then import them into Canada, which they can do because there are no more quotas.
Mr. Speaker, that is the situation at the present time. These are jobs that have been lost as a result of this decision. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this has been confirmed by a report from ILO, which says that eighteen industrialized countries are now experiencing increased job losses in the footwear industry as a result of imports from developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, this indeed confirms statements by manufacturers who intend to stay in business despite the fact the quotas have been lifted. They are going to have the shoes manufactured in developing countries, but our workers, our Canadian workers are going to lose their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, workers in the Canadian footwear industry as well as manufacturers, tanners and suppliers are very disappointed and even concerned, not only because of this Government's very poor policy on import quotas on shoes but also because of the specious arguments invoked since then in the House to justify the Government's decision.
Manufacturers and workers are asking the following question: Why is the Government trying to mislead the House and the public by pointing out that the quotas have cost consumers between $450 million and $500 million? Why does it refer to figures from a theoretical study without taking into consideration the way the shoe market operates or the real price of shoes? Why does it use overestimated figures based on an

December 17, 1985
Adjournment Debate
econometric evaluation-not to mention projections for the years 1984 and 1985-yet fail to mention that, according to the Tribunal, econometric evaluation procedures give results which can never be considered to be totally accurate? Why does it not keep Members aware of that? Why does the Tribunal refer to figures based on an econometric evaluation whose results cannot be considered to be totally accurate?
The Government knew that it was because the Tribunal was unable to obtain figures from retailers and importers, as it indicated in its report. Why did the Government fail to advise the House about what the Tribunal said concerning the price consumers have to pay for shoes?
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and say that Canadians deserve more than mere theoretical studies. They deserve to know the truth because 20,000 workers will be affected by this decision.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like just for the record to quote the promise made on May 4, 1984 by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition. Here is an article from the newspaper La Tribune:
On Wednesday Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney told the daily newspaper La Tribune that a Conservative Government would not abolish import quotas imposed by Canada in the footwear and textile sectors.
"The quota policy would remain unchanged", said Mr. Mulroney because he is not in favour of free-trade in those sectors.
He added that he would not give in in spite of pressures that might be applied by the Common Market countries or the United States to loosen quotas on shoes or textile products in Canada.
"I will not miss the opportunity to say so to President Reagan when 1 confer with him in Washington next month. I will see to it that our interests are protected at all times. A friendship has its price. Neighbours like us are worth a lot", said the Conservative Leader.
What a joke, Mr. Speaker! After 15 months in office he abolishes quotas, yet on May 4, 1984 he had clearly stated he would maintain them, even in spite of pressures from the Americans and the European Common Market.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to answer the question raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) on October 23, 1985, and to refer to the decision taken by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and announced in the House of Commons on November 20, 1985 concerning the Government's future policy on shoe imports.
In his announcement the Minister mentioned the Canadian Import Tribunal report which had been commissioned by the previous administration and according to which the Canadian shoe industry, with the exception of shoes for women and young girls, can compete successfully on international markets. In light of the tribunal findings, the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of the country to continue to restrict imports throughout the whole industry.

Accordingly, effective December 1, 1985, import controls are being continued for a further three years only with respect to women's and girls' dress and casual footwear. Quotas for this sector will be phased out to annual growth provisions of 6 per cent the first year, 8 per cent the second year and 10 per cent the third year.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) stressed that adjustment assistance programs would be available for communities, employees and companies. Furthermore, the industry currently benefits from a tariff of around 23 per cent on footwear imports and will continue to have recourse to the provisions of the Special Import Measures Act.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-HOUSING PROJECT IN SACKVILLE, N.S.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I want to explain further the gross error of the present Government as well as the previous Government in regard to the shell housing program in places like Sackville, Nova Scotia. About 1972 there were a number of houses built. At least 23 have been identified as having trouble now, in which the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved the contractors who constructed the shell and then the shell was sold to the customer-the homeowner-to-be-who is responsible for completing the interior work.
CMHC approved the whole arrangement and approved the contractors. CMHC was responsible for inspecting the houses. The people who bought the houses and are living there yet say that there was no inspection until the end. In the end, the inspector came around, drove up in his car, met with the builder who drove up in his truck or car, but did not go into the house, and signed the inspection documents. In other words, they covered for the fact that he had not inspected it. As I say, this was done under the jurisdiction and with the approval of CMHC. It turns out that the roof was very badly designed. It was designed in such a way that it was bound to rot for lack of ventilation. On one street, 23 of the roofs of that design and construction are rotting in that way. One has already fallen in and others have had to be replaced so that they would not fall in. After complaints that began in 1974 and 1975, it took the Government until 1985 to do anything about it, whichever Government was in power.
The fact is that CMHC was responsible from start to finish, up to the point where the project was handed over to the unsuspecting home owners who foolishly trusted a government body to tell them they were buying sound houses. The present Government has treated them almost as shabbily as the previous Government which produced the bad housing.
Some of the home owners have had to double the amount of their mortgages in their later years in order to fix houses which were faulty when they were sold to them under the jurisdiction and direction of CMHC. Some extra rehabilitation money has
December 17, 1985

been given but it amounts to no more than $2,000 per house for roofs which cost $10,000, $15,000 or $18,000. They should have been fixed before and should not have been charged to the home owners at all. It is the responsibility of CMHC.
The Minister promised to report on this situation to a local Member of the Legislature but repeatedly refused to forward that promised report. His words were that he expected to be able to provide the Member of the Legislature with the results of his investigation by early June. It is December and there is no report. My office requested this report by letter on November 26, by phone on November 26 and December 2, by letter on December 6, in a speech on December 10, in a question on December 12 and in phone calls Friday, Monday and today, and never once did the Minister respond to the request for a report, let alone make the report public.
Clearly the Minister responsible for CMHC is as ashamed to report on the matter as he would have been if he had been the Minister responsible at the time this disgraceful building project was created. The Government has inherited all the power, prestige and revenues of the previous Government and it inherited with that its debts, both legal and moral, of which this certainly is one. The Government owes new roofs to the owners of those houses in Sackville and if it slides out of providing those roofs it is defaulting on a moral obligation and that will bring disgrace to the Government.


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested that the Minister and his staff members have a lack of sensitivity or have shown a lack of co-operation. I should remind the Hon. Member, as he certainly knows, that the Minister does indeed take the Hon. Member's representations very seriously and that the Minister and the members of his staff have responded to his inquiries very promptly. As an example, today members of the Minister's staff were, as they were on many other occasions, in contact with the Hon. Member's staff to assist the Hon. Member in his endeavours on behalf of the people he represents.
I would like to respond further to the matter raised by the Hon. Member which, of course, concerns the problems being experienced by the homeowners in a housing project in
Adjournment Debate
Sackville, Nova Scotia. The project in question consists of some 22 semi-detached units which were built in the early 1970s as part of a joint federal-provincial program known as shell housing. The basic idea underlying the program was to bring housing units to a stage of construction which permitted occupancy. The owner occupants then completed the work creating equity in the properties at the time of completion. Under the program, CMHC provided loans to builders who were responsible for the shell of the units and to persons with a previously agreed income at an agreed maximum price.
The problem of deterioration in some of the units was brought to the attention of CMHC earlier this year. As a result of that representation an inspection was carried out which found that in some of the units rotting had occurred due to moisture entering the roof system. Contrary to the Hon. Member's suggestion, these observations have been communicated to the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) who, I might add, has made representations to the Minister on behalf of his constituents. As well, these observations have been made known to the local MLA, Mr. Holm.
The actual report was produced for CMHC internal use and, as such, is not a document for public consumption.
The federal Government has no liability in this matter. However, despite that, CMHC has undertaken to do its utmost to respond to the needs of these homeowners within the parameters of existing programs. Many of the occupants have considerable equity in their homes and, where feasible, CMHC will work with lenders and the homeowners to extend mortgages to cover the costs of repair. In the case of hardship, CMHC is prepared to arrange adjustments to loan repayment terms. CMHC has also reallocated available funds in the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program to Halifax County for this project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order (3)1.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 18, 1985