1985-05-07

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties with respect to the order of business. It would be appropriate at this point in time to announce that in the rotation of legislation which I announced last week I want to insert consideration of Bill C-25 before Bill C-45. That Bill deals with agricultural stabilization. That item will be called in the rotation prior to the consideration of Bill C-45.


Mr. Speaker:: That is understood.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 12 to 20 at page 3.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the first of the two amendments that we would like to introduce and speak to today would strike out lines 12 to 20 at page 3 of the Bill, in effect restoring the original clause. This is with regard to the method of financing of the World Bank group. Prior to the Government's amendment of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, the financing had to take place through an Act of Parliament. This gave us an opportunity in the House of Commons, every year or two, to debate the subject of international development assistance.
The Government is now removing from Parliament the opportunity to debate the role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in international development assistance, therefore removing parliamentary accountability in this very important area of Canadian Government activity.
Instead of having the replenishments to the World Bank group and the IMF authorized by Parliament, they will simply be authorized, in effect buried, in the Estimates.
This procedure of burying such matters in the Estimates was followed a year or so ago with regard to the other international financial institutions such as the Inter-American Development Bank. We were not successful then in maintaining the authority of Parliament. There is no opportunity in the House to debate the operations of the Inter-American Development Bank and other international financial institutions of a regional nature. We know that there is no chance of debating the operations of these institutions through the instrument of the Estimates or appropriations.
The previous Government removed other international financial institutions from parliamentary debate. If the present Government follows that precedent and takes away the World Bank group and the IMF from Parliament, there will be no use for this body or the relevant standing committee in having a say on their activities.
A report to Parliament will still be required, although it will be very slim when compared to what we originally requested a couple of years ago. Reporting alone on the activities of these institutions will not give us the opportunity of debate in the House of Commons and therefore I urge the Government not to take a backward step by diminishing the authority of the House. The Government has said repeatedly that it wants to enhance the position and authority of Parliament and its committees.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said at the Bonn summit that he was going to be a voice for Third World countries and that he wanted to enhance Canada's role in international development assistance and activities. However, rather than strengthening Parliament's role in its debate on international development, the Government is diminishing its power. The Government is essentially saying that it cannot be believed. In effect, the Government is saying that it does not really want to strengthen Parliament or play a more significant role in the activities of international financial institutions. It does not want Parliament and Canada to play a stronger role with respect to development assistance in the international community. Therefore, one can only conclude that the Government is simply paying lip service to the role of Parliament and to Canada's role in international development.
The Government has already cut back on international development assistance. It will never reach the goal established by a former Prime Minister of 1 per cent of our Gross

May 7, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act National Product being devoted to international development assistance. The Government has already admitted as much.
The Government's present position is that international development assistance, whether it is in the form of grants or loans, must be related entirely to the provision of goods and services. That is the Government's main criterion, rather than the needs of the developing countries themselves, particularly the poorest of the poor nations. As a result of preventing Parliament from discussing Canada's role in international development assistance, particularly with respect to international financial institutions, the Government is effectively saying that we should have no voice in Canadian activity in such institutions.
If we reverted to the form the Bill was in before the Government changed it, we would be required as a Parliament to authorize the funds for the World Bank group and to restore the wording of the present Subsection 5(2), which reads:
(2) The Minister of Finance may provide for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the manner and at the times provided for by the Agreement therefor set out in the Second Schedule, of a sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscriptions required from or permitted to be made by Canada, that is to say, two billion, one hundred and seventy-eight million, two hundred thousand United States dollars of the weight and fineness in effect on July 1, 1984.
That is the present subsection 5(2). Of course, on subsequent occasions the Act of Parliament would no doubt have a different amount of money, obviously.
In restoring that section, which is the purpose of our amendment, we would, as I have indicated, be making it possible for this body, the Parliament of Canada, to discuss and debate the activities of the World Bank group and of the International Monetary Fund as we have done up to now in this House and not leave this extremely important matter of the financing and role of the World Bank group and the IMF to be buried in appropriations along with a million others and therefore, significantly by so burying them, lower the whole role of the Canadian Government and of the Canadian Parliament in the activity of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party is one that calls for the maintenance of a very important principle, that is, a strong reliance on the over-all system of parliamentary control for the provision of funds by Canada for the operations of the important international financial institutions covered by the Bill.
We of the Official Opposition are generally in support of the principle I have mentioned as it applies to this Bill and as it is reflected in the amendment that has just been spoken to by the representative of the New Democratic Party.
There is a contradiction on the part of the Government when it comes to the matter of parliamentary approval of
financing of the international financial institutions in question and what the Government has proposed in this Bill with respect to one of these institutions, the International Finance Corporation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments proposed by the Bill is to give a general legislative basis for Canada's participation in the International Finance Corporation. The International Finance Corporation is one of the World Bank group of financial institutions. Its focus is on the support of private sector investment in developing countries, unlike the work of the World Bank and the International Development Association which focuses particularly on government initiatives.
In presenting Bill C-30 to the House in March, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) said that the reason the Bill in question dealt with the International Finance Corporation in the way it did was to move away from the system which had existed for many years of providing financial support to the work of the International Finance Corporation. This system was to fund Canada's role in the International Finance Corporation through the Estimates process. The present Government has now decided that the Estimates process is not a sufficient means of supporting, dealing with and considering Canada's involvement in the International Finance Corporation and, instead, there had to be an over-all legislative underpinning in the form of a permanent statute rather than through annual appropriation Bills. Yet when it comes to the manner of providing financial support to the World Bank group in general, particularly to the World Bank itself and to the International Development Association, the Government is saying that we should move back from the very course of action which it is proposing with respect to the International Finance Corporation and have the financing of the World Bank and the International Development Association on the part of Canada, as it is required from time to time, dealt with only by the Estimates process.
I see here a very important contradiction. It would seem to me that to be consistent with the arguments put forward for including the International Finance Corporation in this Bill, the Government should not at the same time be insisting that increases or changes in the financial support which Canada provides for the World Bank and the International Development Association be done through the Estimates process rather than through a legislative proposal, that is, a Bill presented to the House from time to time, which would be required to go through the whole procedure required under our rules for a formal piece of legislation.
Bill C-30, if adopted, moves away from the concept of having a piece of legislation each time the Government wants to make a substantial change in its method or extent of supporting the institutions of the World Bank group. This means, in my view, a lessening of over-all parliamentary control of a very important aspect of Canada's involvement in the world community. It takes away an opportunity for formal debate here in what should be the central place for consideration of the business of the country, here in the House of
May 7, 1985

Commons, in the high court of Parliament. The problems of the Third World and Canada's effort to solve them and the issue of the transfer of resources to developing countries are, in my view, highly important and in fact in many ways crucial to the survival of our over-all civilization. Therefore, when it comes to the matter of providing or changing and hopefully increasing Canada's financial involvement in the World Bank group, this should be the subject of a specific, separate piece of legislation resulting in the formal debate which our rules require for such a piece of legislation. Financial changes in our support for the World Bank group should not be buried among one of possibly hundreds of items in an appropriation Bill. In my view and in the view of my colleagues, they require and deserve a separate piece of legislation.
Therefore, I call on the House to support the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party. This amendment would strenghten a very important principle which has been somewhat under attack by the present Government. That is the principle of a very strong and central parliamentary scrutiny, starting out in this House of Commons, of expenditure by the Government on behalf of the people of Canada. Second, it would provide an opportunity which, as much as I believe in the committee system, would not be the same if consideration were not carried out in this House of Commons-to debate and consider Canada's role in supporting the needed progress of the Third World. I believe this amendment should be supported.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am truly astonished at the tenor of the speeches being made by the Opposition. First of all, this question was debated at the second reading stage, when I had the privilege of reading the address, and there were also thorough discussions in committee.
I am rather puzzled by Motion No. 1 as moved by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) because the motion as proposed would in fact restrict the powers of the House and considerably increase the burden of decision-making for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). By striking out lines 12 to 20 on page 3, as proposed, we would be gagging the House, as it were, and putting the entire burden on the shoulders of the Minister of Finance.
Since the substance of this motion has already been debated, I would rather not discuss it at length. It is in no way my intention to deprive the House of debate on the motion but I think a careful analysis is in order.
Mr. Speaker, I have had some opportunity, be it limited, to speak in the House and in committee, and I believe that the appropriate venue for debating the details of a motion is in committee, where we have all the expert witnesses with us, and not in the House, where we have, I would not say only the Ministers, to avoid insulting those who are in the House today,
Bretton Woods Agreements Act but I would say that in the House, we have people who are here to discuss the principle of the Bill. If we were to encumber the proceedings in the House will all kinds of detailed discussion, this could slow down a debate that could be far more thorough in committee. I would therefore urge the Member of the House to act responsibly and to vote against an amendment that I think is more likely to weaken the powers of this House.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a few comments on the record in support of the motion of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). Motion No. 1 respecting Bill C-30 deletes the specific financial provisions of the Bill. It would revert to the system we had before. That would mean that the Government would have to come before the House for financial authority rather than having this whole question buried in the Estimates.
We believe it is very important that when we are discussing important questions of international aid and the whole question of development of Third World countries, the entire Parliament should be involved. It should not simply be a matter of a committee looking at this. It is important that it be looked at in some detail in committee, but it is also important that the House of Commons have an opportunity to examine this issue in some detail.
It is important for the government side to note that its own former critic on this issue, Mr. Doug Roche, the present Ambassador for Disarmament, two years ago, on March 25, 1983, spoke on this issue. He said, and I quote from Hansard at page 24162:
One of the reasons for the importance of debating this legislation is the fact that it is a very rare occasion when the House is seized of any sort of debate on these matters, let alone dealing with legislation having to do with Canada's role in international development. As we know, Cl DA has been operating through the years without an Act of Parliament. The only time we deal in any substantial way with what CIDA does as the main proponent of Canada's role in international development, is at the time of the Estimates. I am afraid that all Members of the House are too well aware of the inadequacy of the rules concerning the examination of Estimates that preclude the full treatment that important spending programs require.
I urge the Government to pay attention to its own former critic in this important area.
I was pleased to hear that the Liberal Party is giving its support to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Cotquitlam. However, it is important to note that it was under the Liberal Party, when it was in government, that the regional banks were removed from this kind of parliamentary scrutiny. Again we have one of those issues where the Liberal Party did one thing when it was in government and another thing when it is the Opposition. In this case, Mr. Speaker, what it was doing in government was wrong. What it is saying now in opposition is right. I would urge the Conservative Party to remember what it said when it

May 7, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act was in opposition and do the same thing now that it is in government.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment produced is an amendment which was discussed fully in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The amendment in a sense demands that every time we want to put money into one of these international institutions we must produce a Bill in Parliament, have it debated, have it go through the three readings and committee stage, with respect to every one of those appropriations. That is a ridiculous suggestion. It will hold up Parliament. It will hold up the affairs of the country and it will make sure that development money is not forthcoming because the Bill will never be given sufficient House time to get through.
That is the problem right now. We want to honour our international commitments and make those appropriations in the normal appropriations sense so that those appropriations can be discussed in committee where witnesses can be heard and where parliamentarians can take due note of the intention to make advances to these institutions, and we can understand what is going on. There is no reason at all to insist that a Bill go through Parliament in all stages just so that some Hon. Members can get their faces before the TV cameras.


Pauline Jewett: Shame.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a question of parliamentary accountability. This is a question of holding up Parliament for no reason at all. The Hon. Member, who has been around here for a long time, knows that.


Pauline Jewett: You argued differently when you were on this side.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is a situation of an ordinary appropriation to an institution or institutions which we all believe in, and when we make appropriations for other institutions or other organizations, we do it through the Estimates. We do it through an Estimates procedure where there is provision for those Estimates to be properly examined.
There has been a question about whether we do examine the Estimates properly. That is why the committee led by our colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), is studying the way we can change the committee procedures of this House. The reform of Parliament is under way and the Hon. Member knows that. The Hon. Member also knows that that reform of Parliament will give Parliament much more control over the Estimates procedures. That will make it possible for more detailed examination. But surely, Sir, in the interests of making parliamentary government work, we cannot have parliamentary government encumbered by a Bill every year, making a special appropriation to these international organizations. There is just no room for it in the parliamentary calendar and the suggestion from the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party-and I am surprised it
is supported by the Liberal Party because it should know better-is just an attempt to hold up the work of this House.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard words from the last speaker to the effect that having this discussion in Parliament would slow up the process of evaluation and the thorough examination of appropriations to such organizations as the World Bank group, including the IMF. I recall it was the same individual who, not many months ago, after sitting through various committees, said that this process is insane. It is absolutely absurd. Here we sit day after day going through the Estimates and I don't think there is a single Hon. Member in this House who would say that the process we have used up until the present time makes any sense whatsoever.
When it comes to debating the appropriations to the World Bank group now, we will have an official who will come into the committee for a two-hour session, whose job it will be to provide bafflegab and mumbo-jumbo for two hours until he can get out. That is the examination, Mr. Speaker. That is the thoroughness with which the various appropriations are examined. Perhaps, as the Hon. Member suggests, this is all going to change and a whole new fresh approach, a sense of openness and thorough debate, will occur. Perhaps-and perhaps the sun will come up tomorrow as well. We will have to wait and see. But to suggest that today is the last time Parliament is ever going to discuss what Canada does with the World Bank group and what it does with the IMF, I think, is a tragedy. These are two absolutely critical sets of institutions which have a profound impact on what is happening in the developing nations of this world. We know, as parliamentarians, that our participation in the World Bank group has not been particularly impressive over the years. All kinds of schemes have been funded and introduced through the World Bank group and IMF which have not helped the Third World countries, which have perpetuated a sense of oppression, economically and socially, and which have tied them more closely with our own western ideals, approaches and economy.
The situation for most Third World countries has worsened as a result of our participation through the World Bank group, including the IMF. To suggest that that is it, that there will be no more discussion or debate in the House of Commons, I find astounding. I can see some Hon. Members opposite who spoke against the Liberal move not too long ago when the Liberals said: "Listen, we're getting embarrassed by these debates in the House of Commons where people point out the shortcomings of our development work in the Third World, so our solution is to take it out of Parliament and out of public scrutiny".


Pauline Jewett: It's not our solution.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, it is not our solution. I said that was the Liberal Party's solution when it was in government. And Hon. Members of the Conservative Party stood in their places and ranted and raved against the burying of these discussions.
May 7, 1985

Now the tables have been turned. I remember the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who heads up the Finance Committee now, almost getting beyond the point of being able to continue to speak in the House of Commons because the Liberals were going to stifle debate on this most crucial issue. Eight months later he now stands up and says: "This is a wonderful idea. I've been born again. I am a supporter of the World Bank group and what I was saying eight months ago was incorrect". Those Hon. Members cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They cannot speak one way as members of the Official Opposition against what the Liberal Government has done and now when they are in government support the very same process.
Let us recognize today that for the people of Canada this is the last opportunity that they will have to hear this issue debated in the House of Commons. And this is at a time when all of us are desperately concerned about what is going on in the developing nations. We are desperately concerned about the situation which has occurred now in the African countries, especially Ethiopia. We want to avoid these kinds of disastrous situations in the future. But by participating in the traditional World Bank group activity, by supporting the IMF in our traditional ways, we are simply making sure that this lack of development, the lack of the production of viable agricultural endeavours of these countries, will continue.
That is why we have moved this amendment, to keep this topic before the House of Commons and Members of Parliament. After all, we are accountable for the way in which we spend the taxpayers' money. When we continually shovel appropriations through the Estimates into these traditional institutions and do not get the proper return on those investments in terms of assistance to the developing nations, I do not believe we are doing our job.
In conclusion, I would say that we have lost a real opportunity. I am not certain that Members of Parliament realize what they are doing by not supporting this amendment. Members of Parliament are saying, as the Hon. Member for Mississauga South stated, that witnesses will no longer appear before the standing committee to discuss the appropriations. As I know the procedure, when a Bill comes before Parliament it is referred to the appropriate standing committee and if the feeling of the members is that expert witnesses are required to explain a particular appropriation-whether it should be expanded, reduced or whatever-the opportunity exists. In a sense, what the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs argued can be done, but it should also have the benefit of discussion in Parliament. People say that it will place an unfair burden on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and that it will increase the burden of his decision-making. That is too bloody bad. If the Hon. Member is saying that we are asking too much of the Minister of Finance in terms of our participation in the World Bank and IMF, so be it. If the Minister cannot take the heat, perhaps he should step down. I do not believe it is asking too much for the Minister of Finance to stand in the House and
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
explain our participation in these international banking institutions.
I would be remiss if I did not remind the House that it was members of the Liberal Party, when they were in government, who removed the regional banks from this discussion. I hope that might mute some of their criticism.
I hope that Members will reconsider their opposition to this proposal and realize the value of discussing such a sensitive issue in Canada's Parliament. Parliament is the vehicle which enables the people of Canada to see and hear how their Members represent development plans and assistance to countries, particularly Third World nations. To bury that and place it in the Estimates is a very regressive step.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate in the debate on the amendment which was introduced by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). Indeed, it is a sad day when government Members attempt to limit the role of Parliament, particularly in an area which is of great concern to Canadians. We have a strong tradition in Canada of concern about, and involvement in, the plight of all humanity, particularly the plight of the people in the poor developing countries.
The role of the IMF and the World Bank is crucial to the well-being of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. It is a rare opportunity for Members of Parliament to be able to discuss Canada's role in these organizations and to debate their rules, procedures and practices. To deny that opportunity, I believe, does injustice not only to Parliament and its Members, but also to the Canadian people. Canadians expect to hear and see their Members debate these important issues even though they occur on such rare occasions.
I suppose I should cease being puzzled on a daily basis, but I am puzzled by the fact that the Conservative Party has flipped over. When it was in opposition it said one thing, and now that it is in government it is saying something else. For example, the previous Liberal Government introduced Bill C-130. Among other things, that Bill moved the appropriations given to various foreign agency banks out of the debates in Parliament and into the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. On March 25, 1983, a speech was made by Mr. Doug Roche, who was the spokesperson for the Conservative Party. He said; as reported at page 24162 of Hansard:
One of the reasons for the importance of debating this legislation is the fact that it is a very rare occasion when the House is seized of any sort of debate on these matters, let alone dealing with legislation having to do with Canada's role in international development. As we know, CIDA has been operating through the years without an Act of Parliament. The only time we deal in any substantial way with what CIDA does as the main proponent of Canada's role in international development, is at the time of the Estimates. I am afraid that all Members of the House are too well aware of the inadequacy of the rules concerning the examination of Estimates that preclude the full treatment that important spending programs require.
Mr. Roche was speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party. He stated that he had no confidence in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to deal with public expenditures through international development. He said that it did not provide an open and public forum which would

May 7, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act enable the Canadian public to follow in the discussions concerning our role in international development. Mr. Roche moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Party to change the legislation to allow public debate within Parliament on the issues of international development. However, the Liberal Government of the day voted against the amemdment. We in the NDP voted for the amendment. Now the situation has flipped-the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party are fighting against the Conservative Party. What the Conservative Party proposed in opposition, it is now defeating in government. What the Liberal Party in government was defeating, it is now supporting. Surely it must be embarrassing to members of the Conservative Party to realize how they have totally changed their position.
1 would like to reiterate the point which we are trying to make. We are not attempting to filibuster, but international development is an important issue. The role which the Canadian Government plays is important. It is important to the Canadian people and it is important to the hundreds of millions of people who are living in Third World countries. Canada has a good image abroad. We are looked to as a country which is not greedy, and not imperialistic in the sense that Canada does not colonize other parts of the world. I believe Canadians want to hear what their representatives feel about international development. This is our last chance to stand in Parliament and speak in this public forum about a situation that concerns international development, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is a sad day. The Government has drawn the curtain on the opportunity for public debate. It is a black day. In the past, such Conservatives as John Diefenbaker and Robert Stanfield fought to retain the integrity of Parliament. However, on this day the Conservative Party is the author of a Bill which will further diminish the role of this institution on such an important topic.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have been told to be very brief so I will be very brief. I understand there is a very important agricultural Bill coming up soon and I would not want to take time away from that.
1 can understand some of the points presented to the House, especially by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who did so in his usual perceptive way. I can well imagine myself, were I to be a member of the Opposition and the NDP, God forbid, were to form the Government, not trusting them one little bit. I would be extremely suspicious of any move they made. I would not want to give them any more authority than I had to. In that circumstance I would probably be arguing the same way as the NDP are today. It is an old debate; there are only limited amounts of parliamentary time to devote to any one issue, and we have therefore adopted standard procedures to deal with the Estimates of various Departments.
The test that should be applied as to whether this matter is of such importance that it cannot be dealt with by the normal procedure, concerning money to be allocated to the IFC, the
IDA or any of these other institutions, is whether they are fantastically more important than anything else the Government of Canada allocates money to. Are they more important than allocations to the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, or any other Department or any other thing the Government is involved in? I agree with Hon. Members that the types of expenditures we are dealing with today are important, but I do not think in the general scheme of things they are any more or less important than all the other areas to which we allocate funds.
Another aspect of the test would be whether it would be a new expenditure, something that the Parliament of Canada has not previously allocated funds for. Is it an entirely new area we are getting into? By now allocations of this nature to these institutions have become somewhat standardized; it is not new, we have been doing it since the 1950s or before. It is done on a regular basis.
Another test might be the opportunity for debate on these issues, and that point was brought up by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and his colleagues. I suggest that the opportunity for debate on matters of the financing of these various international institutions has not been precluded in the House of Commons any more than a debate on national defence, the judicial system, Indian affairs or anything else has. We all admit that the changes that were made to the rules of the House of Commons in 1968 are not perfect, and we would all like more parliamentary time to debate these issues rather than in committee, but under those rules, as imperfect as they are, there is a system of opposition days. If the NDP or the Liberal Party wants to use one of its opposition days for the purpose of debating the financing of international institutions, then they certainly can do that. There is nothing preventing them.
So the statement we have heard in this House today from the NDP that this is the last time this matter will be debated in the House of Commons is certainly not true. If the NDP are as concerned with this matter as they say they are, then there will be ample opportunity for them to bring it to the attention of the House of Commons again.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), which has the purpose of ensuring that there shall be regular debates on the advancing of funds by Canada to the World Bank group, including the International Monetary Fund.
The debate which has already taken place this morning on the motion certainly had its ironic moments. We recognize that the last Government brought this sort of proposal forward as far as the regional banks were concerned, and was quite supportive of the principle expressed in the Government's action which our motion endeavours to prevent, action which is designed to eliminate substantial debate in the House of Commons on these matters. We have, of course, seen the irony of the House Leader of the Official Opposition supporting our motion, the irony being a change of position by the former Liberal Government which is now represented in opposition.
May 7, 1985

Of course, that Party is hardly represented in the House this morning other than by its House Leader, so the irony is not as strong as it might be.
We have another irony of Hon. Members now in the Government, while they were in opposition, taking a very strong stand over the decades through personalities now dead or still with us, having spoken strongly in support of Parliament as an institution in which the representatives of the Canadian people gather to debate the most important questions which face the nation in order to decide, in the eyes of the public, what exactly the Government of Canada should do. We recognize or at least would like to recognize the sincerity of Conservative Members having argued those positions in times past. However, the curious thing which happens when those Members become the cogs in the Government caucus is that suddenly another motive force comes into play and we find Members, such as the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn), having taken a very strong stand as an opposition member, now attacking the motion we have put before the Commons. One wonders about the hypocrisy involved, although I must confess I feel for these Hon. Members in the Government caucus who are now caught in the machinery as the machinations pursue their course and they have to get up and speak only briefly in support of the Government's action.


Dave Nickerson: That is all right, it will never happen to you.


Mr. McDermid:: You will never have to worry about that.


Abram Ernest Epp: One feels for them, caught in this situation. What is the irony of Hon. Members being forced to do the Government's work? What is the irony of a Conservative Party which, when it was in opposition, realized the importance of Parliament but which is now saying that we have a few chances in the year to put things forward if we think they are important, but they really do not think these matters are all that important and will let the machinery work itself out.
I find myself thinking, Mr. Speaker, that the bureaucrats won again, without meaning to be unfairly critical of our splendid Public Service. I think that men and women who spend their working days in offices around us here on the Hill, who probably regard the attention we give to matters at various times as a nuisance in the smooth pursuit of their administrative responsibilities, do regard the House of Commons as an institution which might well end up being petrified, so let's keep these important questions out of it. We think these matters are important, and when the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) compares them with the appropriations for the RCMP or the Department of National Defence, I sense his list of priorities. I am prepared to work with that. The means by which the Government of Canada provides our prosperity and resources to ensure that development can take place in other parts of the world which matches or even outstrips what we have managed in the past has the highest priority. There is nothing more important that we can do, at least in a mundane sense, when dealing with the affairs of the world.
Bret ton Woods Agreements Act
Given the importance of those matters, it seems quite tragic that it will become the responsibility of the Opposition to choose an opposition day to make these points. It is quite tragic that Hon. Members in the Conservative Party, caught in the toils and machinations, are now supporting the operations of a bureaucracy which rarely sees constituents as we do. It sees the world situation from its own limited perspective. Given what has been said in the past by Conservative Members and experiences which I have had with representatives of various ethno-cultural groups, perhaps we should consider the representations of people in this country who have relationships with other parts of the world.
Members of ethno-cultural groups from Europe are in Ottawa this week recognizing the importance of human rights in eastern Europe. People in this country who have escaped with their lives from Asian and Latin American countries are grateful to be here. However, they have by no means severed their sentimental connections. They are still concerned about relatives and friends they have left behind. Those issues are of enormous concern to us. People of these communities believe that one of the glories of our constitution is the House of Commons in which the elected representatives of the Canadian people can debate these issues and press the Government to modify its priorities.
In recent days the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has recognized that the World Bank is quite inadequate. If he sought to make a mark at the international economic summit in Bonn, it was with regard to changing the position of the United States of America and of opening new opportunities. Surely members of the Government caucus can recognize the importance of these things and will fail to tell us that debating these things is boring. Surely they will recognize the importance of keeping a parliamentary forum open so that our fellow Canadians and future fellow Canadians can watch us debate these matters. They must be aware that they have access to us. If they never have access to a Cabinet Minister, we can assure them that for 90 seconds at least the Minister will be aware of this particular problem because I will put it before his face and make him look at it.
Those members of the Canadian body politic should not be told that the bureaucrats will take care of it in the routine of things outside the House of Commons. That kind of disrespect for Parliament may be expected from a long governing Party, but it is most ironic for the Conservative caucus to be putting these things forward. It may be appropriate that we in the New Democratic Party continue to be the strongest advocates of the democratic institutions of this country, particularly the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the debate which we are engaged in today is to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act with regard to the World Bank group. I would like to address the particular motion before us which is with regard to secrecy versus open government, and accountability of the powers of Parliament versus
4464

May 7, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act the powers of the Government. It is also a debate about development, but I want to speak on the principles of secrecy versus openness in the field of development, first of all.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the Government seeks greater secrecy and less accountability because it does not have a very good record in this area. Development aid through CIDA and other development agencies has been cut in favour of emergency aid to enable the Government to get publicity by appearing to respond to a crisis. With regard to the crucial issue of providing the aid which the developing world needs, the Government has been deficient. It does not want to be made accountable by having these facts examined.
The tying of trade and aid measures together is a despicable trend which began with the Liberals, and which the Conservatives are continuing. They would prefer to keep it quiet because it is very strongly disapproved of in the international world which suffers from these policies. Our own voluntary and church groups are protesting most vigorously the tying of aid to trade. The Government would like to keep its tendencies away from the public because it knows that it does not have very strong public support.
The issue of development aid and loans does not get discussed enough in Parliament. Some of the Conservatives, when in opposition, had quite a different tack on the subject. I would like to quote the current Canadian ambassador on disarmament who was the Conservative spokesperson on this issue in the previous Parliament. This is from a debate in 1983. He said:
One of the reasons for the importance of debating this legislation is the fact that it is a very rare occasion when the House is seized of any sort of debate on these matters, let alone dealing with legislation having to do with Canada s role in international development. As we know, CIDA has been operating through the years without an Act of Parliament. The only time we deal in any substantial way with what CIDA does as the main proponent of Canada's role in international development, is at the time of the Estimates. I am afraid that all Members of the House are too well aware of the inadequacy of the rules concerning the examination of Estimates that preclude the full treatment that important spending programs require.
This is precisely the point of the motion before us. The Estimates do not provide adequate opportunity for study and debate, and for bringing opinions of concerned individuals, organizations, and experts to bear on the subject. The previous Conservative speaker said that there are plenty of other opportunities which can be taken. He said that if the NDP is interested in this issue it can use opposition days to debate crucial issues of development aid and credit organizations.
That is simply not enough, Mr. Speaker. We can devote an opposition day and we hope that the Liberals will do the same. However, there are not nearly enough opposition days. The Government schedules the majority of the time and has some responsibility to see that these issues are properly dealt with. It is an absolute cop-out to say that if we have another opinion we should use an opposition day to debate the subject. The Government has a responsibility. It is elected to show leadership and to pay attention to concerns of the public. There is an enormous concern in the public expressed through the churches and voluntary organizations that work throughout the world. Canada has a reputation throughout the world largely
because of the volunteer groups that send people out who bring back the message to Canada about needs in the developing world and what Canada can be doing to respond to them. We have enormous experience and expertise in Canada, thanks to this participation of so many people. This should be treated as a valued resource. These people should be consulted because when they appear before committees, when given a chance, they make excellent recommendations.
Some of the motions brought forward by the NDP are very much in line with proposals that have been made by an inter-church task force on corporate responsibility. That same group made recommendations about more openness in the process of consideration of these matters. Let me quote from the Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility in its brief to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on April 16, of this year:
Few Canadians are familiar with the important decisions which are made on their behalf by the Canadian executive directors in these major international financial institutions. Unless particularly newsworthy decisions are publicized in the news media, neither Parliament nor the Canadian public are aware of the positions taken by Canada at the IMF or the World Bank.
It requires dedicated research and a special relationship with American sources if one is to be alerted to forthcoming decisions in these institutions. In order then to discover Canada's position on these matters requires contact with hard-to-reach and often reluctant Canadian officials.
I regret to have to report to the House that this is the opinion of the people who work on this subject. It is only due to American freedom of information measures, that are much stronger than ours, that some of this information comes out.
The report gets even worse:
Yet these institutions receive contributions from Canadian public funds; decisions about their disbursements and the reasons for these decisions should be available as a matter of course to Canadian parliamentarians and to the Canadian public. There should be legitimate channels for information about projects under consideration.
The report goes on to say that in order to get information through the Business Development publication which is available from Washington, it costs $250. It is clearly designed only for those in the business community who can afford it. The voluntary agencies and churches which have real expertise in these matters find it difficult to keep up.
The report goes on:
Until 1983, the Canadian government publication, Canada Commerce published systematically a list of projects under consideration or agreed upon by the World Bank and by regional development banks. It noted as well particular officials who could be contacted about these projects. However, this service is no longer provided and we have been unable to discover another Canadian government source which releases such information.
Again, there is a drying up of information rather than an increase. It goes precisely in the direction we do not want or favour. The report continues:
We recommend that the members of the Standing Committee review the question of public dissemination of information about the World Bank and the IMF.
In particular we recommend that information be published and made available about credit applications, processing status and Canada's position in regard to them for the IMF, and the World Bank as well as for the regional
May 7, 1985

development banks in order to afford parliamentarians and the Canadian public opportunity to engage in discussions about them.
These are not merely abstract matters because this group has particular cases in mind, as do we in this Party, of some fairly scandalous happenings recently.
For example, there is the case of a loan to Chile of which Canada did not disapprove. It is a loan to a military dictatorship with one of the worst records of human rights violations. People are abducted, tortured or held without trial. There are many people in Canada who have fled from that regime and are aware of the problems. Although that repression declined for a while, it is on the increase again as resistance against that government increases. The United States actually abstained from a vote on this matter and Canada did not even do that. Many Canadians would disapprove of this shocking matter and there will be less information about these instances in the future.
Another case with respect to these loans is when the United States exerted pressure to keep a loan from Nicaragua from even reaching the decision stage. This was done because recommendations lower down in the organization on the basis of economic criteria were favourable. Canada has not spoken against that. We are concerned about Canada's role in these matters.
In closing, we want to see greater openness and accountability to Parliament and to the community of volunteers who work actively on international issues and have a great contribution to make to those debates.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to sum up the reasons for this amendment. Members will see that the effect of this amendment would be to retain the particular section of the Bill as it has existed since 1944.
This section of the Bill has not caused any delays in parliamentary time previously. Section 5(2) at present reads:
The Minister of Finance may provide for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the manner and at the times provided for by the Agreement therefor set out in the Second Schedule, of a sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscriptions required from or permitted to be made by Canada, that is to say, two billion, one hundred and seventy-eight million, two hundred thousand United States dollars of the weight and fineness in effect on July 1, 1944.
We assume that there would be a limit reflected in 1985 value beyond which the Government of the day could not spend. The important principle set out in this section is that Parliament decides on the limit of the money that is proposed to be spent by a government. Therefore, Parliament is performing a duty that can be traced as far back as Charles II, if not further.
It has been the case since before 1944 that the Bretton Woods Agreements Act has occasionally come before Parliament to be renewed. There have been few occasions when much parliamentary time has been used to review that Act. Not only are we arguing in favour of that principle in the section, but we believe it is a basic principle of parliamentary
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
democracy and therefore a section which should stay in the Act.
We suggest that the Government should remove Clause 6(3) and Clause 6(4) which would have the effect of eliminating Section 5(2). That section limits the amount a government may spend but does not require it to spend up to that limit. In addition, that section leaves a certain amount of executive privilege to the Government while also allowing Parliament to set out a certain spending limit.
I hope Government Members will recall what they said when they were in opposition and will reconsider their position. Perhaps they will realize that we are attempting to uphold a parliamentary tradition whereby Parliament allocates and votes on the amount of money to be spent by the Government. That is a principle that has been enshrined in this section of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act for many years. We believe the Government should maintain that principle of democracy and we urge it to vote with us so that principle may stand unsullied in the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pauline Jewett: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out line 32 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "including the resources and lending of the International Monetary Fund and the".
(b)	by striking out line 36 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "goods and services and also including a detailed review of Canada's participation in the lending activities of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, with particular attention to: (a) Canada's use of its voice and vote to promote internationally recognized human rights; (b) Canadian initiatives to promote the use of loans to meet the basic human needs of the poorest and provide for a more equitable distribution of income

May 7, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act in recipient countries; (c) Policy actions taken by Canada to protect the neutrality and multilateral character of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund and resist the excessive pursuit of rigid bilateral policies by other member nations; (d) Canadian initiatives to promote Financial adjustment policies that do not impose additional hardship on the poor."
She said: Mr. Speaker, the first subsection of this motion is primarily for clarification. Clause 7 in the present Bill is a reporting clause. It repeals the present Section 7 and substitutes the following:
7. The Minister of Finance shall, on or before the 31st day of March next following the end of each year or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first thirty days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, submit to Parliament a report containing a general summary of operations under this Act and details of all such operations that directly affect Canada, including the resources and lending of the World Bank Group, the funds subscribed or contributed by Canada, borrowings in Canada and procurement of Canadian goods and services.
What we have done, Mr. Speaker, to make clear that this Act is also addressed to the International Monetary Fund as well as to the World Bank group, is to add the International Monetary Fund so that the latter half of the clause will read:
-and details of all such operations that directly affect Canada including the resources and lending of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group-
There should be no difficulty with anyone supporting that clarification.
The second part of the motion is a substantive one: it tries to do something we have been trying to do in this part of the House in one fashion or another over the past many years, namely, to establish certain criteria to be followed in the lending practices of international financial institutions.
As our amendment indicates, there are four particular criteria that we have felt and continue to feel are essential in the lending practices of international financial institutions. The first of these is that particular attention should be paid to the human rights question, and that Canada's use of its voice and vote in international financial institutions should be for the purpose of promoting internationally recognized human rights. I will return to that in a moment.
The second criterion we are proposing concerns Canadian initiatives to promote the use of loans to meet the basic human needs of the poorest and to provide for more equitable distribution of income in recipient countries.
The third criterion concerns policy actions taken by Canada to protect the neutrality and multilateral character of the World Bank group and the International Monetary Fund and to resist the excessive pursuit of rigid bilateral policies by other member nations.
The final criterion we are proposing in this section for the operation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group is that there be Canadian initiatives to promote financial adjustment policies that do not impose additional hardship on the poor.
The way it is now in this clause, without any of the four additional criteria that I have just outlined and that are in our motion, the clause terminates with the words "procurement of
Canadian goods and services". That is the way the clause ends now. The emphasis, therefore, in the reporting process is really on what Canada only has gotten out of the operations of these international financial institutions, what procurement of Canadian goods and services. That is literally all we will get in the reporting process provided in Clause 7.
What we are saying is that there are at least four more areas about which we want to know, and we want a report to this House concerning the activities of the international financial institutions covered by this Bill. We want to know whether in the first instance human rights abuses are being taken into consideration by the World Bank group and by the International Monetary Fund before they authorize a loan.
The arguments of the officials of the Department of Finance in committee were almost contradictory. On the one hand, they said that if they included gross abuses of human rights criteria they would be "politicizing" the IMF and the World Bank. On the other hand, they pointed out that in the case of Uganda several years ago when there were gross human rights violations, it was proper that a loan should not have been extended to that country. Apparently on that occasion refusing a loan was not in fact politicizing in the case of Uganda.
We have argued time and time again that requiring international financial institutions to look at the human rights situation in a potential recipient country is in fact not a politicization. Human rights and the human rights covenant of the United Nations are universal. All countries of the world which signed the human rights covenant have effectively said that the protection of human rights is beyond politics and partisanship, that it is universal. We all said that, all of us who signed the UN covenant. Because we have all said that, we have taken it out of a narrow partisan or political realm. We have said that because we all agree on human rights and are all opposed to gross human rights abuses, we are not politicizing the issue. Indeed, as the Canadian Government has already shown when it did not support loans to Uganda, it could equally well show today that it does not support loans to countries engaging in massive abuses of human rights. We are asking for this criterion to which apparently all nations that signed the human rights covenant of the United Nations agreed. It is a criterion which is universal and is universally agreed to.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is coming to an end. My colleagues will address this criterion further, as well as the other three criteria which we are asking to be added to give some genuine meaning to the Act and to our belief in genuine international development assistance that respects human rights and the needs of the neediest.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to set the record straight and say that we, as new Members, are perfectly free to make statements, that we were not forced to do so by any Minister, that I get along perfectly well with both Ministers
May 7, 1985

and that I am free to come or not to come to the House. I offered my services this morning because my Ministers were busy, but Hon. Members may rest assured that we are perfectly free, that we are not forced in any way to defend our Government's policy, and that we take an active part in that Government. I wanted to be on the record as having said that, and now, I would like to speak more specifically to Motion No. 2.
I think the first part of the motion, namely section (a), if 1 am not mistaken, clarifies the paragraph in question.
I even think that part of the motion would be acceptable, if the motion did not include a second part that is not acceptable to us. The first part stresses, and I am not saying it is redundant to do so, that the International Monetary Fund is to be included with the World Bank. Although I think this is covered in the preambles, the amendment does provide further clarification. However, I must reiterate that we cannot accept the amendment because it is part of a more complex motion, whose second part is totally unacceptable to us.
As for the second part, it is a firm statement of intent, the substance of which we support as well, but I think it would be dangerous at this time, to make a statement of intent that might be construed by other nations as restrictive, or which might be interpreted differently in the course of time. We have seen treaties signed after the last World War which seemed to promote freedom and which proved to be a straightjacket for some nations. I think it would be better to provide a little more latitutde with respect to the principles being laid down here, so that our representatives in these institutions can exercise, not their voting rights, which are frequently made use of at the United Nations, whose proceedings I have had a chance to observe, but their powers of persuasion, since in these organizations it is more important to establish a consensus: in other words, people analyze the problems thoroughly, discuss them and instead of submitting them immediately for a vote, they use their powers of persuasion.
So, once again, as a free agent, but not reluctant to practise my English, I prepared a short speech in response to the second part of the motion.

Canada has also been a very strong supporter of efforts over the past decade to ensure that World Bank loans promote the basic human needs of the poorest people in developing countries. In part, we have supported this approach as a means of ensuring a more equitable distribution of income in recipient countries. Moreover, we have felt that this approach would help ensure that the poor would benefit regardless of the political and ethical ideologies of the particular Government which happens to be in power at the time the loan is approved. World Bank and International Development Association loans seek to address the long-term problems of the poor, and great care should be taken before turning off programs which take a long time to get started. We are confident that the World Bank is seriously pursuing the objective of improving the
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
economic lot of the poor in recipient countries and therefore deserves our strong support.
The proposed amendment would create the erroneous impression that Canada does not believe the World Bank is pursuing these objectives. The amendment talks of Canadian initiatives and policy action in these institutions. Instead, we believe the World Bank is committed and the need is for Canada to support the effective implementation and evolution, as necessary, of existing policies.
By referring to the use of Canada's vote in these institutions, the amendment also suggests a line of action which we believe could be counter-productive. Canada has sought to avoid the use of votes in the World Bank and has encouraged decisionmaking based on consensus. As a consequence, unlike the United Nations, voting is not a common practice in these institutions. Canada, by itself, could not stop a loan and if we were to encourage other countries to exercise their votes on the executive boards, we would not be able to contain the practice to our own objectives. In other words, we would likely only encourage greater politicization of these institutions.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we want to be consistent with our policy actions, as much within international organizations as within the Canadian Government itself. We would use persuasion and even change our original concept through a document or consultations paving the way for a final decision, rather than make a hasty decision such that those basic principles might eventually be harmful to us.
Keeping in mind what I have just said, I repeat that the first part of the motion is acceptable to us, because it does shed more light even though it is not exclusive since the first part of the Bill covers everything under the Bretton Woods Acts as well as the other related organizations. However, we cannot subscribe to the first part because the second part might hamper our negotiations with respect to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Finance Corporation and the International Development Association.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I particularly enjoyed the comments of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier). I found it rather interesting that the Government Members in a sense support the first part of this motion, which includes the name IMF for clarification, but when it comes to the reporting of human rights, there is no way they will be on the side of that. They do not want to support the second part of the motion. They would have supported the first part, but it was part of a package. The Hon. Member for LaSalle said that the second part of the package includes not restricting Canada's behaviour to tying loans to human rights support in our development assistance, but simply the reporting of the ways and means by which we

May 7, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
were encouraging the development of human rights in those countries in which the World Bank group is associated.
I look rather incredulously across the aisle. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) and a variety of their colleagues. Unless they speak differently, I guess I am hearing that they support the Hon. Member for LaSalle when he says that when it comes to human rights they do not want to be associated with that business, that they want to maintain the status quo.
The Hon. Member went on to read a nice statement that some bureaucrat obviously wrote, saying we should look at Canada's behaviour when it comes to human rights and at how we have ensured that all of our participation for development aid has resulted in more equality, in more egalitarian use of the aid and so on. Everyone in this House knows that the poor have become poorer and the right have become richer in almost every nation that we are presumably assisting, including Canada.
I take with some large chunks of salt some of the comments made by the Hon. Member. I do not believe he actually meant what he was saying, but was in fact reflecting the views expressed in the written statement of some bureaucrat on the government side.
I want to say a word or two about some aspects of this motion. We are asking the Government to accept this motion because it attempts to do basically three things. It attempts to ask Canada to pay some attention to human rights issues in our lending practices through the World Bank group. One could list pages and pages of countries that have received assistance from the World Bank group where respect for human rights is an absolute travesty.
I refer to countries like Chile. When Allende's elected Government was in power in Chile, the United States said that we had to stop this nonsense of supporting through the IMF and the World Bank the activities going on in Chile. As soon as that Government was replaced by General Pinochet and a totalitarian military dictatorship was imposed on the people and human rights were tossed out the window, the United States went to bat and said that now is the time for the IMF and the World Bank group to show support for the country of Chile.
We could go on with Vietnam. When Vietnam was in a state of war and there was American involvement there, the U.S. was supportive of IMF and World Bank aid. The minute they pulled out, they used their pressure to stop any assistance to South Vietnam.
In 1982 the United States Treasury identified 80 critical development issues in which the United States had sought to influence the policies of the World Bank group. That is from the United States Treasury itself. The United States said it was going to impose its heavy hand on the decision-making of that group. As a result, more and more development assistance
tended to go to those countries where human rights abuses are extremely well known.
All we are asking in this motion is that Canada pay some attention to this fact, that Canada use its influence in these world financial groups to speak out against some of these pressure tactics of the United States and support the proposals that tend to recognize the human rights abuses in a variety of countries.
The motion goes on to add one other aspect. That is that the loans to the various countries coming from the World Bank group and the IMF assist those that really need assistance. All of us know that much of that aid simply goes to perpetuate the status quo. The status quo means a country where the land is controlled by a handful of individuals. I see the Minister of Agriculture here. He knows full well that one of the difficulties that these countries face is a continuation of a monoculture type of agriculture where people are starving because they do not have land on which to grow subsistence crops. They are encouraged through their system to carry on with banana plantations, coconut plantations and so on which are designed for a handful of people and for the procurement of foreign exchange. There has to be some balance in this. Many of our assistance programs simply perpetuate the old status quo type of economies that do little, if anything, to assist the poor people in a variety of these countries.
The third part of our motion asks that Canada work to protect the multilateral character of World Bank lending. Rather than tie a lot of the assistance in some way in terms of bilateral agreements, the multilateral system should be used. Anyone who appreciates and supports the concept of economic assistance to developing our lesser developed countries will have to admit that multilateral approaches in terms of assistance are certainly better than the bilateral-tied aid situation. This motion asks that Canada use its influence so that wherever possible the multilateral approach is used. I have not read a single article or book that says that the way to go is more bilateral aid. Quite the contrary. We are just going along with what is common knowledge.
We are asking the Government to pay attention to human rights abuses in countries that receive much of the benefits of the World Bank group and the IMF. We ask that Canada pay attention to doing what it can to ensure that the people who need the support, the economic infrastructure development and the export assistance in the developing countries receive it, not simply the landed aristocracy. Or, if you like, have aid milked through a corrupt, tinpot dictatorship as the sole beneficiary of much of this particular aid. More attention should be paid by Canada to encouraging development of multilateral assistance.
I cannot imagine why anybody would vote against this motion. I hope that before we vote we will have an opportunity to hear one of the Members of the Government Party explain what is wrong with these three proposals.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Motion No. 2, particularly the second part of that motion where we are
May 7, 1985

very modestly asking that the Government give more details in its annual reports on the activities of the World Bank group and the International Monetary Fund. In particular, we list four areas where we believe the House of Commons and the Canadian public generally need to have information from our Government as to the way in which we have participated in those organizations.
As the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) pointed out, we want to know how Canada has used its voice and its vote to promote internationally recognized human rights. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government tries to operate by consensus, but let us at least hear what our voice said when we were trying to reach consensus. Where do we stand on some of these questions?
The Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility, in its presentation to the committee last month, said that there should be the establishment of basic human rights criteria as a co-determinant for Canada's voting decisions at the IMF and the World Bank. When it talks about basic human rights, Mr. Speaker, it talks of the most narrow and restrictive meaning of that term. It was not talking about such exalted things as freedom of the press. It was talking about basic rights such as the right to be free from arbitrary arrest, detention and execution, the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to be free from internal or external exile. The most basic of human rights are what we are concerned about here. We would like to see some reporting on the way in which our voice, our vote, was used in determining loans to countries such as Chile where those basic rights are not observed at present.
We want to see reporting on the way in which Canadian initiatives promote the use of loans to meet the most basic human needs of the poorest and provide for a more equitable distribution of income to recipient countries. Certainly, Hon. Members of our Party-and I would like to think Hon. Members from all Parties-would not want our aid funding to go to create a wealthy elite which is completely separated from the needs of the poorest and most needy of the people in the country to which aid is going. We do not want to create just a shiny veneer at the top of the economic heap. We want to see true development, which means working from the bottom up rather than from the top down. We want to see policy actions taken by Canada to protect the neutrality and multilateral character of the World Bank group and the IMF and to resist the excessive pursuit of rigid bilateral policies by other member nations.
It is interesting to note that when this Bill was being debated in committee, the Government said we cannot have it both ways; we cannot both be concerned about human rights and be concerned that this whole process is not going to be politicized. I would like to ask Hon. Members on the government side if they see human rights simply as a question of politics, if they see it as simply something which pertains to the particular policies of a particular government at a given
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
time, or if they see human rights and the question of politicization as something which is more basic as something quite different?
For example, we have seen the actions of the United States in the last few months in trying to block loans to Nicaragua. It is not because Nicaragua did not meet the formal criteria for the loans. In fact, the loans were approved on a technical basis. It is simply because Nicaragua does not meet some political criteria which are established by a paranoid official in the White House. We want to oppose that kind of politicization and it has nothing whatever to do, Mr. Speaker, with our insistence upon seeing that basic human rights are observed.
Finally, we want reporting on Canadian initiatives to promote financial adjustment policies which do not impose additional hardship on the poor. In the past we have seen the situation time and again where a debtor nation falls into some difficulty with the IMF with respect to its debts. The IMF goes in and establishes very rigid policies which have to be followed in order for the country to secure a rescheduling of its loan or additional credit. These policies impact most directly on the poor people in areas such as the withdrawal of food subsidies or cut-backs in social services. This is turn has led to riots, the so-called IMF riots where people have simply said: "We refuse to knuckle under to this kind of repression"; and that kind of unrest has led to further political repression and a movement away from democracy. That in turn often creates even more problems for the economy. It becomes a vicious circle.
We believe that Canada's voice should be heard in the direction of wanting to see that there are certain basic criteria which are adhered to in any IMF policy for debt rescheduling. Some of those criteria should require that debt rescheduling not result in an intolerable burden being placed upon the poorest people of the country involved.
It was interesting to note over the past week that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he was on his way to the summit at Bonn, said that he wanted to be a voice for the poor, for the Third World. Whether he was getting in some training because Conservative policies might soon leave Canada in a Third World, poor situation, or whether he was really concerned with speaking out on behalf of present Third World countries, I do not know, but if he is concerned about speaking out for present Third World countries, then I believe this is one area where Canada should be very active. We should make sure when we are dealing with the IMF that IMF resheduling does not impact in a way which simply adds additional burdens on the poor.
When the Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility appeared before the committee, Mr. Speaker, it pointed to three areas where it thought there should be establishment of the basic human rights criteria as a co-determinant for the granting of loans through the IMF or the World Bank. It also thought that there should be the establishment of social criteria as an integral part of the stabilization and adjustment measures negotiated between credit applicants and the IMF. When we are dealing with those countries which have been

May 7, 1985
involved with gross violations of human rights, it suggested that there could be some specific projects which would give help to those who were most poor and needy and perhaps the establishment of a basic needs criteria which would ask the question: "Does a specific project help in such areas as food, shelter, clothing or education for the people at the very lowest stratum of society?" If that is the case, perhaps we would see our way clear to make loans available in those countries, but not if the loans simply go to provide some kind of development which is going to benefit only the people at the top.
It is interesting that Section 701 of the International Financial Institutions Act of the United States has this kind of provision. The brief of the Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility states, and I quote:
Section 701 prohibits U.S. aid through multilateral institutions to "gross and consistent violators of internationally recognized human rights", unless it can be established that the aid project in question serves basic human needs. Basic human needs are defined as covering food, clothing, shelter, health and education.
This is one of the areas in which I think we should be willing to move. It is one of the areas which we want to see reported on. As my colleagues have said, we believe that this motion calling for reporting is one which should be supported on all sides of the House and I urge all Hon. Members of the Government to support it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for the wonderful job he did on behalf of his colleague, Frank Miller. The packaged Tory presentation, so typical of government by presidential caveat, was absolutely and totally rejected. In fact the downward tailspin of the Ontario Conservatives began when the Premier refused to debate the Opposition Leaders and then attached himself to the Prime Minister's coat-tails, which proved to be very short.
I can understand why the Prime Minister refused to say anything in English about the election results when confronted in Bonn. The stunning victory of David Peterson and the Ontario Liberals, the Party that received the most votes of any
in Ontario, was a massive repudiation of Mulroney's seven months of broken federal promises.
The Prime Minister, on the satellite Tory love-in, said: "You can bet your mortgage on a Tory majority". As housing critic, I am calling to collect.
Today the Prime Minister blames the revenge factor on the tremendous Tory losses. Surely he should know best about the revenge factor; witness the cheap shot he levelled at the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) regarding the Nicaraguan embargo. Mulroney believes the urge to get even may overcome the urge to get elected. That is the time-worn Tory way, but the people of Canada are not interested in getting even. They are interested in getting jobs. Take heed, Mr. Prime Minister, the message from Ontario means-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her time has expired.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to inform the House of another instance of the Conservative Government's policy of strangulation by consultation.
Throughout this fall and winter, Members of Parliament and consumer groups have heard the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) say that he intends to act on the shameful practice of tax discounting. He, like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the previous Liberal Government, fully intends to act, and told representatives of the Quebec consumer affairs group, ACEF, that he intended to bring legislation before the House by June of this year.
However, yesterday the Minister reversed himself, and now he wants to consult further with a consultation paper. This paper, and yet more consultations, will take even more weeks and months. The Minister should know that the longer he consults the more difficult his final action will become, because tax discounting is growing rapidly. Since 1981 the number of companies has quadrupled, their revenues have quintupled, and the number of offices has increased 13 times to more than 1,000.
All this is happening in an area that has been universally condemned as a rip-off of tens of millions of dollars from those who can afford it least. Much of the money taken comes from the federal Government's own child tax credit. Yet the Minister's reponse is more consultation. Consultation with whom, and consultation to what end? The Minister should realize that there is a point at which consultation becomes stalling, and-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
May 7, 1985



HELSINKI ACCORDS


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, participants in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, designed to monitor compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Agreement signed by Canada, the United States, and 33 European countries, today commenced formal deliberations in Ottawa.
Specifically with regard to Poland, it is crucial that the participants address themselves to the human rights of the Polish people and the Solidarity movement. Lech Walesa and Father Popieluszko have become household names because they have embodied the hopes and fears of their fellow Poles who seek those fundamental rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Canadians.
Therefore it is Canada's privilege and responsibility, as a nation which takes pride in its historical role as a champion of human rights and freedoms, to support and encourage the Solidarity movement actively. This we can do by calling upon the respective Governments of Poland and the Soviet Union to uphold the terms of the Helsinki Accords with respect to Solidarity and the people of Poland.
In 1961 the late American President, John F. Kennedy, immortalized the words, "Ich bin ein Berliner", precisely because those words encapsulated his own identification with the oppressed people of East Berlin and East Germany.
Similarly today, each Canadian who values freedom and democracy, can identify with the people of Poland by proclaiming that we, too, are members of Solidarity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the comments I started to make last Wednesday, which appear on page 4287 of Hansard. I mentioned the fact that in my riding, more than 15 per cent of the letters I sent were returned with the comment: "Moved: no forwarding address". However, most of the addresses were correct.
Mr. Speaker, what is the use of spending so much time and effort on communicating, if our mail does not reach its destination? Isn't every taxpayer entitled to receive prompt and equitable service from Canada Post?
As a Canadian and as the Member for Quebec East, I am very proud to serve my constituents, and I believe it would be tremendous if all Canada Post employees could feel the same pride and satisfaction with a job well done.
Mr. Speaker, the credibility of Canada Post must be restored in order to regain user confidence. Would the answer be to create another commission of enquiry?



TOURISM


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, some of the members of Common Council of the City of Saint John have expressed their displeasure with the federal Government's tourism advertising.

In fact, the Federal Government's tourism advertising in the April issue of the magazine "Selection" emphasizes tourism in Quebec and in Southern Ontario. As for New Brunswick, the ad only mentions the Campbellton Festival and Loyalist Day.
Does the Minister not realize there are more tourist attractions in New Brunswick? Has the Government forgotten that the Canada Games will be held in that province this year? I should think that would be a very important national event.
But that is not all. The Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan) also forgot to mention in his ad the Acadian Games, the Lobster Festival, the Fisheries Festival, the Acadi-ans' National Day, and a lot more.
The people of New Brunswick have every right to be dissatisfied.

"It's very bad. It's about total neglect," said the Common Council. "The federal mandate should be larger than that." Is this what the Minister means by: "We have to back winners at the expense of losers?" Are we in New Brunswick going to be the losers?



EDUCATION


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a Budget for May 23 and said that it would be a tough one. Yesterday the Social Credit Government of British Columbia fired the duly elected members of the Vancouver School Board because those trustees, with public support, refused to apply Draconian restraint measures, opting instead for decent education for Vancouver children.
The Vancouver trustees were elected specifically on a proeducation, anti-restraint program. Then the Government of British Columbia, in January of this year, passed a dictatorial

May 7, 1985
provision in the Education (Interim) Finance Act, which states:
On or before May 1 in each year the Board of each school district shall by by-law adopt the budget for the next fiscal year in accordance with any directives issued by the Minister.
I call upon the federal Cabinet to look closely at the disallowance power it has under Sections 56 and 90 of the Constitution Act of 1867, to strike down this anti-democratic provincial law, and to restore democracy in British Columbia. I further call upon the federal Government, which is negotiating English as a second language funding with the Government of British Columbia, to use its influence so that education dollars are spent for education.
Finally, I would draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance how restraint policies have ruined the once prosperous economy of British Columbia. In his Budget of May 23, I ask him to avoid that kind of Draconian restraint and any educational cut-backs.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, Citadel Hill in Halifax will be restored as a result of an historic agreement signed between Parks Canada and The Friends of the Citadel Society. This program is a first, and is representative of our Government's desire to have private groups take the initiative in areas where high deficits have forced government restraint.
The Friends of the Citadel have initiated a revised plan whereby the restoration, which was previously deferred, will now proceed with the co-operation of Parks Canada. This joint project, which will provide immediate employment for approximately 65 students as "period soldiers", will also see extensive portions of the Citadel's fortifications restored.
Under this momentous agreement The Friends of the Citadel have committed themselves to raising approximately $2 million over the course of the project, while Parks Canada will provide $1 million. I feel confident that the citizens of Halifax will respond with generosity and enthusiasm to this plan. I applaud the ingenuity and imagination of The Friends of the Citadel, and the sensitivity of the federal Government in implementing the restoration of Citadel Hill.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of this House to a crucial issue facing two major meat processing firms in New Brunswick. The future viability and existence of Hub Meat Packers Limited in Moncton, and Chippin Bros. Ltd. in Fredericton, will be in jeopardy if and when the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) signs an ERDA agreement with the Province of Prince Edward Island.
This agreement is intended to live up to a promise made by the past Liberal Government in the latter days of its mandate to provide funding to the former Canada Packers plant in Charlottetown, P.E.I. The Department of Agriculture, and the government commissioned study on the red meat industry in Altantic Canada, both cautioned against expansion of meat processing capacity in the Altantic Provinces.
The Province of P.E.I. has already expressed its intention to expand the number of hogs processed from 2,650 to 4,500 per week. Thus the activities of the federal Government, in conjunction with the Government of P.E.I., will place in jeopardy the supply of hogs and beef to the existing plants in Fredericton and Moncton.
Our Government has shown integrity in honouring past commitments, but a lack of foresight is allowing this commitment to be kept without taking precautions to protect the supply of hogs and beef to the plants in New Brunswick, or to limit the processing capacity of the P.E.I. plant. I urge the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to co-ordinate activities with other federal government agencies to guarantee the supply of hogs and beef to New Brunswick plants so as to protect the more than 600 jobs currently in existence but in jeopardy in both Moncton and Fredericton.



IMMIGRATION


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, we learned that the Progressive Conservative Government had cancelled its lease with Toronto's Avion Hotel where refugee status applicants were held. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) stated that from now on humanitarian organizations should be responsible for sheltering and feeding a number of future refugees.
If we contrast the decisions to reduce refugee services and raise next year's immigration levels, the contradiction is even more obvious.
The Progressive Conservative Government is planning to let private organizations assume part of the refugee financial burden instead of shouldering its responsibilities and expanding refugee services at the same time as it raises immigration levels.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a new global policy concerning refugees and immigrants in general. This policy would cover such sectors as employment, training and social services,
May 7, 1985

as well as others more specifically related to reception and accommodation.
Therefore I urge the Progressive Conservative Government to drop its plans to let private organizations look after landed and future immigrants.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, from coast to coast, Canadians must have felt pride at the hero's welcome some 2,000 Canadian veterans and veteran's spouses received from the Dutch people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: This visit to the 40th anniversary celebration of the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi occupation was more than a sentimental journey; it was also a message from history. For a generation Canada and the Netherlands have had a warm and secure friendship. Neither country has had aggressive desires against any other people. Each has been committed to peace. However, this anniversary of war does not contradict any of that. Rather, it reminds us that preparedness for defence is necessary for peace.
Canadians died in the Netherlands in 1944 and 1945 because the democracies were not prepared to resist Nazi aggression in 1939 and 1940. Our desire for peace in the 1980s must benefit from this hard lesson. Sir Winston Churchill said another name for World War II could have been the "unnecessary war", unnecessary because it could have been prevented. This anniversary of World War II reminds us that if Canadians are never to return to Europe and war again, Canada and its allies must be prepared to prevent aggression by being prepared to resist it.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ALBERTA CABINET MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to Oral Question Period, may I advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of the following Alberta Cabinet Ministers: The Hon. H. L. Planche, Minister of Economic Development; the Hon. E. L. Fjordbotten, Minister of Agriculture; and the Hon. L. R. Shaben, Minister of Housing.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The unfortunate failure of the Bonn Summit to move forward the agenda on world trade threatens to accelerate protectionist sentiment in the U.S. Congress and, indeed, in the European Economic Community, potentially leaving Canada in a very vulnerable position.
The Prime Minister will understand that any new trade barriers in the U.S. would be of grave concern to Canada. My question relates to his answer yesterday in the House when he told Members that he could not guarantee that Canada would receive any exemption from American trade barriers, yet a number of weeks ago in Quebec City he signed a joint declaration with the President of the U.S. moving both Canadians and Americans toward freer trade. Would the Prime Minister be good enough to explain to the House just what kind of arrangement he has with the President of the U.S.?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Liberal Party castigate the Government for trying to develop closer and sounder commercial relations with the U.S., to find all of a sudden the Grits are getting worried. Well they should be, because there are three million Canadian jobs which depend on developing the kind of mature and responsible relationships we have tried to rebuild since the election campaign, and with which, I am sure it is widely known, my right hon. friend is in general agreement. Indeed, there was a failure to reach unanimity at Bonn, but Canada, along with other countries, worked very strenuously to preserve the multilateral trading process and the thrust toward liberalization of trade. The Quebec meeting was all the more important because there was a declaration of intention there between the U.S. and Canada.
We hope there will not be a breakdown in multilateral moves toward trade liberalization but, if there is, we believe that the efforts we have initiated will stand us in good stead in consideration of options vis-a-vis the U.S., all of which will be designed to protect Canadian jobs vis-a-vis the U.S. market.


INTEREST RATES ISSUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my criticism of the Prime Minister's position at the Quebec Summit was that he over-estimated the President's clout with the U.S. Congress, which is where our problem is going to lie.

However, besides our concern over American trade barriers, Canadians are also worried about interest rates. When in Bonn, the Prime Minister should have raised the interest rates

May 7, 1985
Oral Questions
issue with President Reagan. How come he did not manage to convince his friend the President to include in the final communique a plan of action to lower world interest rates?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss at length the problems created by interest rates and their impact on future economic recovery. Should one care to read the communique, one would indeed note direct references to the causes of our interest rates. It must be said, one is the extraordinary indebtedness which our relatively small population has inherited from the previous Government. When the other nations were in a position to appreciate the full extent of the debt which Canada inherited from the Liberals, they were quite horrified by such indebtedness. That is why our economic recovery program is much more serious and much more appropriately geared to the private sector.


John Napier Turner: On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had explained that interest rates are linked with the American monetary policy.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question arises out of our relationship with the U.S. I was disturbed, as were I believe many Members, to learn of the recent decision of the U.S. Senate Committee on the environment which effectively cut about $175 million from pollution programs in states bordering the Great Lakes. This is, of course, of great concern to Canada in relation to those international waters. Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether he has telephoned the President of the United States on this very serious environmental subject?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition perhaps knows that in the hearings prior to the decision being taken, representations had been made by the Government of Canada. We regret the decision that has been taken. We will be making other representations. We will try to follow those through normal channels at the moment. However, if it becomes necessary for me to raise the matter when I meet the Secretary of State, Mr. Schultz, in Washington in 10 days time, I will certainly do that.


TRADE WITH NICARAGUA-POSITION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In the light of the decision made yesterday by the U.S. Treasury Department to monitor closely Canadian branches of U.S. companies that trade with Nicaragua, could the Prime Minister give Canadian businessmen the assurance that they can continue to trade with that country, without fear of reprisals? Furthermore, could we perhaps ask companies, even the branches of U.S. companies, to sell agricultural equipment and medical supplies, which are both extremely important to the economic survival of the people of Nicaragua, without incurring any punitive action on the part of the American Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear since the American policy was announced that it is their policy and not ours. We have sought and received assurances that American sanctions will not affect Canadian exports, including those in the sensitive fields which the Hon. Member has mentioned.
The Member refers to reports out of the United States that Americans will be closely monitoring Canadian activity. If that is the case, I can say that there will be a whole lot of monitoring going on, because we intend to monitor extremely closely both the formulation and application of any regulations that the Americans might bring in with regard to their sanctions to ensure that they do not limit, in any way at all, Canadian exports to, or Canadian relations with, Nicaragua.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO LIBERAL MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the statement of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, I would like to inform him that when the External Affairs committee advocated the proposition that Canadians should try to fill the gap, a member of his own Party said that it would be "more or less like selling yourself off the street", if Canada were to fill the gap. 1 hope the Hon. Member will ensure that Members of his Party do not say that, because we want to help the poor people of Nicaragua; Canadians do not want to persecute them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was the Member for Halifax West.


Charles Joseph Clark: He has the Member right. I do not know that that is any guarantee that he has the statement right. I would like to make it clear that the interest of the
May 7, 1985

Government, and I would hope the interest of Parliament, is that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada can act, during the period when these sanctions are in place, in every way possible to encourage econmic strength and political stability in Latin America. Our principal concern is the strength and vitality of the Contadora process. We in the Government, I hope with the support of Parliament, intend to do everything we can to strengthen that Contadora process.


REQUEST THAT EXPORT CREDITS BE EXTENDED TO NICARAGUA
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and follows up on the very good statement he has just made. Is Canada now prepared to extend export credits to Nicaragua and to Canadian firms that are willing and able to undertake increased exports of fertilizers, pesticides, machine parts, and so on? Will he now say yes to extended export credits to both Nicaragua and those firms?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, at this time in the afternoon of this particular Tuesday I am not prepared to say yes to the question that has just been raised by the Hon. Member. We are going to look at the policies that are brought in by the United States. We are going to look particularly to ensure that there is no extra-territorial application. We will then make judgments as to anything else that Canada should do.
I have already made it very clear that the Government of Canada does not intend to have its policies changed by the American introduction of sanctions. We do not intend to change the aid and development program we have put in place. We do not intend to change the plans of the Minister for External Relations to visit Central America and Nicaragua later this summer. We do not intend to change our strong and unequivocal support for the Contadora process.


REQUEST THAT ENVOY VISIT NICARAGUA
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, will we do something to fill the enormous gap that is going to be caused by the U.S. embargo? The one big thing we could do is to extend export credits.
The Minister for External Relations will not be going for several weeks. Since we have no mission in Nicaragua, will the Minister consider sending a special envoy now from his Department to Nicaragua to determine the economic and other needs of the Nicaragua people and ways in which Canada might further the excellent work we are already doing? The envoy could report back to the Minister on the additional things we could do to be helpful.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the acknowledgement of the Hon. Member that the work being done by the Government of Canada in Nicaragua is excellent. Indeed, I would go further than that and say that the interest that has been shown
Oral Questions
by private Canadian groups and individuals has also been excellent.
I want to know what is happening in Nicaragua as a result of the sanctions that have been announced. If special means are required to find new information on what is happening there, we will certainly do that. First, I want to see the exact nature of the sanctions that are being imposed. I want a specific idea of what is at issue here. Then we can begin to see if it is useful for Canada to add to the development work we are involved in for the support of Cantadora and the other very extensive support we have already given to the process of stability and peace in Central America.


BONN ECONOMIC SUMMIT
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked why the subject of interest rates had not figured prominently at the Boon Summit and why the Prime Minister did not ask President Reagan to agree to a world monetary conference. The Minister of Finance responded that Finance Ministers discussed the importance of lowering interest rates. Did the Prime Minister then voice this concern to President Reagan and stress to him the need for a world conference on reform of the international monetary system, which is what France was advocating?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that was responded to by the Minister of Finance yesterday. France put forth its views in regard to a monetary conference. Those views were not shared by its European partners in the Economic Community, nor were they vigorously shared by other participants.


CANADIAN POLICY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has previously said publicly at the IMF meetings that there is a need for the industrialized countries to work in concert to reduce their interest rates. It seems as though the Minister of Finance may take whatever position he wishes with his counterparts, but cannot count on the Prime Minister to back him up if those positions in any way appear to threaten our so-called special relationship with the U.S.
What exactly was the situation? Did the Prime Minister try, without success, to influence President Reagan, or did he simply side with President Reagan, as President Mitterand indicated, in an effort to protect that special relationship?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clarify some misunderstanding which the Hon. Member clearly has on this topic. Frence wants a major Bretton Woods type of conference. Those are the words of President Mitterand. We and other members of the summit

May 7, 1985
Oral Questions
nations have said that we do not need a major Bretton Woods type of conference. However, it would be helpful to take the report of the Group of Ten Finance Ministers that will be tabled in Tokyo in June and study it further in Seoul at the IMF meeting and possibly come up with some evolutionary changes in the system, but not a revolutionary change like a major Bretton Woods type conference for which President Mitterrand seems to be asking.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Maybe you want to get a better gumshoe; I don't know.
I can tell the Hon. Member that it is true that we obviously receive from time to time reports of commissions of inquiry and other recommendations. In this particular case the Deputy Prime Minister undertook a long overdue review of all existing ongoing programs to ensure the effective use of taxpayers' dollars. I have no recollection of that specific matter, but 1 can assure him that that would not have been our intent, in any case.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On April 19 he said that for the coming fiscal year there would be no program cuts affecting native people's programs. Will he confirm that, on or about the same day, Cabinet considered a document that was submitted by the Deputy Prime Minister and supported by 11 other Departments, that contained recommendations for budget cuts in native people's programs for the fiscal years 1986-87 and 1987-88 in the sums of $133.9 million and $178.4 million respectively?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board signals his unawareness of that specific document. While I would have to refresh my memory, I have no recollection of that particular matter.
What has happend from time to time is that the Deputy Prime Minister reviews with groups from the outside, the private sector, labour unions and others, all of the programs as they exist in the Government of Canada, to try to save the taxpayers money and deliver services more efficiently to the people of Canada. In the course of that review we have received reports from time to time, and any definitive action thereon will of course come in budgetary statements, or otherwise.


CONTENTS OF ALLEGED CABINET DOCUMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is written in the document in question, which was prepared by the Deputy Prime Minister, that it has the support of 11 Ministers of the Crown and is submitted for Cabinet consideration. It also contains a media strategy that is intended to convey or generate a certain impression of effects on the native people of Canada, after the Budget comes down.
In light of this, and the fact that the document recommends many changes in programs affecting native people and cuts out millions of dollars from the programs, does it not make a mockery of the Prime Minister's commitment to consultation, when the leading native people's groups have not been consulted at all about this outrageous proposal?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can help. 1 am not sure what document the Leader of the New Democratic Party has, but those matters which he raised with the Prime Minister in his question, and any of those matters with which I have been involved with respect to the Cabinet, are, of course, matters that the Prime Minister dealt with in a statement in the House on April 18 when he indicated that there would be no policy affecting aboriginal peoples that would not be a result of open and public consultation. That was the position then, that is what it is now, and that is what it will be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CABINET DISCUSSION INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister concerning the secret document on the so-called "Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", a copy of which I have. Will he confirm that the Cabinet actually discussed a recommendation pertaining to the announcement of changes in native people's programs that contain the following words, "that no announcement of specific native program changes would occur before the budget is unveiled .. . allowing time for the impact of changes in other sectors to register"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what the hon. gentleman-


Mr. Andre:: Get a new source, Ed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which is based on a commitment by both countries to construct waste treatment plants in our lakes. Suddenly the United States Senate committee has decided to deny up to $175 million to the United States Great Lakes states to construct sewage treatment plants.
I do not know whether the environmental cuts announced by the Government last November led to a belief by the U.S.
May 7, 1985

Government that it can disregard agreements, but has the Minister registered her disapproval of this decision with her counterpart in Washington, and does she intend to correct the situation in the meeting that is to take place in two days?
[ Translation]


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is very fond of talking about cutbacks in my department's budget, but he tends to forget that we have earmarked $300 million for acid rain. That is not a cutback, that is added funding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: As for the Hon. Member's other question, I may point out that we are fully aware of this statement by the U.S., and my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is very well acquainted with the matter and I am monitoring the issue very closely.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs since the Prime Minister has shown today that, when it comes to special relationships with the United States President, he certainly does not use them for environmental matters. They are only good enough to intone duets in Quebec City.
What specific recommendations does the Secretary of State for External Affairs have in mind to take to his counterpart, of the kind that he just announced to my Leader earlier? What specifically does he intend to say to the U.S. Government so that it will live up to the content, spirit, and substance of the agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I find it most curious that the Hon. Member, who was a Minister of the Environment who failed to get agreement on important environmental problems between Canada and the United States, should raise the question of the record of this Prime Minister or this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It was as a result of this Prime Minister and this Government that we now have, after a long, long period of no progress at all, movement toward the solution of the critical problem of acid rain.
1 will be meeting the U.S. Secretary of State again in the next ten days in Washington. We will be making representations to the U.S. Government between now and then. If it is necessary for me to make specific personal representations to Mr. Shultz on this question at that time, then I will do that.
Oral Questions


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's April 12, 61-page memorandum to Cabinet which is based only in part on the so-called "Buffalo Jump of the 1980s" task force report. Page 7 of the Cabinet document states that 11 Departments are in general agreement, including the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Would the Prime Minister state definitely his views on the recommendations on page 39, listed as priority change, that costs for Indian health care be reduced by introducing deterrent fees and closing Indian hospitals in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. friend was here when I responded some weeks ago. That is rather an old report that he is relying on- second or third hand.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, indicated the commitment of this Government, and I believe that we display it. I hope my hon. friend would agree that we display it through the approach of this Government to native affairs, and our deep and genuine concern for them, indicated by the manner in which we approached the aboriginal conference here in Canada. We are deeply committed to justice and fairness for our native peoples, and we shall never back down from that commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SCHOOLS ON RESERVES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it will not be that easy for the Prime Minister to get off the hook this time. The report that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development denied knowledge of is "The Buffalo Jump", the 395-page task force report. This is the Deputy Prime Minister's report to Cabinet, support by eleven members of Cabinet and their Departments. 1 want some clarification from the Prime Minister.
This is quite a different document. Concerning the last four pages of the document, would the Prime Minister confirm how the Government intends to manipulate the media around Budget day? Also, immediately following that is the aboriginal conference. Does the Government intend to make the announcement of change and cuts after the aboriginal conference?
Another very small thing, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister give his views on what the real agenda is, because on page 41 we see that the Government's intention is to close schools and student residences on reserves but to make that announcement after the Budget and after the aboriginal conference?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!

May 7, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disabuse my friend who likes to trade, and I regret to say it, in causing fear and alarm in native people-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It was Nielsen's report.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -who know full well-I know the truth hurts the NDP.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Frank Miller said it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know members of the New Democratic Party do not like it, but why do they not just wait? Rather than brandish documents like that and use scare tactics, why do they not wait until the Budget and see how wrong they are? Why don't you wait and see how bad you really are?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It concerns the Young Offenders Act which was passed in 1982. As of April 1 the minimum age for a trial in a criminal court has been raised from 16 to 18 years of age. Since one of the consequences of this is that a 17 and a half year old could kill a person and be sentenced to a maximum of only three years, will the Solicitor General consider a comprehensive review of concerns like this, and other provisions in the Act?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Young Offenders Act, as the Hon. Member knows, was passed in the last Parliament with considerable support from all Parties. I think the Hon. Member should realize that while there are problems with the Act as it is being applied, and as it is evolving, there is a provision, I believe it is Section 16, that in cases where circumstances warrant, and an application is made before the court, a young offender can be transferred into adult court, and can receive an appropriate sentence if the circumstances warrant.


HOUSING
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the past the Prime Minister has made cracks about my voice. All 1 can say about the Prime Minister today is the less the truth, the lower the voice.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister still believe the statements he made last July when he wrote:
There are few matters of more importance to people than adequate housing for themselves and their families. The Progressive Conservative Party finds it inexcusable that the Liberal Government should cut back the funds for the co-operative housing program. Co-operative housing will continue to have a high priority in progressive Conservative policy for housing.
Does the Prime Minister still believe those words, or were they merely a pre-election ploy?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm the words of the Prime Minister on July 8 last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would like to inform the Hon. Member that in 1985, in CMHC's last promotion to Stage 2 in Section 56(1), the division between non-profit, private and public non-profit and co-op housing, over 50 per cent of the awards in the competitive process within section 56(1) were given to co-op housing projects.


SIZE OF FUNDING
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can back up those statements made in July.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Lower, Sheila.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If he cannot, how can he justify co-op cut-backs of up to 60 per cent in Halifax where there is a waiting list of 2,000 people and the City is forced to put up those people in hotels; cut-backs of up to 60 per cent in Vancouver where the Member for Vancouver Centre was able to secure a billion dollars for the oil barons but could not get money for a co-operative women's housing co-op project in downtown Vancouver, and cut-backs of up to 60 per cent in the city of Toronto? How can the Prime Minister justify those co-op cut-backs in light of his own statement last July?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is using selective figures that are not relevant to fact.


Mr. Axworthy:: Three major cities.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would encourage the Hon. Member to take a look at the number of projects and the applications. Some 500 plus applications were received. Within the fiscal framework allowed this Government compared to the spending done by the previous administration, over half of those projects received awards. Again, I would reiterate that, rather than reducing awards to co-ops, as the previous administration did by 41 per cent between 1983 and 1984, there has been an increase, and in the competitive process between public nonprofit and private non-profit and co-ops over 50 per cent of the projects awarded have been to co-ops.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 7, 1985


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. As the Minister is aware, statements were made in the last little while by officials of the Wheat Board that there will be either little or no grain shipped through the Port of Churchill this summer. I would like to hear the Minister's response whether those statements are correct or, if not correct, can he tell us when the people who work in the Port of Churchill will know if there is grain coming this summer?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the article to which the Hon. Member refers today was a Canadian Press article out of Winnipeg stating that the Board may not move grain through Churchill, and I would point out two things. First, it is not the policy of this Government, nor has it been the policy of previous Governments, to interfere in the day-to-day operations of the Board, in other words, to get involved in directing it. What I can say is that, bearing in mind there was a short crop last year and that exports will be down, I am aware of some contracts currently being negotiated that will move through the Port of Churchill, and I certainly expect Churchill to have grain movement this year.


UPGRADING OF PORT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it may not be the policy of this Government to make a commitment on where grain should go, but there is the commitment of the federal Government and the provincial Government in Manitoba to spend millions upon millions of dollars to up-grade the Port of Churchill and to fix up the line that goes to the Port of Churchill. A power line is being built to the Port of Churchill at this time. Would it not also make a lot of sense for the Government to have a commitment to a certain percentage of grain through that port? Why invest that money if the Government is not going to commit grain to the Port?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware of the agreement, in fact well aware of many of the details of the agreement, and those agreements are proceeding. They have all been upheld as far as the Government is concerned.
This Party is well aware of the importance of Churchill. In fact the Minister of Transport in 1979, the present Minister, was responsible for extending the shipping season at Churchill into November, which was the longest season it had ever had. Bearing in mind that the Board can negotiate, and will negotiate terms that will have grain moved through Churchill, as late as July, the press reports, I think, are very, very premature. As I said, I fully expect to see grain moved through the Port of Churchill this year, especially in light of what the Hon. Member says, which makes good common sense. One does not spend a lot of money and then leave the port sit idle. We fully appreciate that.
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The Minister is aware of the fact that mayors of Quebec municipalities and Quebecers generally are furious as a result of his decision to reduce the housing renovation program by $17 million, compared with a mere $2 million cut-back in Ontario.
Can the Minister tell the House and the people of Quebec why he has opted for this formula which is unfair to Quebec and the Maritime Provinces? Does he intend to allocate additional funds to make up for such unfair treatment?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the renovation program is designed to provide repair and renovation for all areas of Canada. I understand and sympathize with the pleading and the request, but the Hon. Member must understand that there are people, regions, entire municipalities within Canada, that have absolutely no benefit from RRAP as it is presently designed because of the very, very scarce resources with which we have to work.
In terms of numbers, I should like to inform the Hon. Member that the total RRAP budget for the Province of Quebec this year is $30.5 million, and the total RRAP budget for the Province of Ontario is $17.8 million. These figures are based upon the needs-based formula which will be phased in over the next three years. As a matter of fairness, 1 would put the policies and proposals by CMHC, implemented in 1985, against any policy, except that of exceptional favouritism during election years of the previous administration.


CONSTRUCTION OF RENTAL HOUSING-QUEBEC POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was expecting that kind of stupid answer from the Minister since the same one was given by the CMHC President.
Are the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board prepared to confirm that Ontario is now the only province which has funds allocated for rental housing construction? Quebec and the Maritime Provinces used to get more money under the housing renovation program because Ontario and the Western Provinces needed social and rental housing. Is it

May 7, 1985
Oral Questions
true that Quebec is lagging behind to the tune of 20,000 low-rental housing units?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure whether the Hon. Member is familiar with the various programs. If he would like to name the programs to which he referred, I would be pleased to respond.
Again I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that if the needs-based formula, that is a self-assessment by individual Canadians done in the 1981 census, were applied today, it would give the Province of Quebec 28.4 per cent of the disposable dollars of Canada and give the Province of Ontario 26.9 per cent of the disposable dollars. Because it is phased in over three years, this year the Province of Quebec is receiving 28.4 per cent and the Province of Ontario is receiving 16.6 per cent, some 12 per cent less than it really should receive but will receive when it is phased in, in a spirit of fairness, co-operation, and understanding, for which this Party and this Government have stood for years.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Will the Minister take whatever steps are necessary in order to ensure that the take-over bid for Canadian Porcelain by Lapp Insulators of New York will go before FIR A prior to it being consummated?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we have been in touch with all participants in this transaction- the receiver, the banker, and the Lapp people. We have informed them of our interest. At the present time there is no final agreement with Lapp. They have a letter of intent which certainly the bank feels they must honour as far as an eventual deal is concerned. We have made it very clear that if they propose to take this over as a business, as a going concern, that is a reviewable item and we would like an opportunity to review it.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. It concerns statements made by officials of the Wheat Board on the future of Churchill. The major agreement which was signed dealing with the development of the Port of Churchill has now been put in real jeopardy because of these statements. Not only do they create
uncertainty in the minds of buyers, but if the Wheat Board does not deliver sufficient volumes of grain there will not be the financing to continue with the port development.
Is the Government clearly committed to the ongoing development of that port? Will the Minister repudiate the statements of those officials and say explicitly that the Government intends them to make their best efforts to reach the 750,000 tonne level this shipping season, so that the port development can proceed on schedule?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is a brand new interest in the Liberal Party.


Lloyd Axworthy: I signed the agreement.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what I said to the Hon. Member for Churchill. It is not the policy of this Government, nor has it been the policies of previous Governments, to interfere in the day-to-day operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think that is well established and well accepted on all sides. It is a good policy, and I think the Hon. Member, when he had the responsibility for this portfolio, carried it out as well.
Having said that, we understand that we do not spend money on a port with no grain to move through it. If he understood how the Board negotiated sales, he would understand that as late as July or August one can negotiate sales for movement through Churchill. What I said is true. To create apprehension in the minds of people in Churchill that there will be no grain movement through Churchill, is not founded at all. The statements which were made by the officials of the Board are very, very premature.


FUNDING OF PORT DEVELOPMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, If any apprehension has been created, it is by those officials making those statements and by the unwillingness of the Minister to repudiate those statements, so that we will know there is a future for the Port of Churchill.
Perhaps I will raise my supplementary question with the Minister of Transport who may have a better understanding of the problem. Officials of the Port of Churchill said that because of the unwillingness of Ports Canada to transfer capital to the port of Churchill, they needed at least 750,000 tonnes of grain in order to proceed with the development. The Minister's colleague has said that they will not reach that level. Will he agree that even if those levels of shipping are not reached, he will guarantee that capital will go into that port so that the tug, dredging, and dust control programs will continue on schedule, as the signed agreement with Manitoba indicates they should?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board did not make that statement at all. He said that he would encourage the Canadian Wheat Board to negotiate a deal in
May 7, 1985

its transactions which would result in the utilization of Churchill as a shipping point, and I think he will give it that support.
In so far as the subagreements concerning Churchill are concerned, my Cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Minister of State for Canadian Wheat Board and I met with provincial Cabinet Ministers of the Province of Manitoba last week. We ironed out a lot of the difficulties and problems. We had a full-scale discussion, and agreed to proceed with the boxcar rehabilitation program. Every one of the programs that were alluded to in the subagreement is on track, and is being followed through.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS NEGOTIATION OF ERDA AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will recall vividly, when he was in Vancouver nine months ago, promising the people of British Columbia that if he became Prime Minister his topmost priority would be the signing of an ERDA to provide financial assistance to the forest, mining, and tourism sectors. Then we were promised that that would come in October; then again in November, December, January, February and March. Now April has come and gone and we do not have any signed agreement.


Mr. Crosbie:: You are all mixed up.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What is holding up the agreement? Why is he unable to come to an agreement with the Province of British Columbia on this critical matter?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I replied in answer to a similar question a few days ago, we believe that negotiations are proceeding in a way which will likely result in an agreement very, very shortly.


REFORESTATION PROGRAM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, those were the exact words used last October, and we have been waiting week by week since then.
I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Forestry. This is the time of the year to plant trees; not in December, not in the wintertime. This is tree planting time for reforestation. If the Minister cannot come to an agreement on the over-all package, will he at least sit down and sign an agreement with the Minister of Forestry for British Columbia so that we can get on with reforestation and providing jobs at this critical moment?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should remind the Hon. Member that when he says as long ago as last October, the
Petitions
ERDA agreement was signed in November. If he is contemplating something signed even before the ERDA agreement, it shows one how ill-informed the Hon. Member really is.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. It concerns the upcoming federal-provincial conference on multiculturalism in Winnipeg on May 14. There is considerable anger and concern over the closed-door policy the Government is taking vis-a-vis this conference. In light of the fact that parliamentarians and ethnocultural organizations are being barred from even observer status at this conference, and the fact that multilingual television, which offered to televise it live, has been refused, does the Minister not see fit to open the doors a little to those Canadians who have been concerned about multiculturalism over the years so that they at the very least can observe the deliberations, and Canadians from coast to coast can obtain a greater understanding and awareness of this First ever conference?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the Hon. Member. There is not anger and concern across the country because of this. There is joy and happiness among every ethnocultural organization that finally this Government has been able to bring the provinces together to talk about multiculturalism, something that the previous Government could never do. We are doing it under the auspices of a federal-provincial conference. The Ministers will sit down to work and to try to deal with the very important matter of multiculturalism. We are not going to do it in the glare of public lights because we do not want to grandstand. This is a meaningful conference. We expect it to be very successful.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) on Monday, May 6, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

May 7, 1985
Petitions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise at this time to advise the House of the business for the next two or three days. I have already announced the sequence of Bills with respect to Government business which I hope we will be able to accomplish. That will continue tomorrow. I want to designate Thursday as the sixth allotted day in this Supply period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46, I am tabling in both official languages a copy of the Annual Report of the Public Service Commission of Canada for the year ending December 31, 1984, and a copy in braille of a resume of the same document. This report must be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts pursuant to Standing Order 46.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition from a number of very concerned citizens, the Christian Pro-Life Group in my riding of Grey-Simcoe, who wish strongly to express their views and opinions concerning abortion and urge that the rights of unborn human beings be written into the Constitution and that those rights be guaranteed under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a petition signed by residents in the federal riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth:
That people between the age of 60 and 64 who are single, separated or divorced and who are in need, are among those
groups that depend most on Government aid. That the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows the rules permit the Hon. Member to summarize petitions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In summary, I have a petition from the great residents of the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke on the issue of the Government's extension of benefits to people between the ages of 60 and 64 who do not happen to be married.
I also have from the great federal riding of Toronto-St. Paul's another petition, signed by a number of residents calling upon the Government to stop its discriminatory measure against single people and separated and divorced people between the ages of 60 and 64.
I have another petition signed by the residents of the great federal constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. It includes a number of signatories who want to signal to the Government their concern about the same issue, the discrimination in the current old age security changes.
1 have another petition from other residents in the great riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. Those residents also want to signal to this Government their dissatisfaction with the current discriminatory changes in the Old Age Security Act.
I have another petition from the great residents of the riding of Parkdale-High Park who also call upon this Government to stop the discriminatory provisions that it is instituting under the changes to the Old Age Security Act which discriminate against single people and those who are separated and divorced.
I have another petition from the great riding of Vancouver Centre. The residents of the riding of Vancouver Centre are extremely concerned about the discriminatory provisions of the old age security guaranteed income supplement provisions which are causing discrimination against single people and those who are separated and divorced.
I have another petition. We have petitions pouring in from across the country. I think we should certainly give credit to the public response to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).
I have also received a petition from Richmond-South Delta, British Columbia, from a number of signatories who are also concerned about the discriminatory provisions of the old age security changes which tell single people and divorced and separated people that they are out in the cold as far as this Government is concerned.
I have another petition from the ridings of Vancouver South, Capilano and Burnaby. All three ridings are extremely concerned about the discriminatory provisions tabled by this Government with respect to the changes to the Old Age Security Act. It is not a crime in this country to be single, divorced or separated, but this Government is making it a crime.
May 7, 1985

Petitions
I have another petition from the residents of Vancouver Centre who are calling upon this Government to extend its largesse to ensure that single people, those who are separated and divorced will not be discriminated against in the changes to the old age security provisions.
I have a number of other petitions. I am sure Hon. Members on the government side have a lot of time because we are here to represent not only our ridings but other ridings.


John Horton McDermid: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: We do not need this. I have an inkling that there are a number of petitions to be presented today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Let us keep the procedure to what it is meant to be. I would appreciate not having to involve myself in the process. That means the petitioners should not try to extend beyond the bounds of summarizing the petition.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition dealing with the issue of housing. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada calls for the provision of satisfactory housing for everyone in Canada. This petition is signed by a number of residents from the riding of Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by the residents of Hamilton East calling upon this Government to in fact cease and desist from the practice of patronage across this country. This petition is signed by a number of Hamilton area residents.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from those Hamilton area residents who are extremely concerned about this Government's lack of initiative in the area of the environment. We urge our Government to negotiate a swift resolution to the acid rain problem. That petition is signed by a number of signatories from the riding of Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, there is a second petition. Those who have not been getting petitions have surely been getting letters. This petition calls upon the Government to ensure affordable housing by an extension of co-op funding to co-operatives across Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition also from the City of Hamilton in which area residents decry the high level of unemployment and call upon the Government to enter into speedy negotiations as soon as possible to rectify the barriers which are currently being placed on the Canadian steel industry. That petition is signed by a number of signatories from the great riding of Hamilton East, the most industrialized riding in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which calls upon the Government to provide post-secondary graduates with greater opportunities for employment so that there is a better fit between the employment and the education system across this country. That petition is signed by a number of Hamilton area signatories.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which is signed by a number of residents of the great riding of Hamilton East. They call upon the Government to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone and ask the Government to cease wasteful spending on the arms race, diverting the funds to human needs in order to ensure prosperity through peace.
The same signatories are calling for the ratification through a free vote in the Parliament of Canada with respect to the nuclear free zone question.
I have another petition on the question of the declaration of Canada as a nuclear free zone and a request to the Government to cease wasteful spending on the arms race and to divert that spending to human needs. That petition is also signed by a number of signatories from the great riding of Hamilton East.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, in lieu of closure on one of the most important Bills to come before the House, from the great residents of the riding of Hamilton East who call upon the Government to cease and desist in wasteful spending on the arms race and to divert that money to human needs.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed not only by the residents of the riding of Hamilton East, but by the residents of Hamilton West and the great County of Lincoln, in which they are calling upon the Government to cease wasteful nuclear spending, to in fact divert that money into the area of human needs and to move away from the escalation of the arms race.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, and that petition also includes signatories from the ridings of Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Burlington, Hamilton-Wentworth and Lincoln. The petition asks that the above-stated objective of declaring Canada a nuclear free zone be-

May 7, 1985
Petitions
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but there is a point of order.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some misgivings about the procedure being used by the Hon. Member, because she mentioned, and we have already had two petitions, a motion of closure on a Bill. I wonder whether this exercise-
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is a point that has no connection with the petition the Hon. Member is presenting.
I therefore feel that this is a breach of my privilege as a Member of this House, because I am wasting my time listening to motions that have no connection with-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have heard the point of order. I do not find there is a point of order involved in the matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is still my right to present petitions in the House, and I will fight for that right until the bitter end.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, from the riding of Hamilton East, asking the Government of Canada to divert funds now being spent on nuclear arms to human needs in Canada. The petition is signed by about fifteen people from the riding of Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, again from the great riding of Hamilton East, calling upon the Government of Canada to cease the nuclear arms race and to divert the money which is being spent in a wasteful way to those human programs which will allow our citizens to have good housing and access to jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by residents of Lincoln, Hamilton West, Burlington, Hamilton-Wentworth and Hamilton East, calling upon the Government to refuse and reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, delivery systems or components in Canada, and to ask for the declaration of Canada as a nuclear free zone.
In case the Government is unaware of the feelings of Canadians with respect to star wars research, I want to read into the record another petition. This petition is again from the residents of Hamilton East. They call upon the Government to
divert funds used for wasteful spending on the arms race to human needs in order to ensure prosperity through peace.
The same petition calls for a free vote in the House so that all Hon. Members of the House of Commons can have their say on this most important issue.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed-


Mr. Warner:: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think I even recognize a Conservative name on this petition. You had better not cut me off.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a point of order from the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Warner)?


Norman Melvin Warner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since I have come into this House there has been a tradition where, after a person has presented a reasonable number of petitions, you would move around the House to other Parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In fact, the rules do not allow the Chair to return to an Hon. Member for a second go at petitions. That is our tradition. The Hon. Member is availing herself-


An Hon. Member:: I'm glad you agree with the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is availing herself of her right to present petitions. She is doing it, as far as 1 can tell, entirely within the rules.
May I remind all Hon. Members, because I suspect we will go through this for a while, that it is the petition which may be presented and that any commentary in or around the petition is out of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Had we known that no Conservatives would have been in the House yesterday, we would have used that time. We had to adjourn early because they had no one here to speak.
I have another petition from the great riding of Hamilton East. Approximately 20 people have signed a petition calling upon the Government to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, delivery systems or components in Canada. That petition is also signed by a number of the residents of the great riding of Hamilton East. Those residents, which include members of all political Parties, are calling upon the Government to hold a free vote in the House on the issue of declaring Canada a nuclear free zone and are asking the Government to divert arms race spending to human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, from the great riding of Hamilton East-and it is a very great riding, particularly today when we are fighting for Canadian Porcelain. This petition calls upon the Government to cease research, production, testing and transport of nuclear weapons, delivery systems or components in Canada and asks the Government to allow a free vote in the Parliament of Canada so that Canada can be declared a nuclear weapons free zone.
May 7, 1985

I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, and it is signed by residents of Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Wentworth, Hamilton-Wentworth, Lincoln and Burlington. These residents are calling upon the Government to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone in accordance with similar initiatives taken by other nations, and asks the Government to become actively involved in working for the multilateral deescalation of the arms race. It is signed by a number of wise residents of the riding of Hamilton East and others.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, also signed by a number of signatories, asking the Government to encourage a free vote in the House of Commons on the issue of declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone and asks the Government to cease the wasteful spending on the arms race so that we can fund human needs like housing, jobs, and keep all of those promises which were made by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition asking the Government to declare Canada a nuclear-free zone.
Mr. Speaker, there are many residents in the riding of Hamilton East, francophone residents, who are very interested in this issue, and they want to ask the Government to hold a free vote on the subject in Parliament. This is much more important than capital punishment.

Mir. Speaker: Order, please. May I ask the Hon. Member not to do again what she has just done, which is to make comments outside a petition. I think, having told the Member three times, that I should not have to do it again. I hope the Member will not put me in a position of having to do something else!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your levity!
Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition which calls upon the Government to cease wasteful spending on the arms race and to divert those funds into human needs to ensure prosperity through peace. It asks the Government to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, in accordance with similar initiatives which have been taken by other nations.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which calls upon the Government to get involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race and to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, delivery systems or components in Canada. That petition comes from the great riding of Hamilton East.
I have another petition from the riding of Hamilton East which calls upon the Government to refuse and reject research, production, testing and transport of nuclear weapons, delivery systems or their components in Canada. It asks that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone and that it become actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race.
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the great riding of Hamilton East. I might add that the petition is signed by signatories of all political Parties. It asks the Government to cease the wasteful spending on the arms race and to divert the moneys to fund human needs, so as to ensure prosperity through peace.
Mr. Speaker, again, I am joining with the petitioners to ask the Government to ratify, through a free vote in the House, the notion that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone, in accordance with similar initiatives which have been taken by other nations; and, that our country, as it did in the past under the initiatives of the former Prime Minister, become actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the people of the riding of Hamilton East are asking or rather pleading with the Prime Minister to join the initiative started by the former Prime Minister and to work towards making Canada and the whole world a place that is free of war and free of any escalation in nuclear arms. Let there at least be a free vote in the House of Commons to give all Members a chance to exercise their right to a free vote. This was also signed by constituents from Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the riding of Hamilton East which asks that the Government of Canada cease, reject and desist from any research, production, testing and transport of nuclear weapons, delivery systems or components in Canada; and that all of the objectives be subject to ratification through a free vote in the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the residents of the Hamilton area, who are seeking counsel from the Government in asking the Parliament of Canada to refuse and reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, delivery systems or their components in Canada. They further ask that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace.
I have another petition, which again comes from the residents of the great riding of Hamilton East. They call upon the Government to ratify, through a free vote, objectives of which all Canadians can be proud; that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone and that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace. They ask the Government to reject research, production, testing the transport of any nuclear weapons, delivery systems or their components in Canada.

May 7, 1985
Petitions
I have another petition. Obviously this is an issue about which the residents of Hamilton East feel very strongly. This petition calls upon the Government to refuse research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, delivery systems or their components in Canada. They ask that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone and call upon the Parliament of Canada to concur with the above-stated objectives through ratification by a-


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that I have a point of order from the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault).
[ Translation]


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall reading in Beauchesne that petitions on the same subject should be presented together, not separately as the Hon. Member appears to be doing. It is obvious to me that she is wasting the time of the House by presenting petitions on the same subjects, but from different groups. May I suggest that you look into this. It seems to me 1 read in Beauchesne that petitions on the same subject are presented together, not separately.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is actually referring to a proper citation. The last time this happened in the House was in October, 1983. The same citation was used by the then Speaker of the House to ask Members to bring themselves to order. Under the provision which is in Beauchesne, while Members have the right to present a petition, it is the normal practice to file petitions with the Table. At that time the Speaker invited Members to read one, two or three of the petitions and to table the rest, given that the petitions which were being read into the record appeared to be on the same subject. If I remember correctly, it concerned a member of the New Democratic Party.
1 have resisted interfering in the hope that I would get some sense of how long the repetition would go on. However, since I have been asked to deal with the matter, I must invite the Member to take advantage of the normal procedure and to table any further petitions on the same subject. I hope I will not have to rule on this matter. At the moment I am inviting the Member to do that. That is all I have to say on the point of order for the moment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from residents of the Hamilton area, which calls upon the Government and the Parliament of Canada to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, delivery systems or their components in Canada. Further, they ask the Government to cease wasteful spending on the arms race and to divert those moneys to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace.
As I said, I would have been very happy to have given these petitions yesterday, but nobody in the Conservative Party saw fit to be in the House.
I will continue with another petition from the great riding of Hamilton East. In the petition, the residents are calling upon
the Canadian Government to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone in accordance with similar initiatives which have been taken by other nations and to become actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race. The petition asks that the Parliament of Canada refuse and reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, their delivery systems or components in Canada, and that all of the above-stated objectives be subject to ratification through a free vote in the Parliament of Canada.
[ Translation]


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have the honour to present another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by many residents who have expressed concern about Government policy on that question. They humbly call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject all research, production and transportation of any type of weapon made in Canada, they ask that Canada be declared a nuclear free zone by Parliament, as many other countries have already done, and that, first and foremost, the Parliament of Canada give all Hon. Members an opportunity to vote freely on all issues raised in the petition.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of residents, not only of Hamilton, but also of Stoney Creek, Ancaster, Dundas and Burlington.
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking the Government to stop spending money on armaments, and to use such funds to meet social needs like employment and social housing, and they urge the Parliament of Canada to hold a free vote and give all Hon. Members an opportunity to express their personal views on such an important issue as nuclear weapons.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a great many voters and constituents of the ridings of Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Lincoln, Burlington and Hamilton-Wentworth, urging the Government to declare Canada a nuclear free zone, as other nations have already done, and to continue the work undertaken during former Prime Minister Trudeau's administration towards world-wide reduction of nuclear arms. The petitioners also ask the Government to give Parliament an opportunity to hold a free vote on these questions which all Canadian men and women consider very important.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of electors who are asking that the Government stop promoting
May 7, 1985

nuclear weapons research, production and transportation as it is being done now with the United States, that it reject any nuclear system and any nuclear weapons research in Canada. Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking Parliament to adopt a free choice policy to let all Hon. Members vote freely so they may decide for themselves whether or not they would like to have Canada declared a nuclear free zone.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by more Hamilton constituents who are asking the Canadian Government to stop and reject all nuclear weapons research, production and transportation, the entire system now under consideration by the Government, and they are urging that Parliament hold a free vote so that all Members of any Party may endorse the objectives set forth in the petition. I would suggest that the issue transcends party lines.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by many constituents in the ridings of Burlington, Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Lincoln and Hamilton-Wentworth who are asking that all wasteful expenditures now being made to prolong the arms race be used instead to finance housing and employment in Canada. The petition has been signed by a great many constituents.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition signed by a number of residents of the Quebec riding of Rosemont, with which you are familiar, I think. They are asking the Government to put an immediate stop to the policy of discrimination against people who live alone, widows, widowers and divorced people between the ages of 60 and 64. Signed by a great many constituents, this petition proves that Government policy discriminates against people who chose to remain single and others who are either divorced or separated. It is unfair and this prejudice must be eradicated immediately.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition on the issue of nuclear weapons and it comes from Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Lincoln, Burlington and Hamilton-Wentworth.
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are urging the Government to hold a free vote on the question of nuclear weapons, and they are asking that the Government put an immediate end to wasteful spending on the arms race, and that the money be used instead to finance housing or job creation for many Canadian men and women.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the riding of Hamilton East concerning Canada's position with respect to nuclear weapons. The petitioners are asking that the Government stop and reject any nuclear weapons research, production and transportation in Canada, and all related systems, and
Petitions
that Parliament be given an opportunity to hold a free vote to establish a nuclear free zone.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated earlier what the practice of the House has been regarding multiple petitions. I invited the Hon. Member to file any similar petitions that she had, as opposed to the one she was continuing to read. She has changed once but has now reverted to the earlier petition which she has filed at least 20 times by my count. Therefore, I must indicate to her that since I have no indication that she has any petition on any other subject which she wishes to present, she should avail herself, if she wishes, of the right to file with the Table any further copies of the petition she has already read.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully make a comment on the point you raised earlier and about which you just spoke? I have reviewed Beauchesne's and I do not find anything in the Fifth Edition, the latest edition, saying that the preferred or priority method of dealing with petitions is to table them and that it is only by exception that they should be read out. Citation 692 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition says:
While a Member may, if he desires, present a petition from his place in the House during Routine Proceedings and before the Introduction of Bills, he may also present his petition by filing it with the Clerk of the House.
So I submit with the utmost respect that it is only by way of exception that a Member may present petitions to the House by filing them with the Clerk, and that the principal method is by reading them out. While there may be a citation which, on the surface, suggests the opposite, that citation is in the Fourth Edition, and I respectfully submit that it has been replaced by the citation 1 read out from the Fifth Edition.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that so long as the Hon. Member does not make a speech or present any argument in support of the petition, there is nothing to prevent him or her, if they so wish, from presenting any number of petitions from his or her place in the House rather than simply filing them.


Mr. Speaker:: I respect the argument of the Hon. Member but I suggest that there is something, and that is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Francis in June of 1984. I misquoted the date earlier but this matter has been dealt with and I invite the Hon. House Leader to refer to page 4587 and page 4588 of Hansard of June 12, 1984, when the matter arose. The Hon. Member is quite correct, it is Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 339, which says differently, and I think it is because of the differences between the Fourth and Fifth Editions of Beauchesne's that we have developed our own practice about how long a Member is allowed to continue presenting the same petition verbally before the Speaker interrupts.
I think the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) knows that this matter was dealt with in June of 1984 by Mr. Speaker Francis in an attempt to balance the tradition between the rights of Members to present a petition and the obligation of the Speaker to maintain order in the House, which is what Mr. Speaker Francis had to deal with. What 1

May 7, 1985
Petitions
have chosen to do was to intervene earlier to invite the Hon. Member not to repeat the petition, but when, for whatever reason, and I mean no disrespect at all, the petition continued to be read, I felt I had no choice, in light of Mr. Speaker Francis' ruling, but to come back and say that, with respect, I must ask the Member to file the petitions. Since she has been given a chance to start a new series or new issue of petitions and has not done so, I have no choice but to suggest to her that she must file her remaining petitions so that I may go on to other business.


An Hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I have ruled. I heard the Hon. Member. 1 heard no one else indicate he or she wished to-


Mr. Gauthier:: 1 got up at the same time he did.


Mr. Speaker:: At that moment in time there were several Members rising. I heard one Member say: "point of order". 1 heard no other Member say: "point of order".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ouellet:: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Petitions, the Hon. Member for-


André Ouellet: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On a separate point of order, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to bring to the attention of the Chair that a ruling on today's procedures based on a ruling made by one of the Chair's predecessors is possible, provided it applies to the same petitions-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! Is the Hon. Member rising on a separate and new point of order?


John Horton McDermid: You've been around here long enough.


Mr. Speaker:: The only point of order I will hear from the Hon. Member is a new point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 recommend that your friend over there shut up for a while.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if you want me to speak on a new point of order, I will indeed raise a new point of order. Before making a ruling, the Speaker traditionally has to listen to a point of view presented by both sides of the House. I submit to you respectfully that the House was not asked to make representation in this regard. A ruling was issued by you very quickly without seeking the advice of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Hon. Member is seeking to comment on my ruling, the Hon. Member-


Mr. Tobin:: We don't act like the Tories. There are 10 of them over there waving their fists, for God's sake. We are only asking to be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has no trouble being heard. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) knows full well the difficulty in which he is putting the Speaker by making a comment. My point to the Hon. Member is that I knew there would be some desire for at least the Hon. Member for Windsor West to comment. He is the House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I did recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West for a comment. I looked to see if any other House Leader chose to comment. I saw none. I heard no other comment from anyone claiming to rise on a point of order. Therefore, I announced my decision based on the representations I had heard that at least the House Leader of the Party of the Hon. Member for Papineau wished to make. He seems to make it a point of order that I had an obligation to hear members of other Parties. I may have had an obligation, but no others rose. I only have an obligation to hear, on a point of order, the person presenting the point of order, which is what was done. House traditions allow others, normally in opposition, to comment. There being no other House Leaders rising, I chose to make my ruling.
I am responding at some length to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Papineau because he knows he is putting me in a difficulty. I hope we can get out of this difficulty by my adding these comments. I hope that that will be the end of comment on my ruling because, otherwise, the House will be in a different kind of disorder.


Mr. Nunziata:: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Parliament I would ask the Chair to explain its ruling. You referred to a ruling made in a previous Parliament. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I was not a Member of that previous Parliament. 1 would ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Petitions.


John V. Nunziata: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand).


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Petitions


John V. Nunziata: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Gilbert Chartrand: -a petition signed by 165 people of the riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul, representing fourteen housing co-operatives.


John V. Nunziata: A point of order.
[ Translation]


Gilbert Chartrand: The undersigned humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons and-


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. [Translation]


Gilbert Chartrand: -the Government to maintain residential rehabilitation grants under the RRAP program-


Sheila Maureen Copps: His privilege is being affected. A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Gilbert Chartrand: -since for many low-income families in Verdun-Saint-Paul, these grants represent-


John V. Nunziata: A point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There is a point of order.


Gilbert Chartrand: -their sole access to decent housing. [English]


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton have a new point of order?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order a few moments ago. Rather than ruling on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: It is the Speaker who decides when a point of order is a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: You did not make a ruling on the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I did by going on to Petitions. Petitions, the Hon. Member for Papineau.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is another point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to the House a petition signed by constituents from my riding of Montreal-Papineau, who are asking for a review of the Government's spouses allowance program which is to be extended to widows and widowers in need between the ages of 60 and 64. My constituents want this program to be open to all persons in need between the ages of 60 and 64, whether they are single, separated or divorced. These citizens are demanding a fair deal from the Government for all Canadians.
In view of the Chair's previous ruling, I would like to mention that I have more petitions on the same subject from constituents in the riding of Verdun, whose Member of Parliament is here in the House today and who will certainly be most interested in this petition from constituents in the federal riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, from constituents in the federal riding of Trois-Rivieres, from constituents in the federal riding of Chicoutimi, from constituents in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean and also from constituents in the federal riding of Montreal-Gamelin.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table petitions from the people of Montreal-Sainte-Marie who are asking the Government to extend the spouse's allowance to all single persons in need between the ages of 60 and 64, whatever their marital status.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to table a petition from the riding of Yellowhead in Alberta, signed by constituents who are asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to extend the spouse's allowance in order to avoid any discrimination against women, and especially women who are separated or divorced.
I also wish to table a petition from the people of the riding of Gamelin, who are also asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to extend the spouse's allowance to the elderly who are in need, in order to eliminate any discrimination against senior citizens, and especially against those who are in need.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the federal riding of Vercheres in Quebec want to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to extend the spouse's allowance to all single persons in need, irrespective of their marital status. Unfortunately, everyone except the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) knows that the present legislation only deals with the needs of widows and widowers, and very sensibly, the people of Vercheres would like to see all single persons in need eligible for this program.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition from the people of another great Quebec riding, the riding of Chambly, who join the people of the riding of Vercheres in asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare to ensure that all single people

May 7, 1985
Petitions
in need between the ages of 60 and 64 are treated equitably by the Government especially in connection will Bill C-26.
Mr. Speaker, another great Quebec riding, the riding of Laval in Ville de Laval. These people have all joined in an effort to make the Right Lion. Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare aware of the need to correct the inequities of Bill C-26 with respect to persons who are separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from another great Quebec riding, the riding of Lotbiniere. All these people have sent a petition to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada, asking him to refrain from perpetuating the injustice that we see now in Bill C-26, and to extend the spouse's allowance to all persons in need who are living alone, whatever their marital status-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member's other petitions are identical, perhaps I may suggest, as I suggested to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), that he indicate the number of petitions remaining and file them with the Table? I am merely suggesting that the Hon. Member do so, that is all.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could accept that invitation.


Mr. Speaker:: It is up to you!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot table all the petitions, because this would be infringing upon the rights of citizens in the various constituencies involved. They may deal with the same subject, but as you see, the next petition comes from people from the constituency of Abitibi, and I for one could not-if you want to prevent people in Abitibi-from expressing their views in this House. This is the privilege I was asking for, Mr. Speaker. I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: But at this point, the Hon. Member is causing me some difficulty because he clearly indicated that all the petitions were the same. He said they came from different constituencies, but they were all the same.


Jean-Claude Malépart: He said they came from various constituencies but that they are all grouped-


Mr. Speaker:: In such case, he knows- he has the right to table all his petitions. The effect is the same as if they were presented in this House. The effect is the same whether petitions are tabled or presented. Do Hon. Members have further petitions?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this one is from the people I mentioned, the people from Abitibi. In this petition they voice their concern about the plight of senior citizens and they mainly urge the Prime Minister to look after senior citizens.
I have here constituents from La Prairie, Mr. Speaker. I would not like those people to be deprived from being clearly heard in this House. They asked me, they implored me to submit their views to the Prime Minister, requesting that the spouse's allowance be extended to every single person-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I indicated to the Hon. Member that if he had a petition on another subject I would be happy to hear him. But clearly he is continuing with a petition on the same subject. I invite him to table the rest of his petitions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I noted that you based your ruling on one made by the previous Speaker. You therefore invoked a precedent to shut me up.
Mr. Speaker, you recognized me and allowed me to present petitions for a maximum of 40 minutes. Why should the same possibility not have been granted to other Members? After giving me 40 minutes to present my petitions, you have now ruled that other Members have to sit down after speaking for only five or ten minutes. All the Members should be treated equally and you have established a precedent today.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order.


John V. Nunziata: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) claims to have a point of order. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston would like to comment on what the Hon. Member for Hamilton East claims is a point of order.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is correct in that I did not interfere, hoping that the matter would resolve itself. I was called on a point of order. I indicated to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East what I thought the rules meant and I invited the Hon. Member to stop. She did not.
Therefore, I was put in the position of being made to interfere. So I intervened as shortly as I thought was reasonable after the Hon. Member for Hamilton East sat down, she being a new Member of the federal House.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) was brought to order on the same point of order. He indicated to me clearly that he was going to carry on, and 1 was left with no other choice. That is why I intervened at that time.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am here to defend the interests of my constituents, so I leave
May 7, 1985

matters of procedure to the lawyers. However, I believe that my privileges and those of my constituents have been infringed upon. If one Member is given 40 minutes to express the views of citizens from across the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Petitions.


John V. Nunziata: A point of Order.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's point of order?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was permitted by the Chair to present petitions for

may I finish my point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I have ruled on this point of order. Does the Hon. Member have a new point of order?


John V. Nunziata: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the new point of order?


John V. Nunziata: The Member for Hamilton East was given the opportunity to present petitions for a total of 40 minutes. You indicated just a few moments ago that you intervened with respect-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's point of order? Would the Member simply state to me the point of order he is trying to make?


John V. Nunziata: My point of order very simply is that you are discriminating against various Members of Parliament. As a Member of Parliament I am entitled-


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


John V. Nunziata: -to the same time as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. What gives one Member the greater right and more time on petitions than another Member in the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John V. Nunziata: I ask that you be fair in the presentation of petitions and not give in to the pressure of the Conservative Members.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston suggests that I was trying to be unfair by allowing more time to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East than I did to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. I took the position that in my view the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was a new Member and perhaps did not know the rules as well as other Hon. Members should. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, having seen the Member previous to him being called to order, would perhaps understand, as I hope the Member for York South-Weston and others would understand that, once I had been put in the position of having to indicate to the House the rules and the practice, I could not then simply let it go on unchallenged for the time I let the other Member go unchallenged. Yes, it is discriminatory. I was
Petitions
trying to help a new Member, and if that is something which the Hon. Member wishes me to cease doing, let me assure the Hon. Member for York South-Weston that as of this moment,
I will cease trying to help new Members.
Petitions.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I am almost hesitant to take advantage of this opportunity for fear that the credibility of the process has been eroded by the antics of the Members opposite.
I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by residents of the constituency of Moncton in which they expressed concern-


André Ouellet: A point of order.


Dennis H. Cochrane: -over the present plight of Bruce Curtis, a resident of Nova Scotia currently incarcerated in a New Jersey prison. They are urging the Government of Canada to hasten the current negotiations for a treaty with New Jersey by which Bruce Curtis could apply for a transfer to a penitentiary in Canada so that he could be close to his family and thus receive the benefit of emotional and spiritual support from them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a question of privilege.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. First of all, I regret to see that you are in such a hurry to interrupt Members of the Opposition when those on the other side rise on a question of privilege, and how slow you are . .. On a matter of privilege, I had not finished presenting my petitions when you recognized another Member. I would like to continue to be recognized so that I can go on with my petitions.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to Your Honour, I want to point out that while the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) was presenting his petitions you reminded him that he could not continue to present his petitions on the same subject and you invited him to table with the Clerk the petitions he had on the same subject.
I would like clarification from you on this subject. I think the rule is clear that you cannot order a Member to table his petitions with the Clerk. The Member of Parliament has the choice to present his petition in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With great respect, the Hon. Member for Papineau is attempting to re-open a ruling that has already been made.


André Ouellet: No, I am not.

May 7, 1985
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau knows full well that if a Member has a petition that has not been presented in the House, he retains his right to table it with the Table. That right is not lost.


André Ouellet: Another day.


Mr. Speaker:: Or today. I invited the Hon. Member to table his remaining petitions by simply indicating the number and tabling them. He chose not to do so, and that is his choice.


John V. Nunziata: You have to listen to his point of privilege. Mr. Speaker: No.


John V. Nunziata: What do you mean, no?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What do I mean, no? 1 mean Hon. Members have to respect the Chair or the House falls apart. That is what I mean by no.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, you intervened and invited the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie to table the rest of his petitions if they were the same as the others. Afterwards, there were points of order, questions of privilege, and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! May 1 ask what is the question of privilege?


Jean-Claude Malépart: I rise on a question of privilege because you did not recognize me again so that I could continue to present my petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not true. I invited you to table them.


Jean-Claude Malépart: No, Mr. Speaker. You recognized me on a point of order. I rose again-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is on a different subject.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is on a different subject, and you have denied us.


Jean-Claude Malépart: He can foretell the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me be very clear about this. I invited the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie to table petitions on a different subject. He did not. Therefore, I rose again to say he left me no choice. That is the way it is. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on petitions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several constituents from the federal riding of Kenora-Rainy River, in Ontario, who exercise their right and ask the government to extend eligibility for spouse's allowance to all single people, some 80,000 of them, who are needy. I humbly present this petition to the House.
I have also a petition signed by several constituents from the federal riding of Rosedale, another riding, who exercise their right as Canadian citizens and ask the House to amend Bill C-26 to cover not only those who meet the requirements of the bill, but all Canadians who are either single, separated, widowed or divorced.
I have also a petition from a number of Canadian residents of the federal riding of Algoma, in Ontario, who exercise their ancient and unquestioned right to present a petition to the House and ask the Canadian Parliament to adopt a legislation which would extend the eligibility of the spouse's allowance to all needy senior citizens.
I have also a petition from residents and constituents from the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands, in Ontario, who exercise their right and, through this hon. member, present a petition to the House calling upon the government to pay more attention to their social and economic needs and extend the provisions of Bill C-26 to all Canadians who are either single, separated, divorced or widowed.
I have also a petition signed by a number of residents from the federal riding of Hamilton East, in Ontario-I have signed too on the reverse side-who are asking the government to amend Bill C-26 and extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to the people who are over 64 years of age and who are either single, separated or divorced.
I have a further petition from a number of constituents from the federal riding of Renfrew-Nippissing-Pembroke, in Ontario, asking the House to seriously consider their social and economic needs and to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people living alone, no matter what their marital status.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, this one from residents of Ottawa, my native city, who are asking the House to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people between 60 and 64, no matter their marital status.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed to another petition from people in the riding of Ottawa Carleton asking this House to amend Bill C-26, which is presently in committee, to extend the eligibility of the spouses' allowance to people 60 to 64 years of age who are either single, separated, or divorced
May 7, 1985

and who have identical needs to the others presently admitted to that program.
I have another petition-

-from residents in the federal riding of Ottawa-Vanier who are again asking the House to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all needy people between 60 and 64, and to amend Bill C-26 to make it possible for these people to get the help they need under this program.

I have a petition from the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, from the constituents of that riding who have asked this House to extend the eligibility of the spouses' allowance, which is granted to widows and widowers, to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced.
I have-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to invite him, if he would please, to table any other petitions he has with regard to that matter? And may I suggest to him that perhaps he could proceed to other petitions he has on other subjects?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Your invitation is not accepted, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat those tomorrow. It does not make sense to invite me to do something that I can do here verbally. I will wait until tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Parliament it is a great pleasure to offer a petition from the riding of Kenora-Rainy River. The people are asking this Government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to take another look at Bill C-26 so that it can offer all Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64 and who are single, separated, or divorced the same benefits as are others who are eligible.
I also have a petition from the riding of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the riding of Etobicoke Centre. The Petitioners are asking similarly to have the clause removed with respect to discrimination of individuals between the ages of 60 and 64 years of age who happen to be single, separated, or divorced.
The voters and electors of Durham-Northumberland are humbly beseeching the Government to remove the discriminatory clause of Bill C-26 so that all individuals who happen to be single, separated, or divorced between the ages of 60 and 64 can receive the same benefits as those who are widows or widowers.
From the Hastings-Lennox-Addington riding the individuals are petitioning their Government to change Bill C-26 so that it may be fair to all Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64 regardless of marital status.
I have a petition here from Kingston and the Islands. These people regard Bill C-26 as being discriminatory and ask their Government to change it accordingly.
Petitions
I have another petition from Laval-des-Rapides. The petitioners are asking their Government that separated, divorced, or single individuals between the ages of 60 and 64 receive the same benefits as widows already covered under Bill C-26.
The last petition comes from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. Basically it asks the same thing as do the earlier petitions.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find this practice resorted to today by our friends opposite quite interesting.
I have noticed several of the papers that were displayed for the camera containing the names of no more than one, two, or three persons.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Get your facts straight. You have 20-50 vision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of whether a petition is in order will be verified by the Table. That is the normal procedure. Does the Hon. Member have a point of order?


Sheila Maureen Copps: What have you got, a zoom lens?


Mr. Speaker:: Lenses and papers, no. There being no point of order, I recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on petitions.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present several petitions this afternoon. First, I have a petition signed by eight residents of the federal riding of Hamilton East. The petitioners petition this Parliament and this Government to take specific action with respect to items of utmost concern, not only to the people of Hamilton East but to all people of Canada. It concerns the nuclear issue.
This group of petitioners is asking the Parliament of Canada to refuse the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member at his seat?


Pierre Blais: I rise in my place, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Very well, I apologize. The Hon. Member for Bellechasse.


Pierre Blais: My point of order is quite specific Mr. Speaker. 1 think that there is a general parliamentary rule that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly. However in the present case, the Hon. Member has just tabled a petition on behalf of the Hon. Member just in front of her, that is the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, thus repeating the petitions

May 7, 1985
Petitions
presented a while ago. They are trying to do indirectly what they cannot do directly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Any Member of this House may present a petition on behalf of any Canadian who asks that Member to present a petition, if the Member so wishes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There has never been, to my knowledge, a requirement that a petition from people of a riding be presented by the Member for that riding. There has never been such a requirement that I know of. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston may present a petition on behalf of whomever he wishes.


John V. Nunziata: As a result of that intervention, I have lost my place, but thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
These particular petitioners are petitioning the Government of Canada to take some very specific action with respect to an item of national concern. It is an item of concern, not only to the people of Hamilton East but to all residents of Canada, indeed of the world. It concerns the nuclear issue.
These specific petitioners from the riding of Hamilton East, who number eight, are asking the Government of Canada to take some action to refuse the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, their delivery systems or components in Canada.
The petitioners further petition the Government of Canada to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone in accord with similar initiatives taken by other nations, and to become actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race.
The petitioners further ask the Government of Canada that the wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace.
Finally, the good residents of Hamilton East who have signed this particular petition are asking the Government of Canada that the objectives I have just stated be subject to ratification through a free vote in this Parliament. That is my first petition.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition from residents in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands. It is a petition which is signed by 16 residents of that riding.
The petitioners are asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) to extend eligibility for the spouses' allowance, which has been granted to needy widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age, to all Canadians who are either single, separated, or divorced and who have identical needs.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition signed by a number of residents in the federal riding of Hamilton East. This particular petition is asking the Parliament of Canada to take immediate action to refuse the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and to reject any research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, their delivery systems or components in Canada.
The petitioners further ask that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone in accord with similar initiatives by other nations and that Canada become actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race.
The petitioners are also asking that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace. Finally, they ask that the above-stated objectives be subject to ratification through a free vote in the Parliament of Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from approximately 20 residents of the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands. These residents are asking the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in particular, to take whatever action is necessary within the power of the Prime Minister and his Government to extend eligibility for the spouses' allowance, which has been granted to needy widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 years, to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced and who have identical needs. If this is not done, and if the Prime Minister overlooks the proposed amendment to Bill C-26, some 80,000 Canadians will suffer discrimination and social injustice.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which is signed by a number of residents from the riding of Hamilton East. Once again it concerns the very important issue which is facing not only this Government but Governments around the world. It concerns the nuclear arms issue. These residents in particular are asking the Parliament of Canada to take immediate action to refuse any further testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, their delivery systems or components in Canada.
Also these residents are asking that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone by this Parliament in accord with similar initiatives by other nations and that Canada become actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race.
They are also asking that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace. These residents are asking that the objectives which I have just articulated be subject to ratification through a free vote in the House of Commons, this Parliament.
May 7, 1985


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition from the good residents of the federal riding of Western Arctic. The residents of that riding are asking this Government, in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance, which has been granted to needy widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 years of age, to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced and who have identical needs. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are some 80,000 persons who fall into this category and who will suffer discrimination and social injustice if the Prime Minister overlooks the proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know that I cannot ask him to change his speed, but I can ask him not to lengthen the commentary.


John V. Nunziata: 1 have several other petitions.


An Hon. Member:: Are they different?


John V. Nunziata: In reply to the Hon. Member, it is a different petition from the previous one I just read.


Mr. Speaker:: Back to peace?


John V. Nunziata: Yes, we are going back to peace. I appreciate that you recognize that peace is an important issue.


John V. Nunziata: This petition is with respect to-I notice that Members opposite are laughing. This is no laughing matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the people who signed this petition are asking the Parliament of Canada not to authorize the tests of Cruise missiles in Canada, to give up research, production, tests and transport of any nuclear arm and component thereof as well as delivery systems.

These petitions are asking that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone in accord with similar initiatives by other nations and to become actively involved in working for the multilateral de-escalation of the arms race. They are further asking that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace. The petitioners finally ask that the objectives that I have just stated be subject to ratification through a free vote in the House of Commons.
Petitions


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from residents in the federal constituency of Burnaby and Mission-Port Moody and also from the federal constituency of New Westminster-Coquitlam in British Columbia.

These petitioners ask the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to extend eligibility for the spouses' allowances, which has been granted to needy widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age, to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced and who have identical needs. Some 80,000 Canadians are in this particular situation and are suffering discrimination and social injustice.


Mr. Speaker:: May 1 invite the Hon. Member to table any other petitions he has with regard to disarmament or the spouse's allowance matter, and suggest that if he has any petitions on other subjects, he might proceed to them.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who signed these various petitions were advised by the various Members of Parliament who collected these petitions that indeed the petitions would be presented, not tabled, in the House of Commons. I would ask for the opportunity to present these petitions to Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the Hon. Member knows that, if he simply indicates from his place that he is tabling them, they have been presented in Parliament. I presume he knows that. That, in practice, is what happens. However, I take it the Hon. Member has petitions on a different subject.


John V. Nunziata: The various other petitions have various nuances to them. They differ in certain respects.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the petition I now have which I wish to present to this House is signed once again by several residents of the federal riding of Hamilton Centre. They are asking that the Canadian Government take some very specific action with respect to the nuclear arms issue. They are asking that there be an end to further testing of the cruise missile in Canada. They are asking that that matter be subject to a free vote in the House of Commons.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition, not on the nuclear issue. This petition is signed by approximately 14 residents in the federal riding of Burnaby Mission-Port Moody and the federal-
4496

May 7, 1985


[Stage Direction]
Petitions
Frank Oberle: That is the entire Liberal membership list. Are there 14 Liberals in that riding?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for some decorum from Hon. Members opposite. May I carry on? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As 1 indicated, this petition is signed by 14 residents of the federal riding of Burnaby Mission-Port Moody and the federal riding of New Westminster-Coquitlam.


Frank Oberle: That is two ridings. They couldn't possibly have that many Liberals in one riding. There are seven Liberals in each.


John V. Nunziata: If I may, the residents petition the Government of Canada as follows:

We the undersigned are asking the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, to extend the spouse allowance program to needy single person 60 to 64 years of age-


Mr. Speaker:: I invited the Hon. Member to indicate if he has petitions other than nuclear disarmament or the matter he just raised. I suggest to him that he take the option of tabling the remainder. I am sure he knows they will be treated by the Table as having been presented. Lurther petitions?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope you will be able to remain good-humoured because 1 have several petitions to present to you, and I thank you-


An Hon. Member:: Slowly!


Fernand Robichaud: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, at the same speed I usually proceed. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will begin to read my petitions.
This first petition comes from some residents of my riding, and more particularly from the people of the village of Cocagne, who humbly request that the Spouse Allowance Program be expanded to include all Canadians men and women in need who are between 60 and 64 years old.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from some residents of my riding but this time from the beautiful village of Cap-Pele, in New Brunswick, who also humbly request that the government recognize the needs of some 80,000 people who will be unfairly treated if Bill C-26 is passed in its present form.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker,
I have another petition from some residents of my riding, this time from the town of Shediac, the lobster capital of the world, who humbly request that the Spouse Allowance Program include all senior citizens in need who are between 60 and 64 years old.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from people from Moncton and from the village of Cap-Pele and from Shediac who humbly request that the Spouse Allowance Program be expanded to include all Canadian men and women in need who are between 60 and 64 years old.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the people of Halifax, in Nova Scotia, from Bayfield, in New Brunswick and from Cap-Tormentin, in New Brunswick who also ask that-

Eligibility for the spouse's allowance which has been granted to all needy widows be extended to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced, and who have identical needs.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, again from some residents of my riding, from the beautiful village of Fort Elgin, and also from people from Bayfield, two adjoining villages, who also humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make the necessary amendments to Bill C-26 to avoid creating two categories of Canadian citizens. This petition is different, Mr. Speaker.
May I continue, Mr. Speaker? I see that you are still good-humoured, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no choice.


Fernand Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to disturb my colleagues in the Government, but 1 have still another petition, again from the people of Shediac, who call upon the Government to recognize the needs of some 60,000 people who will be treated unfairly if Bill C-26 is passed in its present form.


Mr. Speaker:: Now, I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed with other matters if he has any to be dealt with, but for the moment, he is entitled to table any other petitions he may have that concern Bill C-26. Does the Hon. Member have another matter to deal with? Yes?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that I still have petitions to present. If I do not table them today, will I be able to do so tomorrow?

May 7, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the Hon. Member should seek advice as to his rights on that matter from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who, I believe, has it pretty well, 1 think the phrase is, "in hand".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do you think he ought to come and see you?


Mr. Speaker:: No. Petitions?
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the basis is for your decision. You interrupted me after I had presented a number of petitions, after a while. You interrupted another colleague of mine after a certain length of time. I am trying to find out what rules of justice are applied in this House to determine the rights and privileges of each Member. I understand that the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is against providing assistance to senior citizens since she is constantly bothering you with points of order. But I would like to know what sort of justice is used as a basis to make sure that senior citizens can claim their rights in the House, and Members of Parliament can enjoy the same privileges, the same length of time to express the opinions of the people in the various ridings.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that there is no point of order in that matter. Petitions?


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, there are 12 homes for older people. I did not count the names but I have several sheets of paper signed in duplicate.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am honoured to present this petition on their behalf. Those people are concerned and worried by the government's position on Bill C-26. They call upon the Government to reconsider its position and extend the spouse's allowance program to all single persons 60 and 64 years of age, without any discrimination based on marital status.
I therefore urge the Government to take into consideration the concerns of these senior citizens and to take the necessary steps to correct this unfair situation.
I wish to present to the House a petition signed by constituents of the riding of Laval. They are opposed to the Government's proposal to institutionalize a systematic discrimination by granting a pension only to widows and widowers between
Adjournment Motion
60 and 64. They call upon the Government of Canada to extend the spouse's allowance program to all single persons, whether they are widows, divorced, separated or single.
1 also want to file a petition signed by the constituents of the riding of La Prairie, in the province of Quebec. These Canadian citizens find unacceptable the government's decision to determine eligibility to a social program according to marital status. They urge the Government to reconsider its decision and to extend the pension to all persons between 60 and 64, whether they are widows, divorced or separated.
The petition that I am filing today to complement the others comes from the riding of Temiscamingue. These constituents are also opposed to the bill introduced by the Government which wants to impose its will upon us. They ask that all single, separated, divorced persons who are in need and between 60 and 64 also receive the pension granted to widows and widowers.
The following petition comes from the riding of Lotbiniere and was signed by a group of people who also ask the Government to extend the spouse's allowance program to all single persons between 60 and 64 who are in need, whether they are widows, separated, single or divorced persons.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by residents of the riding of Rosemont, in Montreal, who are also very concerned by the Government's decision to grant the pension only to widowers and widows between 60 and 64. They humbly ask the Canadian Government to extend eligibility to the spouse's allowance program to all single people.
Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence, but this is my last petition. It is signed by people from the riding of Vercheres. These citizens find unacceptable the Government's decision to determine eligibility to a social program according to marital status. They consider the decision to grant a pension only to widowers and widows between 60 and 64 as a discriminatory measure and a social injustice and they call upon the Government to extend the pension to all persons between 60 and 64 who are in need, whether they are divorced, separated or single.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Toxic chemical control program, (b) Request that program be

May 7, 1985
Petitions
renewed; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-National Defence-North warning system-Participation of northern contractors; and the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation- Committee study, (b) Ceiling for insurance deposit.
transplantations, and to provide hope for the future victims of debilitating diseases or injuries.
The petition was signed on May 7 in the Year of Our Lord 1985.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, you are going to be very pleased to know that I have a number of petitions I wish to place before you which will deal with subject matters other than Bill C-26. In order that I not disappoint you, however, I would like you to know that during the latter part of my presentation here this afternoon I am going to introduce some petitions which will deal with Bill C-26.
I have the privilege to present a petition signed by citizens of the riding of Ottawa-Carleton. It deals with the issue of victims of crimes. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian justice system does not clearly recognize the victimized parties and the tragic losses suffered by the families of the victims. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray, beseech and call upon Parliament to encourage, foster and develop a better understanding by the police and other authorities in the criminal justice system of the needs of and the services required by the victims of violent crime, and to encourage the development of support groups for such victims. The petition was duly signed by citizens of the Ottawa-Carleton region.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the pleasure to present a petition to the House of Parliament that is signed by citizens of the Village of Gloucester in the riding of Ottawa-Carleton which deals with a subject matter that was raised in the House during the week in which the need for organ transplants was recognized.
Many people in Canada require transplants which involve kidneys, eyes, hearts, livers and lungs-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Even brains!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: And brains! But I must say that there is more need for that particular organ by Members opposite.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to initiate a nation-wide campaign to promote organ donor awareness in order to assist those who are currently in need of


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition which was signed by constituents of Ottawa-Carleton. The petition deals with a distressing number of spouses-I am told that it is between 60 per cent and 75 per cent-almost all of them being men, who have defaulted on support payments which they owe to their ex-spouses and children. Of course, the present system does not force the defaulters to pay.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take decisive steps toward ensuring that maintenance payments cannot be defaulted, and to create a situation so that the federal level of Government can take the initiative to search data banks to find the defaulters.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which is signed by constituents of the federal riding of Essex-Kent. It deals with the issue of Bill C-26 which is presently before the standing committee. Hopefully, it will come before Parliament at some stage for a resolution of the matter. The people who signed this petition are asking- [Translation]
-wherefore, humbly petition the Government of Canada to extend eligibility for the spouses' allowance to all persons aged 60 to 64 who are alone and in need, whether they be widowed, divorced, separated or single.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is signed by residents of the region of Ottawa-Carleton. It deals with the fact that in recent years there has been a dramatic shift in the nature of the workforce to include many young people, women re-entering the workforce and older workers. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to develop training programs which are appropriate to the experience of these people, and particularly the learning abilities of older displaced workers.
Recently, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) made the announcement that older workers who find themselves displaced would be penalized and not able to draw unemployment insurance benefits. The petitioners believe that these individuals should be included in the Minister's target groups to provide greater incentives for employers to hire them.
As in duty bound, the petitioners humbly pray that the Government will listen to them.

May 7, 1985


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition which was signed by the citizens of the County of Elgin, in the London-Middlesex area. Again, the petitioners humbly beseech the Government to extend the program under Bill C-26 to the 80,000 constituents across the country who are not simply widows or widowers, but, in fact, single, divorced or separated persons. The petitioners are demanding that Bill C-26 be enlarged to include those people in order that they can be a part of the government program when it is introduced in September, 1985.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I have just read in the rulings by Mr. Speaker Jerome that a petition which criticizes a Government position cannot be read in the House, and that is exactly what those petitions relating to Bill C-26 are, Mr. Speaker. I wish to respectfully submit that the ruling to that effect was that such papers should not be tabled in the form of petitions, but that Members of the House of Commons were entitled to voice their criticism of a bill under discussion. Since those petitions relating to Bill C-26 are critical of a Government position, Mr. Speaker, they should in my opinion be ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: No. Is the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'Homme) rising on the same point of order? I do not think there is a point of order, but the Hon. Member can say something before I rule.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point of order? The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: I would like to suggest to my colleague that she may be right, and I feel that you are about to rule on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The criticism is not to be found in the petition itself, but in the presentation of the petition; you have to show why the petition is presented. And it would seem very unlikely in my opinion that in so doing, one could altogether avoid including some element of criticism or appreciation. I would agree with my Hon. friend if she was saying that the petition itself is critical of the Government. But I do not feel that this is what we are discussing today. So I shall await your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe I understand the nuances of the whys and the whys of the nuances.

The Hon. Member is referring to a ruling which has been used in the past to rule a petition out of order once it has been received by the Table. It would be difficult for the Chair to
Petitions
find the petition out of order prior to its being presented and reviewed by the Clerk of Petitions. Therefore, I would invite the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) to continue with the nuances and the pourquoi.
[ Translation]


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by constituents of Etobicoke-Centre, in the Greater Toronto area: That the Canadian Government extend the spouse allowance benefits to every needy person between the ages of 60 to 64, whether widowed, divorced, separated or single.
Fortunately, I have another petition signed by people in the federal constituency of Perth. I think we now have a Member in this House, Mr. Dick, who represents people that are urging the Canadian Government to extend the spouse's allowance benefits to every needy person between the ages of 60 and 64, whether widowed, divorced, separated or single.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by people from Temiscamingue in the Province of Quebec, who humbly beseech the Canadian Government to extend the benefits of the spouse's allowance program to every needy person between the ages of 60 and 64, whether widowed, divorced, separated or single.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would ask the Hon. Member, if he has other petitions referring to Bill C-26, to table them.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, now it is my turn to table a number of petitions, all of which indeed deal with Bill C-26, but which make reference to sections and items that seem quite different to me.
In the first place, a petition signed by a group of people in the constituency of Bellechasse, more specifically the Association of single parent families, who regret that single, separated and divorced persons between the ages of 60 and 64, most of which are needy, are excluded from the benefits of Bill C-26.
Also another petition signed by Canadian citizens in the federal constituency of Chicoutimi, who again deplore the really unacceptable way of assessing or specifying the eligibility criteria for a social program, namely the marital status.
I have another petition signed by a group of citizens in the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East in the Province of Quebec, who deplore the discrimination written in the legislation against single, separated or divorced persons aged 60 to 64.
Here is another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by citizens in the constituency of Rosemont, in the Province of Quebec, who also strongly protest against the fact that single, separated and divorced persons aged 60 to 64 are excluded from that social program, which would be so helpful to them.

May 7, 1985
Petitions
Another petition is signed by a group of people in the constituency of Rimouski, who also find unfair, discriminatory and totally unacceptable the fact that they are excluded from the benefit of Bill C-26.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, here is a last petition signed by a group of residents in the constituency of Joliette, who also urge the House to review its position on Bill C-26, in the hope that it will expand its provisions to extend the social benefits therein provided to persons between the ages of 60 and 64, whether single, separated or divorced.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to present to the House a most important petition from people in Western Quebec or at least a substantial part of Western Quebec who signed hundreds of copies and they did so as a result of their sympathy for single, separated and divorced individuals in need from 60 to 64 years of age. They would like to see Bill C-26 extended to single older persons from 60 to 64 years of age.
I do not want to use up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, because the petitioners have asked me to read their names. I think that there are some 400 so you will understand that I do not want to misuse the time of the House.
I should like to present in the first place a petition from the electors of the beautiful constituency of Gatineau, as it is called, calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to do all he can to extend the spouse's allowance program to all needy single person aged 60 to 64 years of age.
1 also have another petition from one of the finest constituencies in Canada, the constituency of Hull-Aylmer, a petition coming from several hundreds people who are also asking that Bill C-26 also include all needy persons from 60 to 64 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are all older needy individuals and you may be sure that they signed this petition quite willingly. I am convinced that the present government will have much sympathy for them and will give special consideration to that petition which is apparently one of the most important ever presented to the federal government since it objects to a sort of social injustice. I am convinced that the Progressive Conservative Party will show its usual sympathy for older persons by extending Bill C-26 to single needy individuals from 60 to 64 years of age.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present and it originates from the constituency of Saint-Jacques which I represent in the House.
The petitioners also want to exercise their ancient an unchallenged rights to present a common grievance, with the assurance that the House will provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that needy single, separated and divorced persons aged 60 to 64 are among those who most depend on Government assistance.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon the Government of Canada to make the spouse's allowance program available to all needy persons living alone, aged 60 to 64, be they widows, divorced, separated or single.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from the constituency of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve whose signatories want to present a common grievance with the assurance that the House will provide a remedy.
The petitioners state that it seems unwarranted to assess eligibility for a social program on the strength of the marital status of a person. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance program to all needy persons living alone, aged 60 to 64, be they widows, divorced, separated or single.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the constituency of Montreal-Sainte-Marie whose signatories want to exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a common grievance, with the assurance that the House will provide a remedy. The petitioners state that the Government policy under which only needy widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 are eligible for the spouse's allowance amounts to discrimination against and social injustice towards single, separated and divorced persons with similar needs and belonging to the same age group.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from a rural constituency in Quebec, the riding of Lotbiniere, whose signatories also want to exercise their right to present a petition to Parliament. Those petitioners of the constituency of Lotbiniere humbly sheweth that needy single, separated and divorced persons aged 60 to 64 are among those who most depend on Government assistance, and they humbly call upon the Government of Canada to make the spouse's allowance program available to all needy persons living alone, aged 60 to 64, be they widows, divorced, separated or single.
Mr. Speaker, I have here another petition signed by many residents of the City of Montreal who state that the Government policy under which only needy widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 are eligible for the spouse's allowance amounts to discrimination against and social injustice towards single, separated and divorced persons with similar needs and belonging to the same age group.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper. Does the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) have a point of order?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I was seeking the floor to ask your guidance as to the next order of business, but you have called Private Members' Hour. Thank you very much.
May 7, 1985



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.", 'May 7, 1985\nAdjournment Debate']
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the House proceed to Item No. 168?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should take the necessary steps to ensure, that the Chief Electoral Officer, in future elections, make all polling stations in urban areas easily accessible to the elderly and the handicapped.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you have noticed during the past two hours, our Party is concerned with the elderly and those members of society who need help. We are concerned with people who are in need of social security and who look to the Government for stability and security of income when they reach a certain age at which they want to be able to rely on some form of stable pension income, regardless of their social and marital status. What has happened in the last two hours is an example of the commitment that our Party has to that general principle.
Our record is long and substantial. Inspired by these basic principles, I put forward this motion today. It says, in essence, that the Chief Electoral Officer ought to ensure that in every federal election the polling stations in urban areas, or for that matter in any part of the country, be easily accessible to the elderly and the handicapped.
There are very good reasons for putting this motion to you, Mr. Speaker. In recent elections, and particularly the last one, there has been an increasingly frequent practice of using buildings that are not easily accessible to the elderly and the handicapped because they have long stairways or corridors. Some of these buildings can only be approached by a series of steps and corridors which make it difficult for people of a certain age or with a physical handicap.
I refer in particular to certain large school buildings in which polling stations may be located in the basement or on the second floor. I refer in particular to other institutional buildings where accessibility leaves much to be desired. I make the point that the instructions must be clear and vigorous. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada must play a leadership role. His instructions to the returning officers in each riding must be very clear and to the effect that the selection of polling stations must take into account the basic principle included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the elderly and the handicapped must be given consideration in the arrangements which lead to the electoral process.
The Disabled and the Handicapped
On more than one occasion in the last election 1 was virtually reproached by a few electors who pointed out to me, with a certain degree of unhappiness, if not indignation, the fact that they would not be able to get into the building because of lack of access for wheelchairs. They would not be able to reach the polling station inside the large institution because they could not climb the stairs. Unfortunately and regrettably, some people simply give up their right to vote because of these considerations.
At a time when the whole thrust of our society is directed at understanding, recognizing and facilitating the participation of the elderly and the handicapped in public life, this matter requires close consideration by the Chief Electoral Officer. On many occasions, instead of utilizing large institutions, it would be better to adopt the old practice of using private homes. There is usually a side entrance and very few steps. The whole approach is much less cumbersome, particularly since a car can be parked in a driveway or very close to the entrance. I am not saying that this is the only solution, but I submit that an approach which takes into account the requirements of the elderly and the handicapped is most desirable.
In raising this motion, I urge the Chief Electoral Officer to take note of the experience that we had in Davenport in the last election. I am sure that a number of other Members have had the same experience on occasion. The numbers are not large, but that is not the principle at stake. It is an important principle which recognizes that the elderly and the handicapped must be given easy access to the voting process. That is what is at stake here and that is the reason for the motion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a comment on the plight of unlisted electors, a matter which is not necessarily included in my motion. I am glad to see that it is recognized in the Private Members' motion of my colleague. I refer to individuals who discover on election day that they are not able to vote because their names are not on the voters' list.
Over the years we have developed an interesting, competent, and capable technique for resolving this problem in the rural voting areas of Canada. According to the Act, in those areas you can still be placed on the voters' list on the day preceding election day. That has been resolved to the satisfaction of many voters who, in the past, were dissatisfied and very disappointed when they discovered they were not on the list. However, this problem has not yet been resolved in urban Canada. Some people do not know that before every election a new enumeration is made and a new list prepared. Unless on elector is aware of the deadlines and procedures, there is potential for an elector to be omitted. He will continue to be omitted in future elections. That happens all the time in our society.
As a result of technological advancement and the equipment that is made available as a result of the chip, surely there must be a solution for urban voters who discover the day before an election that they have been omitted from the list they may be

May 7, 1985
The Disabled and the Handicapped incorporated in the same manner that it can be done for the rural voter.
I would like to indicate to the Chief Electoral Officer that the time has come to find the solution for the urban voter as well. It is essential that people who care to vote and discover their absence from a given list the day before an election be allowed to vote, if they qualify, by way of a last minute registration.
I welcome this opportunity to put forward this motion today in order to recognize the elderly and the handicapped and to ensure that they all have access to polling stations in the future. This can only be achieved through close co-operation between the Chief Electoral Officer and the returning officers in the 282 ridings. It also gives me the opportunity to relate the recurring plight of the non-listed elector who qualifies but discovers the day before an election that he or she is not on the list.
I submit these suggestions and thoughts for the consideration of the Chief Electoral Officer and I thank you for your attention.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: No, unless it is my turn now.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk to this motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). He should be congratulated for giving us the opportunity to do so.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary steps to ensure, that the Chief Electoral Officer, in future elections, make all polling stations in urban areas easily accessible to the elderly and the handicapped.
I would go further than what is called for in the motion because, as some Members know, I was a member of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped which essentially made the same recommendation in 1981.
It is also referred to by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada in a 1984 statutory report. His recommendation concerning the motion we are debating today can be found on page 47 of that report. He said that Section 33(1) of the Act which defines some of the physical requirements of a polling station should be modified to comply with recommendations made by the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. He goes on to recommend that subsection 33(1) be amended to state that polling stations should be established in premises of convenient access which, as far as possible, shall provide level access.
I am not at all convinced that it would require an amendment to the Canada Elections Act in order to make a polling station accessible to disabled, handicapped or aged persons. It would seem to me that all that would be required is the
political will to allow all eligible Canadians to exercise their democratic right to vote in a federal election campaign.
The Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and made a submission. He further sent representatives to appear before the committee at a public hearing. While these submissions did not indicate that there were any problems of accessibility for disabled voters, the subsequent testimony from witnesses at the hearing clearly revealed that such problems do indeed exist.
In Manitoba, the Elections Act has been amended to help provide accessibility to disabled voters. In the first instance, the returning officer is instructed to locate polling stations in permises to which the voters have access from the street without going up or down stairs.
The Manitoba Elections Act also states that in the case of a disabled person who cannot enter the existing polling place without difficulty, the returning officer should remove the ballot box, along with all ballots and documents in the polling place, and take it to a place in close proximity where it is accessible to the person, such as an automobile outside the polling station.
The special committee cites this Manitoba experience as a possible model for federal legislation. In the meantime, I believe the issue could be further debated before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I know that the statutory report of the Chief Electoral Officer is before that committee and I know that whether or not the House chooses to refer this subject to another committee or to kill it by talking it out, the subject matter will still be discussed before that committee. Therefore, it will not disappear or go away. It would be much more preferable if the House were to deal with it in a forthright and honest way today rather than simply to talk it out as Governments usually are wont to do.
Throughout the hearings of the special committee, it heard complaints that the voting system throughout Canada makes it difficult for many disabled Canadians to travel to polls on election day. The one exception to these complaints was the Province of Manitoba which has made provisions for a postal vote system for provincial elections.
Under the Manitoba Elections Act, the returning officer receives an application by mail at least ten days before the polling day, and returns an initial ballot to the voter at least seven days before the polling day. This ballot is then marked and sealed in a plain envelope, which is placed into another special envelope which is printed in the form of a certificate.
On the certificate envelope, two people must be identified: the voter, plus another person who is authorized to vote in the same electoral division. The second person must certify that the first person's information is correct. The voter can then send the ballot and the certificate to the Chief Electoral Officer by any means before the closing of the polls. In the case of postal disruptions, the ballots may be picked up by the division returning officer, or be dropped off by friends or family.
May 7, 1985

In the last Manitoba provincial election, 900 mail-in votes were received and were mostly from urban voters. Manitoba's Chief Electoral Officer advertised the details of the postal vote and felt that the subsequent results were satisfactory.
The present policy of centralizing polling places serves the needs of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, but it ignores many of the needs of the voting public, especially of those Canadian citizens who are disabled. Centralization makes it easier for electoral officers to organize the vote count, but it makes it more difficult for many voters to reach the voting place. Centralization again may cut the costs of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of running a national electoral organization, but at the price of depriving many Canadians of their votes. It is totally contradictory for the federal Government to espouse a policy of maximum voter participation on the one hand, and a policy of restricted access to polling places on the other. This centralized policy, in my view, should have been ended years ago when this committee made that recommendation. It is certainly not too late for this House to instruct the Chief Electoral Officer to do it now before the next election comes.
Many of the problems the disabled voters encounter at polling stations can be solved by educating the people responsible for those facilities. This includes deputy returning officers and their staffs. If these individuals become familiar with the needs of the disabled voter at the very outset of an election period, the many potential conflicts and problems of accessibility could be eliminated. Since the polling station personnel must go through an orientation session as a requirement of their job, this additional information regarding disabled voters will entail very little extra cost in time.
As I said at the outset, I am not convinced at all that it would take an amendment to the Canada Elections Act in order to provide disabled individuals with the full right to exercise their vote. Simple political will to make sure it happens could make it so. There are some physical difficulties in some electoral ridings, I suppose, with electoral returning officers continually going back to the same places that they found to be suitable in the past, such as old church buildings, schools, and that kind of thing. Simply because it has been good enough for those returning officers in the past does not mean to say that it is good enough for the person who is trying to exercise his vote, such as disabled elderly Canadians.
There is another issue that I want to touch on, one that does not deal specifically with accessibility at the polling stations, that is, the accessibility of individuals who are confined to psychiatric institutions and simply because of that they are denied the right to vote. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Ontario finally smartened up last year and amended its Elections Act to allow individuals who are confined in psychiatric institutions to exercise their right to vote, and to recognize that simply because an individual may be mentally disabled at some point in his or her life does not mean to say that that person cannot exercise good judgment in casting a
The Disabled and the Handicapped
ballot in an election campaign. It also displays a certain kind of mental attitude toward individuals who are mentally disabled or who are temporarily mentally disabled. The results of two elections in Ontario, the series of by-elections last fall, when amendments to that legislation were in effect, and the recent election of last Thursday proved that there were no difficulties or problems created by those amendments at all. The effect of these amendments was very much appreciated by many of those individuals in those institutions because it helped them to recognize in the period of recovery that they were treated as able-bodied citizens and treated with some respect for their illness.
The Canadian Mental Health Association and other organizations appeared before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections about three or four weeks ago and made a very strong case for an amendment under the Canada Elections Act which would remove that blatant discrimination against people who are mentally disabled or mentally handicapped. We are not talking about the criminally insane. We are talking about people who suffer a mental disability, and if anyone has taken a look at the studies over the last several years about the effects of high unemployment in this country, the effects of the tremendous social pressures placed on people, they will realize that any one of us could suffer a mental disorder at any time.
It seems to me that in that light politicians, and especially the ones here for this debate, should act in a responsible way. They should not talk out this motion. Even though I do support the motion itself, I do not feel it goes far enough in addressing the problem. At the very least if it were referred to a committee, as the Hon. Member for Davenport suggests and requests, the matter could be fully aired and debated. Witnesses could be heard and they could make their own case in a much more substantive way than we possibly can here.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshoie):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary steps to ensure, that the Chief Electoral Officer, in future elections, make all polling stations in urban areas easily accessible to the elderly and the handicapped.
Many resolutions come before this House, and each in its own way and for its own reasons has special interest and importance. I think that today Members would agree that this resolution has a poignant message because of what it symbolizes in the long and continuing struggle to ensure that all Canadians including those who suffer physical handicaps shall enjoy the full birthright of Canadian citizenship.
Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states something that has long been part of our birthright but is now an expressed guarantee, specifically:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons-
That guarantee is supplemented by the guarantee contained in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms now in force since April 17, 1985, which guarantees that every

May 7, 1985
The Disabled and the Handicapped individual has the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on physical disability.
In that context, there could be no happier resolution, no more appropriate resolution than the one we have before us here today.
In my view there are perhaps two really important things that count when it comes to dealing with the handicapped. The first is awareness. The second is action. In this country in recent years there has been an increasing measure of awareness of the special requirements that men and women have in trying to fulfil and achieve their full potential. I would say that a person does not become disabled because of an impairment; he or she becomes disabled when forced to live in a society which is designed for some fictitious or mythical person who has no disability.
There are some features about election law that have been particularly of interest to me, and in my book Political Rights, I talk about the concept of administrative disenfranchisement. It is well and good to put a law on these statute books which gives someone the right to vote. By those same laws we in fact disenfranchise certain people for good and sufficient policy reasons.
To date we have seen fit, for example, to disenfranchise judges, inmates of prisons and certain other categories of people. That is one form of expressed statutory disenfranchisement. It is clear public policy. What is not public policy, however, is the administrative disenfranchisement which results when someone seeks to exercise his or her right to vote but finds an obstacle, a barrier, a handicap that is in front of the person and in fact results in that person being disenfranchised.
I listened with interest to the introductory remarks of the Hon. Member for Davenport who brought this resolution before the House and, in particular, to the comments which followed from the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). The Hon. Member for Beaches is certainly recognized in this House and beyond as one of the several Members of the Canadian House of Commons who have particularly focused on redressing the long-standing wrongs which confront Canadians who suffer from both physical and mental handicaps. He should understand that I, for my part, and I think other members of the government Party who will speak later, do not intend in any way, as he suggested, merely to talk this measure out in order to have it passed by and be forgotten. As I said at the outset, there must be awareness; there must also be action. Therefore, I would like to place a couple of other considrations before the House and the Hon. Member, in particular, who expressed that concern.
There are other more general reviews taking place of the entire Canada Elections Act. I have the honour to be chairman of a caucus committee which is looking at that. I can say that the Government is particularly mindful of ensuring that the proposed reforms, which have been piling up on the public
agenda year after year as the Chief Electoral Officer has brought forth his report and made suggestions, very few of which were implemented, are comprehensively reviewed so that within a very short term-and hopefully within this session of the thirty-third Parliament-amendments to the Canada Elections Act will be brought in to deal with many changes, not only the ones cited in this resolution, to ensure among other things that all Canadians have full access to the franchise.
Beyond that there is another development, that is, the fact that the parliamentary committee on equality rights is currently reviewing all federal laws to ensure that they comply with the spirit and the letter of Section 15. Major initiatives are under way which will culminate in specific action in the near term. The ideas contained in the resolution of the Hon. Member for Davenport are certainly part of that, but I suggest that it may be inappropriate today for us to take the provisions of this resolution as necessarily the final word or indeed the best solution which can be found.
For example, it bothers me to note that the resolution addresses only polling stations in urban areas. Handicapped and elderly Canadians live in the country from coast to coast to coast, many in rural areas. I think one or two of the other Hon. Members who will speak later will touch further on the question of the distinction between urban and rural and why it would be almost hypocritical on our part to seek to end one form of discrimination while in the process of perpetrating another, namely, maintaining an urban-rural distinction between those who suffer handicaps.
Indeed, just on that point, I did a little research and I would like to put some information on the record. In the 1984 federal election, there was a total of 64,169 regular polls and advance polls. Approximately 55 per cent of those were in buildings with level access. Of this total number of polls, 19,742 were in rural areas. This represents 31 per cent of the total or approximately a third. Because this issue has come to public consciousness at a relatively recent date, although it has been foremost in the mind of handicapped Canadians who have sought to these many years to cast these ballots, and because only recently it is emerging as an issue to be addressed, for example, here in Parliament, the Chief Electoral Office does not have figures as to the number of level access polling stations in rural and urban areas respectively. However, if we make the assumption that 55 per cent of those 19,742 rural polls were accessible, it means that some 8,884 polls were not in buildings with level access.
As quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 5, 1985, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Hamel, stated that trying to find
70,000	places across Canada with level access was not only difficult but impossible. We have therefore brought into sharp relief the reality with which we must grapple, that is, taking the principle of equality and bringing it to earth in specific, concrete places in terms which in fact will deal with the question of access. It would be misinterpreting the spirit of this House and the mood of these times to say that we cannot proceed in this direction because of the difficulty of finding
May 7, 1985

level access places. If we proceed on that basis in this or in any other direction in public life, we will always be able to find excuses. Therefore, we have to press on. The times require it. The Charter guarantees it. There will be solutions if we have the will to see that they are found.
However, finding those solutions is yet another reason 1 would suggest to the House this afternoon that it may be inappropriate to adopt immediately this resolution, because there are other possibilities which should perhaps be part of a total package deal. Of course, another one of them is the question of the mobile ballot box. This has been used with some imagination at certain times in Canadian history, certainly when elections were conducted during times of war. In one instance the ballot box was actually carried to the troops in the trenches and the ballots were cast in that fashion. There have also been closer to home and more recent examples. There was one in my riding in the last election. It was the case of Mrs. Irene Cole of Etobicoke who went to her polling station and found that she was unable to get to the ballot box because of stairs. It was a question of accessibility. After a call was made to one of the Party's headquarters, people came to assist. It was arranged that the DRO bring the ballot box out and down the steps, and she cast her ballot in that fashion. There are common sense solutions. If it is impossible to find for every polling station in the country a level access building, let us at least ensure that the law provides a kind of mechanism which is common sense and can do the job. It is another solution which I think should be part of a package deal.
A third one which could be added to this in any amendments that come forward-and I would only pick up the idea to which the Hon. Member for Beaches already referred-is the example of the Province of Manitoba. Manitoba has developed the concept of a mailed ballot. If disabled and if certain qualifications are established and rules set forth that are followed within a certain time period, a citizen can cast his or her ballot by mail. That experience has proved very workable. In the last Manitoba election, approximately .2 per cent of the electorate of that province cast their ballots in that fashion. In the sense that that can also be a solution to the problem I think suggests that we should take that idea and make it part of the total package we can put together to ensure that the rights of handicapped Canadians are best assured in voting. In fact, the number of such votes cast in that Manitoba provincial election, just for the record, was 900 out of a total of 488,821 votes cast. The procedure there has already been described for the House by the Hon. Member for Beaches, so I will not repeat it at this time.
There is clearly a general mood for change in this area. The question that I asked in this House of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) last week about the implementation of the Ratushny report indicated that we are on the brink of a major announcement in that area. As Hon. Members know, the Ratushny report contains recommendations for changes in transportation facilities in Canada to ensure that handicapped
The Disabled and the Handicapped Canadians can move about the country with freedom and dignity.
Another incident that some Members of the House may know about and others may not indicates something of the mood of the times and the willingness to try something new to accommodate those who suffer from handicaps. I refer to the recent expansion of facilities here for deaf people. We now have live simultaneous sign language interpretation of Question Period that is broadcast in both languages. I want to mention that a few weeks ago the Speaker of the House provided three deaf students who were attending Question Period with a TV monitor in the Ladies' Gallery so that they could follow the sign language interpreter and hear the words spoken on the floor. That was an important development, not too big a thing in the broad scheme of things but, as the old song states "Little things mean a lot".
What we are looking at here is a chance to do something that will mean a lot to a great many Canadians. There are precedents as well for us to look at in the Province of Ontario. Reference was made moments ago to the recently re-enacted Elections Act of the Province of Ontario. That provides access for the handicapped to polling stations. We would do well at the federal level to benefit from the experience at other levels.
In conclusion, I want to say as well what we did in developing special ballots for blind voters. In my book on political rights I discuss the recent history of the development of two forms of ballots, the one involving the template and the other the notched ballot to assist blind voters. We are on the right track. The debate this afternoon is serving a very valuable purpose in bringing good suggestions forward that can be incorporated in the amendments that the Government will introduce this session. I look forward during the remainder of the debate to hearing other Members express their views as to how we can make great progress on this important question of achieving equality for all Canadians.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I feel very honoured to be taking part in this debate on the motion of my hon. friend from Toronto. I listened to the speeches. After all, that is why we are here. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are still Members who believe they can learn something by listening to their colleagues, and even after 20 years in the House, I am still very interested to hear what new Members, especially, have to say in the House.
I am proud to say that the comments made by our distinguished colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) will give all the Members of this House something to think about. And if I may have his attention, I would like to congratulate him publicly, because his comments, with those of my hon. colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and our hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party, deserve our attention. I want to start my comments-I can assure Hon. Members they will be brief enough to give another colleague on the Government side, who asked whether we could share the time

May 7, 1985
The Disabled and the Handicapped
available, a chance to speak-by saying that I hope we do not talk this motion out. I think we might refer this motion to the appropriate committee for consideration.
At this point, and I am encouraged somewhat by my hon. colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), I think it would be appropriate to pay tribute to someone who is no longer here in the House today, and I am referring to the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, since Canadians have started to talk more and more about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For the sake of history, I think that those who are listening or would like to listen or those who will be reading what we said, I must repeat that thanks to what some called his stubbornness and others his determination, we have today a Charter that is complete and became so on April 17 of this year when we proclaimed Section 15 which is now an integral part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I therefore want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our former Prime Minister. I think there is no question of partisanship here, and I hope that very soon the Charter will also apply to the last province that has yet to agree to participate in the process and sign this agreement.
1 also wish to congratulate the Chief Electoral Officer, who even before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms existed had been aware of the problem in Section 168 referred to by the Hon. Member in his motion that in future elections, all polling stations in urban areas be made easily accessible.
There have been changes because the Chief Electoral Officer was already aware of the problem. That is why all ridings were asked to hold advance polls in locations easily accessible for people who would be unable to have easy access to regular polling stations, so that they could exercise their right to vote, which is now part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 3.
I think a word of congratulations to our Chief Electoral Officer is indeed in order, especially since this year, he is celebrating a very special anniversary after years of loyal service for the benefit of all Canadians, whatever their political affiliation.
I would like to say that we are in complete agreement, at least 1 personally am in complete agreement with what was said, as I mentioned earlier, by my colleague from the New Democratic Party who spoke before and who presented the motion, and especially with what was said by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, when he commented that there must be no discrimination. Anyone who has the right to vote must also be free to exercise that right. This reminds me of Bill C-26, and although I did not take part in the debate this afternoon, there are a number of similarities. We would like to see all people between the ages of 60 and 65, whether they are married, single, divorced or widowed, treated on the same footing.
I think this is real equality and that these are real rights. But I just wanted to say that in passing.
I also think the suggestion, for people with a practical turn of mind . .. and 1 see the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) and the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault). There are people here who may be new to the House but they are practical. And perhaps, as one of our colleagues pointed out this afternoon, we might have trouble finding 70,000 accessible polling stations right away.
Because in some areas, 1 don't want to oversimplify, but 1 think that we should use basic common sense. What does basic common sense say? It says not to create unnecessary difficulties, but if the elector should find it impossible to go to the polls, maybe the polls should go to the elector. If the elector who is handicapped goes to a polling station and cannot enter because it is located in a church basement or on a third floor, provisions of the act should make it possible for a ballot box to be made accessible to him or her, in the presence of the representatives of all the parties. Which means that when one uses one's basic common sense, one can always find a reasonable solution to a reasonable problem. These are the few remarks I wanted to make. I was prepared to say a lot more, but time flies, and my distinguished colleague from the Government side, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has asked me to share my time with one of her colleagues, something I am pleased to do. I want to repeat that 1 enjoyed the remarks of this new Member of Parliament, I find them quite reasonable, and if only we could work together to reform .. . There are many amendments to be made to the Elections Act, to streamline it as the need arises during an election campaign. I think that we should be able to obtain the result the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is seeking. Thank you. I conclude to allow my hon. friend to rise.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for sharing his allotted time with me to give me a chance, for the first time in this House, to speak about a Bill in which I am especially interested, namely one which aims at making polling stations and even public buildings easily accessible to the elderly and the handicapped.
I worked for many years as a draftsman, and 1 very often had to design public buildings. Fortunately, it has been possible to design easier and more adequate access to such buildings. What I find surprising is that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who is a man of experience, would propose a Bill aimed at correcting a certain inequity towards a particular group of our population, but only a particular group. 1 represent a rural constituency, and when I think of all the urban polling stations, I have to conclude that, while one inequity will be corrected, another will be created. I cannot
May 7, 1985

support this resolution aimed at correcting only part of the problem. I believe that our handicapped and senior citizens, wherever they live in this country, should have easy and adequate access to polling stations. In this regard, I am unable to support the resolution of the Hon. Member because he is creating one inequity in his attempt to correct another.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on at length about this matter, but since many of my colleagues also wish to express their views on this Bill, I shall yield to them.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak in support of the timely and thoughtfull motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that all polling stations in future federal elections be accessible to the elderly and the handicapped.
The special committee which tabled its report in February of 1981 heard complaints throughout the hearings that the voting system in Canada makes it difficult for handicapped persons to travel to polling stations on election day. There are many reasons why a handicapped person may not be able to get to a polling station. First, the polling station may not be in an accessible area. As an example, it may be in a location with stairs but no elevetor. Second, the handicapped person may be confined to bed and thus unable to get to a polling station. A possible cure for this may be in implementing a system such as is used in the Province of Manitoba. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) has already referred to that idea.
Another problem faced by the elderly and the disabled in trying to exercise their right to vote is the policy of the Chief Electoral Officer to try to centralize polling stations in order to save money. This policy has caused many elderly and disabled people to lose their franchise, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that no reduction in the expenses to run the polling stations is worth disenfranchising Canadians. Another problem faced by these two groups in voting is the fact that those persons who work in a polling station are often not qualified in terms of the special needs of the handicapped or the elderly.
On page 49 and page 50 of the 1984 statutory report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, it is recommended that Section 45 of the Canada Elections Act be amended to add two provisions which would deal with some of the problems 1 have just outlined. First, the Chief Electoral Officer recommends that a mobile poll be set up at a number of institutions where the elderly, the handicapped or other incapacitated electors are located. The second recommendation is to allow the deputy returning officer of a polling station to take the ballot box and the necessary documents to the entrance of the polling station, or even outside the polling station, in order to allow the incapacitated elector to cast his or her vote. I am in full support of the two recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer.
The Disabled and the Handicapped
In the interest of having another colleague of mine speak to this motion, may I just summarize by saying that by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and only by those rights that are provided, we must ensure that the handicapped and the elderly of this country are guaranteed access to polls. We should not let the cost stand in the way.
So I am in total support of the Hon. Member's motion. It is, and I stress this, time for action. But let us ensure that we do not overlook any existing problems which would work against the splendid spirit of this motion, if these problems were unresolved.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have reviewed the substance of the motion of the Hon. Member. In fact, I have had the opportunity in the last while to examine a number of elements related to the Elections Act. I represent a rural riding, as does my colleague who spoke a moment ago. I must confess I am a little surprised that we are addressing ourselves in this debate to the urban rather than to the rural component, at least in part. That does give me some concern, Mr. Speaker. It always seems that the rural areas are the areas which are first to be ignored.
I think that one must recognize that there are certain hardships in terms of getting to the polls which are more evident and apparent in the rural setting than they are in the urban. After all, in an urban setting one has the opportunity of employing or utilizing a dozen or more different facilities in a given polling area to which a person can go and exercise his or her right to vote. Those kinds of provisions do not exist in the rural area. We take what we can get whether that be a school, a church, some other public building or even a private building. In fact, I recall a polling station in a private home in the small community of Paterson in my riding. So while it is fine to impose a provision for those who are handicapped or elderly in the urban areas, it does present some difficulties for those persons in the rural setting.
It has been suggested that the advance poll would more than accommodate this particular problem. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that argument, while it is persuasive, cuts both ways because, really, what you are saying to the handicapped and elderly persons who would be expected to vote at the advance poll is, "You are a little different from anyone else. You have to vote at the advance poll. It doesn't matter if you have a medical appointment 200-miles removed or if you are on vacation and plan to be back on election day". Those are the difficulties which I can see will surface immediately.
In terms of the actual cost of construction or the provision for the voter to have access at the urban level, I think those costs would be much higher than at the rural level. Essentially, we are dealing with an existing building, probably with a simple modification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

May 7, 1985
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago it was determined by the Liberal Government that the management of toxic chemicals by the Department of the Environment was a priority of national importance in Canada. The Toxic Chemicals Management Program which was instituted dealt with all the human activities which have the potential to alter nature, and the amounts or distribution of chemicals in the environment which adversely affect human beings, other life forms, ecosystems and renewable resources.
In 1985, it appears that the management of toxic chemicals by the Department of the Environment has ceased to be a priority of national importance. As of April 1, 1985, the Toxic Chemicals Management Program ceased to exist.
When I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) on April 23 why this program was cancelled, she answered: "It was a temporary one and is now included in my Main Estimates". In our research we found that the Estimates of the Environmental Protection Service have been reduced from last year by $6.4 million and that the personnel has been reduced from last year by 41 persons.
In light of the cuts to the service, I must ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Toxic Chemicals Management Program still has the same program funds to work with as it did prior to April 1.
It appears that what we have is another cut, through the back door, surreptitiously camouflaged by the Minister when she pretends that the program in question has been "included in my Main Estimates". How can the Minister say that when the budget of the Environmental Protection Service for this year has been cut by $6.4 million and the personnel has been cut by 41 persons?
I must gently reproach the Parliamentary Secretary for having failed to arrange for a scrutiny by members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to analyse the Estimates. The month of April has passed, we are now in May, and nothing of that kind has yet been arranged. Therefore, we are forced to use the "late show" to discuss that budget.
In checking the Estimates we could not find the following important components of the Toxic Chemicals Management Program which existed last year. One of the components was a three-year action plan on matters such as drinking water, dioxins, pesticides, indoor air quality and contaminants in fish. As well, we could not Find the component which dealt with the development of a federal plan of action for the control of dioxin. Neither could we find the component which would
improve national pesticide management and regulation activities by contributing to the registration of pesticides and by informing the public on the decision-making process with respect to pesticides. There is also the component which has to do with support of the general co-ordinative role, the contribution to meetings of the Canadian Council of Environmental and Resource Ministers on questions related to toxic substances, and the co-ordination of the Department's input to the interdepartmental committee on toxic chemicals as based on a Cabinet document on pesticides which outlines a three-year federal plan of action. These items have disappeared. I submit something fishy is going on because the absence of these components disproves the claim by the Minister that the toxic chemical program came to a "normal end".
In addition, there are cuts in the environmental conservation service of $5 million and 240 person-years. What is not listed this year in the Estimates for that service is multiple resource conservation which last year had approximately 81 person-years and $5.2 million. This program undertook research and monitoring of toxic chemicals to ascertain concentrations, transportation, sedimentation and precipitation. In addition, a comprehensive integrated surveillance plan was to be implemented with greater emphasis on radioactive waste disposal. That is gone, too.
Where has this program gone? It is not in the Estimates. Why has toxic chemical research become less a priority today than it was last year? Why is the Government cutting the research needed to solve the severe problems posed by toxic chemicals? What the population along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River is losing is the essential research needed, without interruption, to determine the flow, quantity and increases of toxic chemicals in our water.
I will conclude by saying that this research is essential. We on this side of the House expect this Government to demonstrate its ability to prevent toxic chemical problems and to undertake responsible management of chemicals. Because of cut-backs which have resulted in the loss of important research programs, the Minister of the Environment should address the concerns of the public regarding the potential health problems associated with contaminated water. I submit that the toxic chemical management program is gone; the Estimates are reduced by 41 person-years in the environment protection service, and 240 person-years in the environment conservation service. How can the Minister claim that a toxic chemical management program is now in the Main Estimates? I ask you.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) indicated at the beginning of his comments that a number of years ago, I guess that was in the 1970s, the Liberal Government recognized the importance of toxic chemicals. I think that was all well and good, but in recognizing that he must also recognize the way the management of those toxic chemicals was really screwed up by the Liberal Government in
May 7, 1985

the meantime. What we have ended up with is a mishmash of programs, a number of different orientations, and 18 different departments involved in trying to rationalize the management of our toxic control program.
I would like to look first at the premise of the Hon. Member, that these programs are gone. If he wants to give the Estimates the proper attention, he will see that none of those programs has been cancelled. The programs have been integrated into the internal programs of the department. The people who live on the Niagara River can be comforted by the fact that the programs will continue.
What the previous Government had was a fund which was superimposed on the regular Estimates, and the Hon. Member knows it was due to run out this year. It was a three-year program. All of the programs funded by that extra money are now included in the regular programming, with renewed vigour.
One of the Minister's priorities, and he has made sure it is also a priority of the department-I think this is very important in this whole discussion-is that toxic chemicals are probably second on our list of concerns, following acid rain. The competence with which we have handled that program will be matched in the way we handle the toxic chemical program with the thousands of new chemicals coming on stream.
We as a Government need to organize and manage from beginning to end the question of toxic chemicals and the pollution they are causing in our water, our air, the food we eat, indeed, the whole range of things we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis as Canadians. The Government and this Department are now in the process of ensuring that we have a long-term program that will adequately deal with those very serious questions.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-NORTH WARNING SYSTEM-PARTICIPATION OF NORTHERN CONTRACTORS
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, on May 3 I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) what the Government was doing to ensure that northern contractors and employees might benefit from the new North Warning System. I was pleased with the answer he gave at that time. He told us that as soon as the decisions had been made, or shortly thereafter, he had sent officers of his Department to brief the various territorial Governments, and that northern contractors and employees would be given every opportunity for involvement in this project. That was good news. The reason I bring this matter up again this evening is to elaborate a little on the way things went in the past and the way in which they might go better in the future.
In the mid 1950s, when the DEW line was originally constructed, things were very different. We did not have a lot of northern contractors with expertise. The level of training and education of the population was, to a great extent, lower than it is today. The whole construction exercise was very much under the control and management of the United States
Adjournment Debate
Air Force. Canadians did not play a full role in construction at that time.
There is a story going around that I believe is true. At one time a Supreme Court judge was forced to land at one of the DEW line sites. The American officer commanding there would not let the Canadian Supreme Court judge into the base. He told him to go away. These things will certainly not happen again with the new North Warning System. We have come a very long way in the last 30 years.
I have had a number of inquiries from very competent northern contractors involved in the building and construction trades, in engineering design work, in transportation, and in supply of all kinds of material, who are anxious to get in on the opportunities involved with the North Warning System. I have had inquiries from Chambers of Commerce and Arctic Cooperatives Limited which represent a number of businesses.
I have made a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence which I hope he will act on. I have suggested that he create a liaison office to provide information to northern contractors. This might be located in Ottawa, for the time being. It might eventually be located in Yellowknife, or they may want to use some of the facilities which may be vacated at CFS Inuvik. We should have an office established and an officer in charge whose specific job it is to encourage northern involvement in the scheme. We should be able to provide information to northern contractors. They want to know in advance what types of jobs are going to be available. If that information is provided to them it will allow them to make the necessary arrangements to get their bids in order and find the available people. It may be necessary to engage in a little training of northern employees in order to take advantage of the contracts as they come up.
I have had suggestions from constituents with regard to the integration of civil and military support for the system. Perhaps unit toll carriers can be used instead of completely military aircraft. That might result in a saving to the Department of National Defence, and at the same time increase the volume of freight handled by the unit toll carriers, hopefully bringing down the price. The possibility of establishing staging centres somewhere in the north instead of shipping out of a southern base is one suggestion. You may want to take it into a location somewhere in the North for assembly before it is shipped up to the various north warning systems.
These are some of the ideas that I have received. I simply want to pass them on to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary today. I believe there will be tremendous opportunities from this. We know that it will not be a panacea for all our employment problems in the North but there will be hundreds and possibly thousands of person years of employment connected with this. We in the North would certainly like to get our fair share. I am satisfied that we will, provided some of these suggestions are taken into account.

May 7, 1985
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the appreciation of the Minister and the Deputy Minister for the very quick intervention by the Hon. Member when the north warning project was announced, and for his continuing interest in the subject. Certainly the Hon. Member's interest in securing employment for Canadians living in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is appreciated and well known in the House through his representations. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) urged him on May 3, during Question Period, to make him aware of problem areas concerning the participation of northern workers so that they could be addressed properly. He has done so today and we will take those suggestions as advice and look forward to considering them very carefully.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government intends to take steps which will favour Canadians living in the North to every extent possible. Follow-up visits by the project manager of the North Warning System are already planned. In consort with officials of the Territorial Government, the social impact and job opportunities will be reviewed and discussed in considerably more detail. The Government is acutely aware of the valuable contribution the Inuit and Indian populations have made to the development of the North. These native peoples make up a large portion of the total population and
their well-being and interests will be important factors for the Government to consider.
There will also be an evaluation in which the Department of National Defence and the Territorial Governments will assess the types of northern companies and indeed the groups of companies that could participate in the construction and implementation of the North Warning System. Contracts will be awarded some time next year relating to the long range radar construction in the eastern part of the country, Baffin Island and Labrador. Construction in the western arctic will only occur in late 1988 and during 1989. In summary, consideration of northerners and of northern firms will be a factor in the selection of contractors to do work on the North Warning System project.
The Minister of National Defence and the Hon. Member of course have a particular interest, experience and understanding of northern development opportunities and concerns. The Minister and the Hon. Member, working together, will make this project the kind of successful model that we expect for northern development projects.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 8, 1985