1985-12-11

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern, indeed outrage, over the situation confronting my province, particularly the Island of Cape Breton. Yesterday we had an opportunity to debate a host of issues of particular importance to Atlantic Canadians. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admitted in Question Period yesterday as well that the economic policies he put in place are not working in Atlantic Canada, particularly in my constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond. One year ago there were approximately 14,000 people unemployed in that area. Today, as a result of Government policy, there are an additional 4,000 unemployed. The unemployment rate has risen to an all-time high of 24.2 per cent, surpassing, unfortunately, that of the Province of Newfoundland.
We continue to hear cabinet Ministers from Atlantic Canada saying yes, the economic policies of their Government which they have put in place will assist those of us who reside in Atlantic Canada, only to hear their Prime Minister disagree-


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this week more than 900 tobacco farmers from Quebec, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia came to Parliament Hill to demonstrate in favour of a national tobacco marketing agency. The Conservative Government's failure to provide these farmers with the right to form a marketing agency is yet another broken election promise. After more than a year the Government continues to delay while the tobacco farmers' livelihood is threatened.
The Minister says he will ensure that the existing provincial boards will reach an agreement with the manufacturers. This is exactly what they had last year, and it is not good enough. These farmers need a national agency to bargain on their behalf, an agency with power to restrict production and to restrict imports of tobacco. They do not need to be locked in a room under the old rules until they give in to the manufacturers. They do not need to be threatened by the riot squad. This latest Conservative tactic is too reminiscent of South Africa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It also reminds us of how the military dictatorship of Argentina governed that country. Under the guise of maintaining normality they suppressed wage demands, removed most of the controls on foreign investment, and crushed public demonstrations with shows of military force. This is regretfully a type of action which our Government now appears to be embracing. These are not normal times for farmers, but they deserve a lot better than threats.

[ Translation]


INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Human Rights Day, as announced by the United Nations Organization.
The day before, I had the privilege of presenting a motion on behalf of the Government, expressing recognition for the efforts of Raoul Wallenberg to save hundreds of innocent Jews, men, women and children, from genocide during the Second World War.
Mr. Speaker, the meaning of the word "human rights" may vary, depending on the person who uses them. To some people, these terms are closely linked to the politics of an oppressive regime, of pseudo-liberation organizations which typically engage in violence, assassination attempts and crimes of all kinds. To others, they represent the basic freedoms, the freedom to be, to act, to speak and to worship.
To me, these words also mean the right to life, growth and self-determination.
Unfortunately, too many peoples are helpless to defend their rights and remain deprived of those rights. However, Mr. Speaker, the day will come when people of goodwill will force

December 11, 1985
the oppressor to respect the rights and freedoms of the individual.

[English}


PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF HEAVY OIL UPGRADER AT LLOYDMINSTER, SASK.
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 an agreement was signed by the federal Government and the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta to build a heavy oil upgrader at Lloydminster, Saskatchewan. As conventional supplies of light crude oil in western Canada are gradually declining, we must replace these resources by upgrading our heavy oil resources. Not to do so would be to turn back the clock and cause us to become increasingly dependent upon foreign crude supplies.
The construction of the Husky Lloydminster upgrader and associated field facilities will generate significant direct and indirect employment benefits for Alberta and Saskatchewan. Much of this employment will involve highly skilled engineering and technical expertise. In addition, large indirect benefits will be generated in Ontario and Quebec where much of the hardware for the project will be manufactured.
Cancellation of the Husky project will cast a serious shadow over all major non-conventational oil and gas development projects now in the planning stage. These projects are both capital and labour intensive and, as such, will provide the backbone in the "engine of future economic growth" for Canada. We hope the Government of Canada is going to stick to its signed agreement and proceed with the project as intended.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the sale of de Havilland to a U.S. multinational corporation reflects the Tories' blind quest for privatization and commitment to satisfy U.S. interests at all costs. However, all the costs involved are Canadian costs. There is the lack of job guarantees, the huge investment Canadians have made in de Havilland, the loss of precious and unique research and technology, the timely development of markets for its products, especially with the introduction of deregulation, and the fact that de Havilland represents one-quarter of the Canadian aerospace industry.
de Havilland went from a wholly Canadian enterprise which inspired a sense of national pride and national achievement, to a simple number within a conglomerate of companies whose future importance can be changed or ended dramatically based on the whims of its U.S. corporate bosses.
de Havilland's sale is Canada's loss. It not only reminds us of the Avro-Arrow tragedy, but also brings back to life the Conservative Party's opposition to our own Canadian flag, our own Canadian anthem, our own Canadian FIRA, and our own Canadian Constitution, and now it is opposing our efforts to own and control our own Canadian aircraft industry.
The Government has brought shame once again to our Canadian identity and to the principle of Canadian sovereignty. Canadians will not forgive nor forget this regressive, un-Canadian policy move by this regressive Government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Tamils of Sri Lanka are being forced to flee their homeland in fear for their lives. A demonstration yesterday on Parliament Hill by several busloads of Tamil-Canadians dramatized their concern about attacks on their compatriots in Sri Lanka. They presented evidence which Amnesty International has gathered that the Sri Lankan army is resorting to torture of Tamils and other persons in military camps. The Prevention of Terrorism Act passed in 1979 has encouraged Sri Lankan military and police personnel to make random attacks on Tamils. Regulations have recently been issued to control the inquests into the deaths produced by this violence.
Sri Lanka has been a large recipient of Canadian aid for more than 30 years. The Colombo Plan is, in its very name, a reminder of these links. These Commonwealth ties should only make us more sensitive to the use of irregular and arbitrary violence by those who are responsible for law and order in Sri Lanka. I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to ensure that Canadian aid, including trucks, is not used in this proto-civil war in Sri Lanka. 1 call on him to encourage the Government of Sri Lanka to avoid the kind of irregular violence that has disfigured the life of so many countries in these last years.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, over the past month many Canadians have been deeply concerned as they have watched events unfold on Lyell Island in the Queen Charlottes of British Columbia. The issues involved are complex. Many people are directly affected by activities on South Moresby and are concerned about its future. These people include the Haida people, loggers, residents of the Queen Charlotte communities, and those proposing a park on South Moresby.

December 11, 1985

Obviously the escalation of confrontation and disregard of law are no way to resolve the conflicting points of view. A few weeks ago our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and our Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) offered their good offices to mediate the dispute. I am pleased that over the past weekend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met with representatives of the Haida people and then with representatives of the Province of British Columbia and has indicated his commitment to further discussions with respect to the federal Government's involvement in the land claims process of the Haida people.
Fortunately, yesterday the Attorney General of British Columbia and representatives of the Haida people met and, from all accounts, had fruitful discussions on matters under provincial jurisdiction. A provincially appointed study group is also examining the possibilities for mixed uses in the region including logging, mining, tourism, and the protection of wilderness. The magnitude of the problem is such that a negotiated settlement is the only answer.
As we well know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Let us applaud all parties on being willing to take the first step.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, recently thousands of people in our country were shocked and saddened when a Canadian woman and her child were murdered by terrorists in Malta. It was a dastardly act, and just punishment must be meted out at least to endeavour to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again.
But, the terrorists in Canada are just as bad; like Brown and Peters who murdered a young wife and later a teenage girl and burned their bodies after satisfying their lust; like Clifford Robert Olson who deliberately planned and then abused and killed at least 11 boys and girls, one only nine years old.
But, what do we do with these terrorists in our country? We put them in jail, feed them the best of food, provide amusement, and even connubial trailers at the taxpayers' expense, and then, in a few years, we set them free.
The people of Canada are just as frustrated with Canadian murderers as the people of the world are with international murderers, but the bleeding hearts have taken over in Canada. They call capital punishment "revenge" when it is "deserved punishment". At least 70 per cent of the Canadian people want capital punishment restored. A dead murderer will never kill another human being.
Oral Questions
Let us restore capital punishment and tell the terrorists of Canada and the world that the punishment for anyone who deliberately plans and kills another human being will be death-d-e-a-t-h.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When I was on the West Coast I arranged a meeting in Seattle, Washington with Mr. Thornton Wilson and Mr. Frank Shrontz, the Chairman and President respectively of the Boeing Company. I arranged the meeting to discuss the purchase of de Havilland. Later I was advised that these two gentlemen did not feel free to discuss the deal because they had been advised by the Canadian Government that it would not be in their interests to do so.
Why will the Prime Minister not reveal the terms and publish the agreement of sale so that Members of Parliament and Canadians generally can see the terms of the sale? Why has his Government imposed a conspiracy of silence on the Boeing Company of Seattle?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that the President of Boeing Canada was at the press conference and freely answered questions obviously shows that the premise of the Hon. Member's question is false. There is no conspiracy of silence whatsoever.
Furthermore, we have been answering questions in the House for the last 10 days about the details of the deal. It is a deal that is good for Canada.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION OF ALL TERMS OF DE HAVILLAND SALE AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the agreement with de Havilland was important enough for the Prime Minister to answer this question himself.
Although Canadian taxpayers are the real shareholders of de Havilland, the Government is refusing to reveal the terms of the deal to the Canadian people.
1 shall repeat my question to the Prime Minister. Is he going to allow a parliamentary committee, as he promised during the election campaign, to examine all the terms of this agreement

December 11, 1985
Oral Questions
and to call as witnesses the executive officers of Boeing in Seattle, Winnipeg and Toronto?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out to the Right Hon. Member that the actual terms of the agreement were made public. They were made public in this House. The actual terms of the agreement have put an end to expenditures that had become an incredible burden on the Canadian taxpayer in recent years, and which totalled more than $800 million. It is an agreement that will save Canadian taxpayers several hundred million dollars in the years to come. It is an agreement that will create jobs. It will create investment. It will keep an important Canadian industry alive and well.


PROVISION OF TAX INCENTIVES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is an extraordinary situation when a company belonging to the people of Canada is being sold, yet the people of Canada through their representatives in the House cannot see the terms of the agreement.
The hon. gentleman talks about the Canadian taxpayers. According to what we have been able to calculate from the vague terms that have been rendered public, the Boeing Company will receive tax incentives and grants to the amount of about $600 million. How can the Minister justify that, when there were Canadian purchasers available to buy this company who were not asking for that type of guarantee or that type of incentive at all?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, once again the premise of the question is wrong. We looked at the various bids. They were considered by a number of outside experts. We selected the best bidder in the best interest of Canada, Canadians, and of taxpayers.


FUTURE AIRCRAFT PURCHASES BY AIR CANADA
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Air Canada estimates that in the next 10 years it will buy a billion dollars worth of big jet planes. These planes are made by Airbus in Europe, McDonnell-Douglas, and Boeing. Canadians will want Air Canada to buy the best planes at the best price.
Has the Minister considered that those jobs at de Havilland, are now a hostage for Boeing to put pressure on the Canadian Government and Air Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -to buy Boeing's planes and to buy them at Boeing's prices?


Mr. McDermid:: Are you ever desperate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Did the Government consider this compromise to our independence and our integrity? What is there in the deal to be sure the independence and autonomy of Air Canada and of the Government in this purchase decision will be preserved?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly answer the gentleman that there were no such guarantees sought by Boeing, no such guarantees offered by the Government of Canada, and there is no link between this transaction and any future Air Canada purchases.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion told this House on December 11 that the transaction will be reviewed by Parliament before completion, the Government is moving back on that deal. If this deal is so bad, why will the Government not submit it for a review by Parliament before closing, and honour the promise made by the Minister on December 11?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that members of the Opposition have made up their minds about this matter. We have had a full day of debate. We have had a vote in this House approving the deal.


Mr. Chretien:: When?


Robert René de Cotret: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Government made up its mind to go ahead and sell de Havilland to Boeing because it is the best thing for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1984 PROPOSAL TO MERGE DE HAVILLAND AND CANADAIR


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance with respect to the sell-out of de Havilland and the possible sell-out of Canadair. I would like to point out to the Minister that this House has not had a single opportunity outside this Chamber to question Ministers or to question the people involved in the sale of de Havilland.
On August 21, 1984, the Minister, speaking for his Party, said:
-that a Conservative Government will set up a separate Crown corporation for Canadair and de Havilland-that the Government would make them commercially viable and would continue to do so into the next century.
Was that an election promise on behalf of the Conservatives? Will the Minister explain why it has now been broken?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer the Hon. Member's question. That possibility was discussed time and time again
December 11, 1985

and it was examined. We found that the potential of selling de Havilland to Boeing in a separate transaction yielded more significant and positive results for the aerospace industry in Canada, as it itself has indicated to us, and to Canadians in general. That is why we acted in that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Maybe I could direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that the Government has changed its mind on policy important to the future of the aerospace industry. You promised an aerospace strategy and have abandoned it. Is it not right that you should at least take such an important change of direction in policy before a committee of this House, rather than abandoning the strategy without explaining why?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, again the premise of the Member's question is wrong. This was not policy. I have just explained to the Hon. Member that we looked at the situation and we felt in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer, whom we happen to represent, by the way, that the deal we are proposing to conclude is the best one for Canadians throughout this land. That is supported by the aerospace industry itself, and most of the editorials that have been written across the country also support it.


ACCOUNTABILITY OF CROWN CORPORATIONS TO PARLIAMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is for the Prime Minister. Your Government, your Party promised-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -to keep this industry Canadian. You promised to keep it in the Crown corporation's hands.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the House is reacting to the fact that the Hon. Member should know that questions should come through the Chair without reference to individuals.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I apologize. Through you, Mr. Speaker, on August 21, 1984, the now Minister of Finance said:
We will increase the acountability of this and all other Crown corporations to Parliament.
Was that a Conservative promise with any credibility or was that, too, just another broken promise as has been demonstrated in this House for the last week and a half?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have had many opportunities to discuss this
Oral Questions
transaction in the House. Many opportunities will come again through the normal procedures which this House has in place. We are selling de Havilland to Boeing because it is a good thing for Canadian taxpayers.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you quote?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, the Hon. Member likes to quote. Let me quote from The Gazette for December 4:
This is a commercial venture best left to people with skills and training acquired in a commercial environment rather than to bureaucrats.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[DOT] (U25)


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST THAT STUDIES BE TABLED
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released two major economic reports indicating that any Canada-U.S. trade agreement would be an economic tragedy for Canada, clearly contrary to the assertions of the Government. The only response we have had from the Government so far has been a speech in New York, a speech in Chicago, and now an ad supplement in The New York Times which highlights the Prime Minister as the head of Canadian operations of a North American trading company.
When will the Government table all the studies it has prepared relating to the job impact of a trade agreement? When will the Prime Minister schedule a major debate in Parliament so that we will know what is going on?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the last time the Hon. Member rose to make a projection-


Ms. Copps:: A junior vice-president of the trading company.


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


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is the sweet voice of Christmas coming. The last time he rose to make a projection, I think the record will show, was in November of last year when he predicted that, as a result of the economic policies of the Government, 200,000 jobs would be lost. In fact 416,000 new jobs were created. He was wrong by almost three-quarters of a million jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It will not come as a surprise to anybody-


Mr. Hopkins:: Part-time jobs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to hear that the Hon. Member is wrong again and railing against the United States. The only person

December 11, 1985
Oral Questions
who is surprised and upset by that is his brother who is working down there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that the family should stand up and turn back that "dirty yankee money", right now!


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have put in place-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Schefferville lackey.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question.


Lloyd Axworthy: After that tirade, what could one say?


Some Hon. Members:: Then sit down.


Lloyd Axworthy: We do have a lot to say. I do not like to correct the Prime Minister, but the last time I made a speech, I predicted that the Tories would fall 10 percentage points in the polls, and that has come true.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPEARANCE OF CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Seeing that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the first question, will he answer this question?


Mr. Shields:: We want Tom.


Lloyd Axworthy: Three weeks ago he gave a direct commitment in the House that Simon Reisman, the negotiator, would appear before a parliamentary committee. Can he now answer the question? When will Mr. Reisman come before that parliamentary committee so that Parliament and the Canadian people know what the Government plans to do in its deal with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that we have dropped 10 points in the polls. Better now than during an election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Wait until the next one.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a bottomless pit.


Mr. Rossi:: Canadians will remember you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Don't get excited, Mr. Rossi.

Mr. Reisman will be available an appropriate time.


Lloyd Axworthy: When is appropriate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member says "when is appropriate?" As soon as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the Leader of the Opposition are in the House on the same day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Last December the Secretary of State for External Affairs promised to look into the gift of 20 CF-104 Starfighters to Turkey and halt the transaction "if it would increase tension in the area". Will the Associate Minister of National Defence tell the House why the Embassy of Greece has not been contacted about this matter for two months, expecially since Greece still contends that this gift is "changing the balance of power in the Mediterranean"? 1 read in the newspaper just today that its request for one-half of these planes had been turned down.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that when the CF-18s were destined for Europe in 1981, in keeping with NATO policy, we made an offer to the three southern-tier countries-Portugal, Greece and Turkey-of surplus CF-104s. Only Turkey responded to that request. We are honouring a commitment in which all NATO partners are involved.
When Greece expressed some concern about the balance, we acknowledged that, in fact, it is necessary to be even-handed and that some of the assistance granted to these southern-tier countries by NATO countries has been less than even in its impact. As a result of that, we are engaged in discussions with Greece to provide it with spare parts and engines for its aircraft, plus other equipment, in order to strengthen its capabilities, since it is an important part of the NATO deterrence.
At the officials level in Brussels, and in Athens, in fact, very amiable discussions are ongoing now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COST OF UPGRADING AIRCRAFT
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Government realizes that what it is doing may very well be heating up an already very volatile political situation, in view of the fact that we also have 600 Canadians in Nicosia.
Will the Minister tell the House why his predecessor said last year that the cost to the Canadian taxpayer for the upgrading of these Starfighters would be approximately $6
December 11, 1985

million when we now learn that the cost has soared, in just a year's time, to $17.5 million?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the relationships in that part of the world, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that when 1 was in Brussels last week I had lunch with the Minister of Defence for Turkey and the permanent representative of Greece. The three of us discussed this question. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that none of the tensions about which he is talking exist in regard to what Canada is attempting to do.
In terms of how much it will cost, my predecessor, the former Minister of National Defence, when answering that question was giving the dollars involved in terms of the cost of inspection for the first 20 aircraft. As the Hon. Member should know, that is required after 200 hours of flight time. The remaining aircraft, their transference and all the support account for the difference of an additional approximately $11 million.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PARTICIPATION OF NEW BRUNSWICK IN FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT-NOTIFICATION OF CANADIANS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, Premier Johnson of Quebec stated that he had not been told on November 6 that New Brunswick would be taking part in the Francophonie Summit, and today the Prime Minister stated he had duly informed him of the fact.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House why he kept the people of Canada and Quebec in the dark between November 8 and the provincial election?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, just to show how the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice insists on short changing the Members of this House by refusing to examine important issues and by failing to consult, before he rose in the House, the transcript of a press conference held on November 8, 1985, here in Ottawa, where, in answer to a question from a reporter, referring to the fact that earlier that day or the day before I had announced that Quebec would be taking part in the International Francophonie Summit, I said the following: I can say that discussions are under way with the Government of New Brunswick for the purpose of concluding an agreement that will ensure its participation in the summit. That is crystal clear, and the Government's intentions were clearly established and announced, contrary to what the Hon. Member just said.
Oral Questions


PARTICIPATION OF NEW BRUNSWICK IN FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister state before this House whether he did or did not clearly inform Premier Johnson of New Brunswick's eventual participation in the summit? And if he did, which means he had already decided that New Brunswick would be at the summit, why did he not announce that fact at the same time as Quebec's participation, instead of trying to help Premier Johnson win an election he ultimately lost?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would spend more time here instead of selling his book across the country, he would be better informed on the issues of the day.
In fact, I said this: I am very surprised because the federal Government's firm intention of also authorizing New Brunswick's participation was clearly expressed in the normal course of negotiations leading up to the Ottawa-Quebec agreement. At all times and in all circumstances, the federal Government's intention has been clear. To us, there are only first-class francophones, not first- and second-class francophones. There are only first-class francophones in Canada and they are all going to be represented.


SASKATCHEWAN HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT-PROVISION OF LOAN GUARANTEES
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question on the Husky Oil upgrader in northwestern Saskatchewan is directed to the Minister of Finance. While the Government has enacted some historic energy proposals, it is understandable that the Minister is now reviewing carefully the loan guarantees made by the previous Government with respect to this proposal. Will the Minister tell the House if the Government will undertake loan guarantees for this vitally needed energy development?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member I can assure him that there are very careful studies going on at the present time with respect to the Husky upgrader with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and their officials. They are assessing a review which has taken place on the financial capabilities of this project and will be reporting in due course.


John Kenneth Gormley: Supplementary.


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

December 11, 1985
Oral Questions FAMILY VIOLENCE


BADGLEY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHILD ABUSE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recently a conference was held here in Ottawa and the participants were very angered because children continue to be sexually abused, prostituted, and even murdered, while the Badgley recommendations which were tabled over a year ago continue to be ignored by the Government. When will the Minister, in co-operation with the Minister of Justice, introduce the necessary legislation which was recommended by the Badgley Commission and appoint a commissioner to help counteract child abuse?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate to the Hon. Member that when the Badgley Report came down a number of the recommendations were recommendations, for example, to the Minister of Justice and to the Department of National Health and Welfare, to name just two, as the Hon. Member and other Members of the House will know. The Government established an inter-departmental committee to examine not only the recommendations but the proper response. That work is going on now. I hope, as she does, that a satisfactory response can be made very shortly.


NATIONAL CLEARING HOUSE INQUIRY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows that we already have in place one clearing house on family violence which could be expanding in terms of some of the public education work, information systems, and even national training. Why has the Minister cut back on the national clearing house on family violence when he should be expanding it to help with the very serious problem of child abuse?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we will look at that question and at what the proper response will be. Generally, I think we would accept as a society that the best response would be at the community level through organizations which have experience in these areas. If one looks at that approach and at the report of the Badgley Commission, I think that before too long the Government will have a response. I keep in mind, as I hope the Hon. Member will, that the response will have to be such that there should be help for children and battered children rather than simply looking at it as a financial matter. I think it goes much deeper than that.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, in answer to a fundamental question about the future of Quebec's petro-chemical industry, he gave me the usual line that it was all the Liberals' fault. I would like to inform the Prime Minister that it has now been fifteen months, and that it is high time he took on his responsibilities as Leader of this Government. And that is why I am asking him again today: Can his Government state quite honestly that, as he promised, it will adopt every policy necessary to maintain and expand the petro-chemical industry in Quebec, and especially in Montreal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it was uphill all the way in this respect for the new Government, since the Liberal Government had officially announced its decision to close down the petrochemical industry in Montreal. Yes, that is what they said. The Liberal Government told Montrealers they would not get another red cent for this very important industry in their city. So this was a tremendous problem for us. The first thing we did to try and held this important industry which had been abandoned by the Liberals was to inject $15 million into Petromont in September 1984. And now, Mr. Speaker, I intend to see the Premier of Quebec in the near future to discuss the matter further with him, since he is an interested party.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF QUEBEC PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, it is there for everyone to see in the Progressive Conservative Party's literature that they intend to establish policies to promote the petro-chemical industry in Quebec, and the Government has not done so. What I want to ask the Prime Minister... You may want to meet with the Premier of Quebec, but on December 15, Mr. Prime Minister, workers in the petrochemical industry are going to go home with their termination papers in their-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet today with representative of these workers who are sick and tired of his beating around the bush? They want action. What is he going to do?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, action, action like the false promises the Liberal Government made to
i

December 11, 1985

workers in the petro-chemical industry ... Yes, that is what you did! Besides, the figures show that in Quebec, the previous Liberal Government created 673 new jobs a month, while we have created 9,286. That is the difference.
Mr. Speaker, I insist that without this unfortunate decision by the Liberal Party to shut down the petro-chemical industry in Montreal, we would not be in the mess we are today. Thanks to you!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Two studies have now been released, one by the Ontario Government and one by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, both warning that hundreds of thousands of jobs in branch plants will shift to the United States. Does the Prime Minister agree with the following statement:
Free trade with the U.S. is like sleeping with an elephant... He is going to roll over in times of economic depression and they are going to crank up those plants in Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio and they are going to be shutting them down up here.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 will agree that it is a very elegant statement, but I must tell my hon. friend that I think 1 have seen the study to which he refers, but I am not sure. I noticed one reported in the Toronto Star today which was billed as some great study put out by a research director for one of our leading trade unions. I think we can understand where they come from. Just look at Jim Laxer.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ACCEPT CONCLUSIONS OF STUDIES OPPOSING FREE TRADE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, of course the statement I quoted was made by the Prime Minister before the election.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That's why I said it was elegant.


Steven W. Langdon: He went on to say that if the elephant ever rolls over, you're a dead man. Will the Prime Minister now agree that he was right then, and accept the conclusions of these two new studies, one by the Ontario Government and the other by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, that show that free trade will be an economic tragedy for Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what is it in the NDP socialist psyche that makes them so insecure? We are going to have to hire babysitters for you people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why is it that you are so timorous? What is the matter with you? They are afraid to compete. They want walls and protectionism. This country, Canada, can be strong and vibrant and can compete with the world and create new wealth and new jobs. That is what we are going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CORPORATIONS


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. 1 have to tell you that the workers who are here now and who expect to lose their jobs must find your performance rather pitiful, not to mention the Conservative Members who are frolicking while those workers' jobs are on the line.
Mr. Prime Minister, the National Assembly of Quebec will adopt a unanimous resolution urging you to intervene and block the sale of Gulf to Ultramar. Is the Prime Minister prepared to do just that through Investment Canada and cancel the deal between Gulf and Ultramar so as to enable Gaz metropolitain to buy the Montreal East Gulf refinery?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as I
know, the Quebec National Assembly has yet to be called. Are you telling me that you are in the secure possession not only of the truth but of the Speech from the Throne as well?
Because we never... on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the workers are watching us. The workers of Quebec know that only 673 jobs were created between 1979-80 and 1984, just as they know that any attempt to get Quebec City and Ottawa to co-operate was thwarted by the Liberal Government, whereas we have begun a new era of co-operation with the duly elected Government of Quebec, and we intend to work together in this case as well.



INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT DISPOSED TO STOP SALE OF GULF TO ULTRAMAR

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 1 will get a hold of myself, but I wish you would ask the Prime Minister to be frank for once in his life, if he can.
Mr. Prime Minister, we are not joking, and this is not a Conservative caucus. The Gulf workers want to know right now: Can you announce today that you will step in and block the sale of Gulf to Ultramar to enable Gaz metropolitain to buy the refinery and save 450 jobs? Can you have human feelings? We are talking about 450 individuals.

December 11, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to convince the refinery or union workers who are here. They know the situation. They know that four similar industries had to close down: three did so as a result of unilateral decisions by the Liberals, there is one left and we are trying to save it in co-operation with the Quebec Government. Our approach is directly opposed to what yours was- we are saving jobs instead of exporting them elsewhere.



CULTURAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, who said he wanted to consult with his provincial counterparts before commenting more specifically on the recommendations made yesterday by the Task Force on the Film Industry.
My question is about the principle. Does the Minister agree with the principle the task force is proposing, namely to eliminate vertical integration in the industry and insist on Canadian control over the film industry?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the film industry-and I will explain why it is essential to work together with the provinces-the federal Government has very specific responsibilities in the production area, and through Telefilm, the National Film Board and the CBC, we invest money in this industry. The Department of Finance has a regulatory role from the taxation point of view.
As for the distribution aspect of the film industry, this is a responsibility that, it is broadly agreed, belongs to the provinces. And that is why the Government of Quebec has adopted legislation concerning that aspect, and why other provinces can take similar action. If we intend to achieve the objectives mentioned by the Hon. Member, I think it is essential to define, not a national policy, set up by the federal Government, but a Canadian policy that will provide a framework for the provinces and the federal Government to work together on various objectives, including the patriation of our cultural industries. That is how we want to work. That is why the February conference is so important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Supplementary.



REQUEST CONCERNING GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF CANADIAN FEATURE FILMS

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary about a matter that does not
require the participation of the provinces, and I am referring to the proposal to set up a feature film fund.
Does the Minister intend to grant the $60 million recommended by the task force for financing Canadian feature films?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Communications and the Minister received the report during the day yesterday. It has been published and we are going to read it, analyze it and report to Cabinet, which will announce its position.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.

I was pleased to hear about two decisions which resulted from the work of the Nielsen task force; first, the control of most real property will be under the Treasury Board and, second, property management in construction projects will be centralized under the Department of Public Works. Besides providing better control, will the bureaucracy be down-sized?


An Hon. Member:: Come on!


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Order.


Mr. Gauthier:: Order.


Bill Attewell: And what will the savings be to taxpayers? Merci, le president.


An Hon. Member:: Your French is worse than mine.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: It is a
great pleasure for me, monsieur chairman-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Perfect English.


Roch La Salle: It is a great pleasure to have an intelligent question.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Nielsen task force reported on the importance of doing away which duplication in real estate, a sector which henceforth will be under the responsibility of Treasury Board within which a specific office will identify-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
December 11, 1985


Roch La Salle: 1 think it is important that all Hon. Members be made fully aware that this office will also identify Canadian Government surpluses.
With that in mind, it becomes clear that such rationalization of construction and services within Treasury Board and Public Works Canada can only result in substantial savings for all taxpayers.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In November of this year Premier Bennett said he would not negotiate with the Indians of British Columbia until they abandoned their claim to having any aboriginal title in that province. While the Minister was in British Columbia, did he succeed in getting the province to change its mind and agree that there are aboriginal rights in British Columbia and that those rights have constitutional validity?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I believe the Hon. Member may know, I spent most of my time in all of the meetings dealing with the question of process and the question of a pause in the activities on Lyell Island. That is because the important thing from the point of view of the Haida people, the Government of the Province of British Columbia, as well as the federal Government is to be able to begin a process by which all of the issues which affect the Haida people, and other people who have a concerned interest, will be able to proceed in a way which will satisfy their concerns.



POSITION OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate what the Minister was able to do, but would he not agree that until the Government of British Columbia recognizes that there are constitutional aboriginal rights there can be no just resolution for the Haida people, or any other people of Indian ancestry, in the Province of British Columbia?


David Edward Crombie: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. The Province of British Columbia does in fact recognize constitutional aboriginal rights. In fact it agreed to the amendment when it was brought forward in 1982.
Oral Questions TRADE



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On November 26 the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote to me and stated defini-tevely that the lumber issue is now Canada's number one trade problem with the United States. As the Prime Minister knows, the President Reagan raised this with him yesterday on the phone. What precisely is on the agenda for the lumber discussions with the U.S. administration? Since the Minister for International Trade says he is going to proceed with those talks, I would like to know just exactly what is being offered? Does it include United States access to Canadian forest lands and to raw logs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that question, and others, have been clearly answered by the letter which President Reagan sent to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rosten-kowski, in which he pointed out that, notwithstanding the existence of mutual irritants which may exist on both sides of the border, it is his view that the trade discussions should proceed because the ultimate conclusion would, hopefully, be beneficial to both sides and ought not to be interrupted by this.
The position of the Government of Canada is that we will, of course, maintain very vigorously the position the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and others, have advanced in regard to timber and other matters.



AGENDA FOR TALKS

James Ross Fulton: My question is again directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs is on record in this House as stating that Canada will in no way consider any protectionist measures proposed by the U.S. Congress against our softwood exports, would the Prime Minister explain just what forest industry related items are going to be on the agenda for the talks which the Minister for International Trade is proposing, particularly in light of the comments made in this House and outside by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't see anything either troubling or inconsistent in anything which has been said. The President wrote, as he must do constitutionally, to Congress, seeking authorization to negotiate a bilaterial trade arrangement, if it can be done. I reported to this House on September 26, along similar lines.
We will sit down with the provinces, as agreed, within the next 90 days, as we will in parallel fashion after the Americans receive their approval, if they do.


James Ross Fulton: What about wood?


Martin Brian Mulroney: And not just wood. Timber is a very high priority with us. It will be pursued with the greatest of vigour
9382

December 11, 1985
Oral Questions
and, I hope, ingenuity as well, so that the very valid position put forward by the Government of Canada and by the producers in British Columbia and elsewhere, will prevail.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in her absence-although there is a "surfer" sitting in her seat-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: -1 would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister who is in charge of cutting everything. It concerns the outrageous expenditure of funds paid to Mr. Harry Near to be the Chief of staff of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at a salary equivalent to $150,000 a year. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House how he can justify that kind of expenditure of public funds when he and others are trying to cut back on salaries of floor cleaners and others who work for the Department of Public Works? Where is the priority of the Government?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member asked the question because it will give me a chance to make three points. First, Mr. Near was paid from the Minister's exempt staff salary budget and no extra funds were paid. Secondly, he took a pay cut to work in the Minister's office. Thirdly, and most important, he was hired to do a job, to set up the Minister's office, and to act as a senior policy adviser on the Western Accord and Atlantic Accord. All Canadians know the success of those two Accords, and I think we got good value for money spent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary.



ATTITUDE OF CERTAIN MINISTERS

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How many other Ministers cheat that way to give extravagant fees to Conservative Party supporters? How many other Ministers are cheating as does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is out of order.



CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, December 10, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), I have the honour of laying on the Table of the House, in both official languages, a document describing the membership of Cabinet committees, with Order in Council P.C. 1985-356, naming the list of Ministers authorized to act on behalf of the Prime Minister in his absence and the list of Acting Ministers.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this brief opportunity to draw Hon. Members' attention to a very small celebration which took place just across the Ottawa River earlier today. It was a gathering of which all Hon. Members can be proud. Agriculture Canada's Food Production and Inspection Branch hosted a luncheon to pay tribute to all those in our beef and dairy industries, the veterinary services of every province and private veterinarians, who, together with the staff of my Department, have eradicated bovine brucellosis from our national cattle herd.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Virtually every Canadian beef and dairy farmer deserved a place at that table. Without their complete co-operation, success would have been impossible.
Bovine brucellosis is a serious and contagious disease which causes abortions and production losses in cattle. It also causes undulant fever in humans. One hundred cattle-producing nations have mounted eradication campaigns. Of these, only the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and, this year, Canada, have reached the goal. We in Canada have mounted
December 11, 1985

an animal health program which stands as an international bench-mark. The eradication campaign began in 1957 and was waged step by step, province by province and, in truth, farm by farm. From the Magdalen Islands to the Queen Charlotte's, some 39 blood samples were taken, infected herds were quarantined and infected animals destroyed. Certification and testing were required to move cattle between provinces. All animals were tested before sale at auction markets. By 1981 we had narrowed the disease down to only 83 herds nation-wide. Today the number of infected herds is zero.
I believe all Hon. Members can appreciate the magnitude of the task, but what are the benefits of success? For producers it means free movement of cattle throughout Canada. For exporters it means one more bargaining chip in the competitive world market-place. For Canadian taxpayers it means the saving of millions of dollars in compensation payments. Last, but not least, it removes the threat of undulant fever from producers, veterinarians, meat-processing workers and Canadian consumers. Now that we have achieved a nation-wide brucellosis-free status, we must not let down our guard. Only with constant vigilance will it remain a disease of the past in Canada.
In conclusion, I invite all my colleagues in this House to join me in congratulating all those who worked so hard to gain this victory. The brucellosis eradication program stands as a model of what industry and Government can do when they work together in a co-operative effort.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's announcement of Canada's brucellosis-free status certainly is a happy day for Agriculture Canada, the livestock industry and the provincial veterinary services who participated. Eradication of this desease in Canada is very imnportant because in the past many farmers were put out of business because of the loss of milk and calf production. That was the situation when 1 entered veterinary practice back in about 1957. I questioned at that time whether an eradication program was possible because of the infectious nature of the disease. However, the program moved forward and it has been a model of success even though it was a massive undertaking. It is interesting that we were able to achieve this in Canada, being the second largest country in the world. The other countries that have achieved this status have relatively small cattle populations and are themselves relatively small geographically.
The benefits of this program flow not only to farmers and the agricultural industry at large. Thousands of Canadians have spent much of their lifetime suffering from constant fever and discomfort as a result of undulant fever. However, it does bode well for our agricultural future because our cattle can now move freely within the country as well as to world markets. Meat production and dairy products are an important part of our agricultural industry.
I would like to pay tribute to Dr. McGowan and the hundreds of veterinarians across the country who made this success possible, as well as the advisory committees who assisted and advised the Department and provincial Governments involved. I do not know exactly who was at the Minis-
Statements by Ministers
ter's celebration luncheon today but I would like to pay tribute to Dr. McGowan's predecessor, Dr. Ken Wells, who was our veterinary director general for many years. He was instrumental in establishing many programs to improve the health of animals in this country and, at the same time, improved the health of people as well.
I would like to sound a note of caution for the future, however. We know this Government is hell-bent on cutting back and privatizing everything in sight. We know the Nielsen task force is cutting some $58 million from Agriculture Canada's budget as well as deindexing the budget's purchasing power by another $10 million or $15 million. If any of this $60 million to $65 million cut-back were made in the budget for research into animal disease control, it would do a terrible disservice to the future of the agricultural industry in Canada. You can count on our side of the House opposing any such cut-backs in that regard. However, the eradication of brucellosis in our country is a significant development for agriculture and human health in Canada. I want to express my congratulations and good wishes to everyone who has made this possible. They should be justly proud.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in 1950 the first step in a national program to eradicate bovine brucellosis, or Bang's disease, in Canada's national herd was taken. Thirty-five years later we have declared a victory over that disease. That step, a federal-provincial initiative for a national vaccination program, required wisdom, dedication, and courage. It recognized that the disease was a serious problem. That part was easy. However, it also recognized, quite correctly, that it was fitting, proper, and necessary for Government to take the initiative in eradicating this disease.
It was not left up to individual producers to pursue their own short-term interests. The problem was not left up to veterinarians to tackle if and when they were called upon to do so. Neither was it left up to the provinces. The success of this national program depended upon all of these people, but it would never have got off the ground without the decision to take direct government action to solve the problem. Members of the former Health of Animals Branch, individual farmers, the dairy and beef industries, federal and provincial veterinarian associations, and especially the federal Department of Agriculture, contributed greatly to the eradication program.
We must continue to work together to ensure that this disease is not reintroduced into the national herd. We must maintain our stringent testing programs on new entrants to the national herd from outside of the country. We must continue to monitor the situation to ensure that infections do not cross the border through wildlife. We should, as well, assess the relative importance of other diseases to determine if similar efforts should be mounted against them for the long-term benefit of everyone in Canada.
I make these comments because today the Government seems committed to reducing the role of government in Canada and to reducing the amount of money that it spends on

December 11, 1985
Petitions
research into disease eradication and control. Sometimes the Government tries to justify all of these cut-backs by claiming that it will reduce the deficit. Too often, however, these cut-backs in Government programs have more to do with ideology than with common sense or good science. The Government seems intent on reducing the number of people working in a given Department, whether or not this serves to reduce the deficit, and whether or not they are involved in good work necessary for the well-being of society.
The present Government should take the brucellosis eradication program as an important lesson for the future. It is not good enough simply to turn important decisions over to the private sector. These kinds of decisions cannot be made by the private sector and this kind of result cannot be achieved by it. The Government should sit up and take notice of this great victory. Many more problems could be eradicated in the country with a similar co-ordinated approach under government management and direction. Cut-backs to research in disease control should be reviewed with the successful brucellosis control program in mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from Notre-Dame-de-Grace and various other areas of Montreal. The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada abandon its regressive decision to deindex family allowances. This decision, if implemented, would reduce the buying power of the truly needy in Canada.
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present to the House a number of petitions that 1 have received in my office urging the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to fulfil their promise not to deindex family allowances. I have petitions from the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, one from Surrey-White Rock-North Delta in the west, another from residents of the riding of Regina East, and another one from the riding of Trois-Rivieres in la belle province. 1 have another petition with regard to the deindexation of family allowances from Portneuf. 1 have one from the riding of Charlevoix, one from Halifax, one from the riding of my Leader, Vancouver Quadra, and another one from the riding of Broadview-Greenwood in the Toronto area. The last petition, Mr. Speaker, is from the riding of Laval.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to present a petition on behalf of the Cercle des fermieres de Sainte-Doro-thee, which concerns family allowances.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have some petitions on the deindexation of family allowances. The first petition is from residents of the God's Lake Indian Reserve at God's Lake Narrows, in the petition Chief David Nazzie says the following: "Native people are the first peoples of Canada and we were stripped of our dignity, our rights, our heritage, our pride-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 think this is becoming a speech as opposed to the presentation of a petition.


Rodney Edward Murphy: In presenting this petition the Chief asks me to indicate that the Government still wants what the people on that reserve have left.
1 have another petition with regard to the Government's plan to deindex family allowances. It is from the riding of Dauphin-Swan River. The people in that riding indicate that they want the Government to rescind its decision and also to rescind the unfair tax increases which the Government is imposing on people who need the money the most.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present two petitions to you and to the House. One is signed by petitioners from the province of New Brunswick and the other is signed by petitioners from the Province of Alberta. All of these petitioners, as well as Canadians from coast to coast, are petitioning the Government with regard to its proposal to cut back on the full indexation of family allowances. They join with many other Canadians in protesting this move.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House petitions from The Reformed Congregation of North America, The Chilliwack Central Mennonite Brethren Church, and The Emmanuel Church. All of these congregations, which are located in Chilliwack, British Columbia, urge the federal Government to strive to establish clearer obscenity legislation and to enforce stricter control of pornography.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from residents of eastern Ontario who ask the Government not to go ahead with its Bill to deindex family allowances partially.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Coquitlam, Delta, Burnaby, and Surrey, all of which places are in my area of British Columbia. The petitioners ask their Members of Parliament to present a petition, and I have the honour to do so. They call upon the Government to rescind its legislation which would partially deindex what we and they believe should be a universal family allowance.
December 11, 1985


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. I have one from Toronto, one from Thunder Bay, one from the Brampton area, and one from Newfoundland. All of the signators to these petitions condemn the Government for having deindexed family allowances. One petition lists 28 names, one lists eight names, one lists 12 names and the last one lists three names. All of the petitioners call upon the Government and Members of Parliament to maintain full indexation of family allowances so that people in the country can get what they are entitled to.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today. The first group of petitions raises with Members of the House the concern about the deindexation of the universal family allowance, in particular that deindexation will take about $600 million away from children by the year 1990 on top of all the other increases in costs that have come with recent budget proposals. Therefore, they call upon the House to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increase. These petitioners are from all over British Columbia.
My second petition is from Women Against the Federal Budget. It is distributed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and signed in large number by women throughout British Columbia. They are concerned that children are everyone's responsibility and that all parents should receive Government assistance. In fact, they call for higher than present family allowances rather than the reduction proposed by deindexation in order to protect all children in Canadian society.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as we are nearing Christmas season it is almost our last chance to present a petition on behalf of those residents who do not want to see the heart cut out of our family allowance benefits. This petition comes from a number of residents of the great Province of Quebec, calling upon the federal Government to renege on this anti-Christmas notion of cutting back on the increases of family allowance. Don't let the Grinch steal Christmas. Bring back full indexation.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of the federal riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie. There are 25 signatures, and these residents want the Government of Canada to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions, including one from the federal ridings of Edmonton-Strathcona and Edmonton North; another petition is from the riding of Outremont, my hon. friend's, and another from the federal riding of St. Paul's; another petition
Petitions
is from the riding of Ottawa-Carleton; another is from Scarborough West in Ontario; another is from the riding of Spadi-na in Ontario; another is from the riding of Halifax in Nova Scotia; another is from the riding of Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan; another is from Regina West and the last petition is from the riding of Surrey-White Rock-North Delta in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, all these petitions ask the Government of Canada to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present petitions from a number of citizens in the riding of Spadina, in other parts of Toronto and also in the City of Scarborough. They are all concerned with the Government's Bill to deindex family allowance partially and with other legislation to increase taxes that will bear heavily on the same people. They point out that this is an unfair tax, particularly on women and children and that by 1990 all families with children will be losing money because of the Government's program. Therefore, they petition this House to see to it that this immediate family allowance Bill is withdrawn and also that the tax increases are rescinded.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling four petitions, the first of which is signed by residents of Ottawa who humbly ask that full indexation of family allowances be reinstated.


John Edmund Parry: My second petition is signed by residents of Thunder Bay. It calls upon Parliament to assist pensioners and survivors of CP Rail pensioners in convincing that corporation that the proposed withdrawal of family travel passes is unfair and a breach of the company's implicit contract with those said pensioners when they were working for that company.


John Edmund Parry: My third petition calls upon the House of Commons to reinstate the full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind unfair tax increases.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, my fourth petition, signed by residents of Hamilton and Stony Creek in Ontario, asks the House to withdraw the proposal to deindex family allowances.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present on behalf of the citizens of

December 11, 1985
Petitions
Prince Albert and the Village of Birch Hills. The citizens are concerned about the cut-backs in family allowance and the tax increases. They call upon the House to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and riscind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present two petitions from the City of Regina. The petitioners call upon the House to maintain full indexation of family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases, for all of which they and I are duty bound forever to pray.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, both from residents of British Columbia. The first is from Women Against the Federal Budget. It has been distributed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. It points out that children are everyone's responsibility and that all parents should receive Government assistance whose value is at least as high or higher than the present family allowance level. Therefore, they strongly oppose the budget proposals to reduce the cost of living protection for family allowance and demand that these proposals be withdrawn as soon as possible.
My second petition is also signed by citizens of British Columbia. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases, pointing out that these tax increases will fall unfairly upon the people who can least afford them and that the accelerating cut-backs in child welfare benefits-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming somewhat of a speech.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all, 1 have the honour of presenting a number of petitions on behalf of the undersigned who belong to unions including the Canadian Paper Workers Union and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Whereas the reduction in family allowances and increases in taxes are unfair and intolerable, faced with these presents from the Budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!

1 have a feeling that the Member is reading the petition instead of summarizing it.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions. I have grouped them and I will do this very quickly.
The undersigned humbly ask that full indexation of family allowances be reinstated and that unfair tax increases be revoked.

The second petition comes from a number of petitioners in my own riding. I have received a very large number of them which 1 have grouped together. These petitioners point out that the cut-back in family allowance is unfair and unbearable in the face of budget hand-outs such as a tax-free capital gains give a way of up to $500,000 and a greater RRSP deduction for high-income recipients. Accordingly, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.
Third, I have a number of petitions from east Toronto, from a variety of areas. The petitioners point out that the deindexation of the universal family allowance and the massive cutbacks in public support for child benefits are unfair and that they are an attack on women and families-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the Hon. Member is still reading the petition. 1 take it that she is presenting petitions on one subject. She knows that she should simply indicate where they are from. It is supposed to be a brief presentation.


Lynn McDonald: I have a number of petitions on this subject but they are slightly different. They are from all over the country and point out different matters. I am summarizing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is entitled to present the petition and what it prays for. To put the comments, preambles or "whereases" in advance of the petition by means of a speech is entirely out of order.


Lynn McDonald: These petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the family allowance. [Translation]
I have the honour of presenting another petition in French, in which the undersigned ask that full indexation of family allowances be reinstated.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is from residents of Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, 1 now have another number of petitions from citizens of my own riding, again on indexation. They are asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These are all petitions on the same subject as far as 1 can tell. The Hon. Member should know that all she has to do now is to indicate she has other petitions to table which should take no more than about 10 seconds.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, next I have petitions, again on the family allowance, you are quite correct, which come from Ontario residents, in Simcoe and Brantford, demanding full indexation of the family allowance.
The next one I have, with a good 10 signatures-


Mr. Speaker:: Further petitions.
December 11, 1985


Lynn McDonald: These are from-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first I have a petition to present which challenges the greater deductions in RRSPs for high income recipients. It comes from people in Wallaceburg, Comber, Chatham, Ridgeway, Tillsonburg and Blenheim, parts of which are within my constituency and parts of which are outside.


Steven W. Langdon: The second petition I have to present, Mr. Speaker, is against the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits on top of sales tax change increases, excise tax increases and stiff income tax increases, all of which are seen as unfair and place an extraordinary burden on middle and low-income households. It comes from Tillsonburg, Wallaceburg, Chatham and London.


Steven W. Langdon: I have a third petition, Mr. Speaker, which deals specifically with the $9 billion in hand-outs to the oil companies and the billion dollar bail-out of the banks. It expresses opposition to those bail-outs. The petitioners who have signed include people from Whitby, Weston, Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and from my former home town of Kitchener so I am particularly pleased to make that presentation.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a petition signed by residents of Ottawa concerning the repeal of the tax on capital gains of $500,000.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have concerns the de-indexation of family allowances. This petition also comes from Ottawa, and in it we learn that all petitioners are against this policy from which only the rich stand to benefit.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three petitions. One is from Delta, Fort Langley and Surrey. The petitioners are praying that the Government
Petitions
of Canada rethink its decision to increase the sales tax and excise tax indicating that they are unfair and place an extraordinary burden on middle and low-income households.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Surrey, British Columbia. The petitioners therein pray that the Government reconsider the massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits which are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single-parent mothers.
From Delta, British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners pray that the Government reconsider the deindexing of family allowance and are concerned that the deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit, and that even the poorest of families will be worse off by 1990.
I have a petition from a large group of women from British Columbia who indicate that they oppose the budget proposals that reduce the cost of living protection in the family allowance and demand that this proposal be withdrawn by the Government of Canada as soon as possible.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to present the petition signed by people living in Guelph, Ontario and London, Ontario who call on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases. They believe family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 and will fall further and further behind.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to the House of Commons from- [Translation]
-the Coalition des femmes pour les allocations familiales, from Quebec, a number of petitions stating their belief that society is responsible for children, that the principle of universality must be maintained, therefore that they are opposed to Bill C-70 on the deindexation of family allowances.

The second group of petitions I have is from people in Guelph and Toronto who call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
The third petition I have is from Operation Justice, families with children. This petition asks the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I be clear whether that is a petition to Parliament or to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?

December 11, 1985
Petitions


Michael Morris Cassidy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is in order, but the petition is certainly given to me as a Member of Parliament for communication to this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member by raising it attests that it is in order, I take it? I think the Member knows that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I think that is determined by the Chair afterwards, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about the intention of the petitioners who wish to acquaint this House of Commons with their opposition to the deindexing of the family allowance.
The next two petitions are from a number of petitioners in Toronto and in Fort Erie who express concern over the cutback in family allowance which in their view, is inequitable and unbearable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, 1 take it that all of these petitions are on the same subject?


Michael Morris Cassidy: -and express-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that all the petitions are on the same subject, in which case the Member knows that he simply has about 10 or 15 seconds to indicate that he has a large number of petitions that he wishes to table.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in that case I will conclude by tabling petitions from the Province of Quebec demanding that Bill C-70 be withdrawn, and by tabling further petitions which come from my riding of Ottawa Centre and other parts of Ottawa expressing opposition and asking that the deindexation of family allowances be rescinded.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition signed by 57 residents of the great village of Toronto who suggest strongly that the Government has made a mistake in its attempt to deindex family allowances. They call upon this House to reinstate full indexation.
I have another petition signed by 26 residents of the Mississauga area of Metropolitan Toronto who suggest that the deindexation of family allowance will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit. They call upon this House to reinstate fully indexed family allowances.
Finally, I have a petition signed by 50 residents from the communities of Downsview, Willowdale, Cooksville, Scarborough and Don Mills, all in the Toronto area, who also call upon the Government to rescind this attempt to deindex family allowances.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the honor to present petitions from residents of northern Ontario protesting the decision of the Government to deindex universal family allowance. These petitioners point out that the deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990. These petitioners, over 150 of them, call upon the House of Commons to re-establish indexation of the family
allowance. They live in the ridings of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Cochrane-Superior. They are to be found in the City of Thunder Bay, Nalalu, Kaministikwia and in the outskirts, in Dorion, Hurkett, Red Rock and Nipigon, and in Cochrane-Superior, at Heron Bay and Longlac.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for the travelogue.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several different petitions. They are only some of literally hundreds of thousands of petitions which have come to the offices of this caucus. I know that many more have been sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The first petition is from the community of Mount Pleasant, which is in my riding of Vancouver East. It states that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990. Therefore, they call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.
The second petition is from quite a different group in North York. It asks the Prime Minister and the House of Commons to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit. Also it says that this budget measure will take away S55 million in family benefits by 1987. Mostly women from North York signed this petition.
The next petition is from Women Against the Federal Budget. It is signed by quite a number of women from the regions of North Vancouver, Seymour, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver-Kingsway, Vancouver South and Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Women Against the Federal Budget say: "We, the undersigned, believe that children are everyone's responsibility and that all parents should receive Government assistance, whose value is at least as high or higher"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is engaging both in making a speech and in reading the petition.
I ask the Hon. Member to make a summary of the petition, please.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The petitioners ask that the budget proposals which will reduce the cost of living protection of the family allowance, be rescinded. They demand that they be withdrawn as soon as possible. No time like today.
The final petition I should like to present today is from Surrey-Delta in British Columbia, among other regions such as North Vancouver, the City of Vancouver itself and Burnaby. This petition indicates that cut-backs in the family allowances and the tax increases are inequitable and unbearable in the face of budget hand-outs of $500,000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has indicated where the petition is from.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They call for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
December 11. 1985


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. In the interest of saving time, I will present them together.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: These petitions are signed by citizens of Ontario from London and Woodstock, in addition to others from Thorold, St. Catharines, Welland and Niagara Falls. The petitioners express their grave concern about the Government's intention to deindex family allowances and its intention to increase taxes. They ask that the House of Commons take action to rescind those measures.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadians in my constituency. They protest the sale of the de Havilland Corporation, a company owned by Canadians, to a multinational corporation with its headquarters outside Canada. They ask that the Government make public all details of the purchase and sale, so that Canadians can see the exact terms which have been agreed upon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several constituents, protesting the sale of the Havilland. They ask the Government to make the details of the memorandum of agreement public, so that they will have all details of the options in the disposition of de Havilland.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes this day.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
December 9, 1985-The President of the Privy Council:
That, in relation to Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill; and That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 382 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 382 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Was funding made available by Treasury Board to the Department of Transport for its local/local commercial airports financial assistance program for the 1985-86 Fiscal year and, if so (a) what was the total amount (6) which airports received funding and what improvements were sought (r) at what level were each funded?
2.	What portion of the funding is remaining from the total allocation?
Return tabled.
[English


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 placed a question on the Order Paper on May 31, 1985, dealing with Public Service superannuation, pension plans and everything else. It is quite an important question. I am beginning to become a little impatient as to whether or not we will get the facts. I plead with the Government to give us those facts. I was told two or three weeks ago that I would get them. Would the Parliamentary Secretary please talk to the appropriate people and get us, before the end of the year, the facts we require to make a judgment?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that up with the appropriate authorities.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why he is not answering my questions concerning the travels of the now Minister of State for Transport. I have asked for the answers to these questions on numerous occasions.
I placed a simple question on the Order Paper on March 6 asking: Did the Prime Minister go to Jamaica? Why can that question not be answered?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He cannot answer it.


Don Boudria: He probably does not know the answer. Also, Question No. 313, standing in my name and dated March 28, involving the cost of redecorating and refurbishing cabinet Ministers' offices, has not been answered.


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is probably because they were left in such a mess, but I will take the questions under advisement and look into them.


Don Boudria: That is an accusation.

December 11, 1985
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Don Boudria: You are in a mess; you can't even provide answers, you are so disorganized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Don Boudria: He is making accusations. I have been polite to him. I will have to start getting partisan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I may have to check the "blues" to make sure that I heard the Hon. Member correctly.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are nine report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973.
Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), gives to the Chair some procedural difficulty, in that appears to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown and goes beyond the purposes as laid down in the royal recommendation attached to the Bill. Further, it seems to go beyond the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading, therefore I intend to rule Motion No. 1 out of order.
With regard to Motion No. 2, also standing in the name of the Hon. Member, it is unclear to the Chair whether or not
this motion infringes on the royal prerogative of the Crown. It is the Chair's intention to give the benefit of the doubt to the Hon. Member and to allow Motion No. 2 to be put to the House. The motion will be debated and voted on separately. [Translation]
Motion No. 3 in the name of the Hon. Member for Mont-real-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) seems to encroach upon the financial prerogative of the Crown and, as the Hon. Member would know, that is unacceptable. Therefore 1 also intend to rule that Motion No. 3 is out of order.

Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are in order and will be debated together and voted on as follows:
(a)	Motion No. 4 by itself.

(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 will make it unnecessary to vote on Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 5 will call for a vote on Motion No. 6.
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6. obviates the need to put the question on Motion No. 7. A negative vote on Motion No. 6 requires the question to be put on Motion
No. 7.
{d) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 7 obviates the need to put the question on Motions Nos. 8 and 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 7 requires that the question be put on Motion No. 8.
(e) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 8 obviates the need to put the question on Motion No. 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 8 requires that the question be put on Motion No. 9.
Therefore, unless there are some other comments my intention would be to begin with-


Mr. Redway:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Motions Nos. 8 and 9 stand in my name. I would like to withdraw Motion No. 8 on the understanding that Motion No. 9 will have an opportunity to be put in the event, 1 take it, of a negative vote on Motion No. 7. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have to be careful about these arcane matters.
Yes, the Hon. Member is correct about the consequence. Therefore, I take it the Hon. Member is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 8.


Ian Deans: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not such consent.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
December 11, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me. I am getting confused with respect to the effect of the votes. The Hon. Member will know that his practical solution is not to put Motion No. 8. There is nothing to withdraw since it will be up to him to decide whether or not to put it at the time. Therefore, if he chooses not to put it, it will not be put.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a much simpler point of order.
Given the complexity of Your Honour's ruling, short though it was, would it be possible to provide me with a copy?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And us as well.


Ian Deans: In this way I could take a brief look at it and try to understand exactly what the implications might be as a result of what, no doubt, is a very learned ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be perfectly happy to do that. Do I take it that the Hon. Member wishes to reserve his right to make representations with regard to Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3?


Ian Deans: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then may I suggest to the House that we begin with Motion No.-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: In my view, Motions Nos. 1 and 3 are out of order. Motion No. 2, in my view, is questionable. On that basis, I am prepared to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. Is there any objection to that?
Therefore, I suggest that we start with Motion No. 2 and provide those affected-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you could explain your views a little further in regard to Motion No. 1, which is my motion, and also Motion No. 3, both of which were accepted in committee. The reason I am wondering-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the Hon. Member that I believe her House Leader was suggesting that he and others might want to see the words of my ruling rather than having me repeat what I have just said. May I suggest that it would be most efficient to begin, therefore, with Motion No. 2 and distribute the ruling.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 think you are a genius. This is, indeed, an unclear amendment. I think it should be explained by the Hon. Member in order to make it clear. I would like to hear arguments with respect to why Motion No. 2 should be accepted. I do not understand it myself.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it we have a suggestion that Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be stood down, that we begin the debate with Motion No. 4, and that my ruling be distributed. I take it
Family Allowances Act, 1973
there is no objection to grouping Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 for debate.
Therefore, my intention is to distribute my comments and begin with Motion No. 4.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 14 to 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 8 at page 4.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 20 to 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 8 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"15.1(1) Where a child has, either before or after the coming into force of this section, disappeared under circumstances that raise a presumption that the child is dead, the Minister may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction in the province or territory where the child usually resides for an order declaring, according to the law of the province or territory, that the child shall be presumed to be dead; thereupon the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date stated in the court order.
(2)	If, after obtaining a court order under subsection (1), the Minister receives new information or evidence that the date of death is different from that stated in the court order, the Minister may, with leave of the court, apply to the court for an order to vary, amend or revoke the order previously made, in which case the child named in the court order shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date so stated in the new court order.
(3)	If, after obtaining a court order under this section, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child named in the court order is alive, the Minister shall forthwith cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child if the order had not been made.
(4)	Subject to subsection (3), the Minister is bound by the law of the province where the child normally resides in respect of the issuance and revocation of death certificates and the making, variance and revocation of orders of presumption of death."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 26 to 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 8 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Minister may, five years after the disappearance of the child, issue a certificate declaring that the child is presumed to be dead and thereupon the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date the certificate is issued.
(2) If, after issuing a certificate under this section, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child named in the certificate is

December 11, 1985
Family Allowances Act, 1973
alive, the Minister shall forthwith revoke the certificate and cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child if the certificate had not been issued.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the Minister is not bound by the issuance or revocation of a death certificate by any other authority." "


Alan Redway: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 26 to 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 4 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Minister may determine the date for the purposes of this Act on which the child's death is presumed to have occurred, and thereupon the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on that date.
(2)	If, after having determined such a date, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the date of death is different from that previously determined, the Minister may determine a different date, in which case the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on that different date.
(3)	If, after having determined such a date, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child is alive, the Minister shall forthwith cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child had such determination not been made."


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that these latter motions would have been spoken to following the debate with respect to the deindexing part of the Bill. As 1 am sure Your Honour is aware, Motions Nos. 4 to 8 deal with a part of the Bill which was quite complicated and quite difficult when we were in committee. It was difficult for us to understand at first, but we then started to gain more understanding from witnesses, resource people and those with legal expertise. After that we became much more aware of the complexity of these motions.
For example, we were told that Motion No. 4 was a housekeeping motion. Yet, when we looked into it more carefully we saw it is the intention of this clause to tighten up the wording to ensure that the Minister could not use presumption of death certificates, which are allowed in Clause 5, to collect overpayments from parents. When speaking to this particular motion, it is rather important that we talk about the presumption of death. We in committee had a very serious concern about whether or not this should be under the jurisdiction of the Minister. The advice that we received which was different from the advice I know the Minister's own legal experts gave him, was that the whole question of presumption of death was a provincial matter and not a federal matter and that only in very, very rare instances should it be considered under federal legislation and then only with the permission of the provinces.
1 would like to refer to some of the documents at which the committee looked and which were put on the record of the committee. The first deals with evidence regarding life and death in Ontario, and this comes from the Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (Ont. 3rd). It says there that presumption of death falls under provincial jurisdiction. Another document, Title 146, Vital Statistics, from the Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (Ont. 3rd), supports the same position. It indicates that the Vital Statistics Act provides the central statutory framework for the regulation of vital statistics in Ontario and that official records of birth, marriages and deaths have been kept
in Ontario since 1793. Again, this substantiates the fact that the whole question of presumption of death is a provincial and not a federal responsibility.
References in the Quebec Civil Code also prove beyond a doubt that the matter of presumption of death is not a federal matter but a provincial matter under the Constitution. The federal Government is certainly interfering in provincial responsibilities by dealing with this matter.
Another item I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the Uniform Law Conference of Canada recommendation dealing with the Uniform Vital Statistics Act. Section 13 of this Act defines registration of death and indicates that the death of every person who dies in the province shall be registered under this Act. That again, according to the legal authorities that we consulted, shows that the whole question of presumption of death is a provincial and not a federal matter.
I would also refer to the Uniform Presumption of Death Act proceedings from 1976 and this comes from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. This also recommends that the whole question of presumption of death should carry through as it does under the common law, which stipulates that someone is presumed dead after being missing for seven years unless there is proof to the contrary. It seems therefore that this falls exclusively within provincial jurisdiction unless there is evidence under statutes to the contrary. The federal Minister should not be overruling common law which indicates that a person must be missing for seven years before he or she is presumed dead. Under this Bill, the Minister would intervene and in his own judgment decide when a missing child would be presumed dead. This is in conflict with both the common law customs as well as the documents of provincial Governments to which I have referred. It also presents a conflict of interest for the Minister since, on the one hand, he has the responsibility for paying family allowance payments to parents whose children may be listed as missing, and, on the other hand, of withdrawing that payment if the children should be presumed dead. This Bill will give the Minister the authority to determine at what point a child is presumed dead, a considerable authority to take upon oneself.
I would also like to refer to the standing joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which indicated that the issuance of death certificates is the responsibility of a judge and should not be the responsibility of a Minister. It should not be left under administrative discretion but rather should be a judicial process.
In February, 1978, the standing joint committee established criteria which should be used when scrutinizing statutory documents and instruments. Part 6(a) of Section B of the joint committee's document indicates that one criterion should be that we should consider whether or not the Bill makes the rights and liberties of the subject dependent upon administrative discretion rather than on the judicial process. In this case, of course, it will not be a judge who will make the decision but the Minister. As well, considerable discretionary powers are given to the Minister, and I would like to return to that when we deal with some of the other motions that are before us.
December 11, 1985

We are particularly concerned about Clause 5 of the Bill because, as I said, it would tighten up the wording to make sure that the Minister could not use presumption of death certificates which would follow to collect over-payments from parents. In committee, we heard from parents connected with Childfind, an organization established in both eastern Canada and British Columbia, and I understand that it has developed a national network. This organization is very concerned because many parents with missing children feel that they have been left alone. They feel that once a child is missing, all supports are pulled out from under them. The police will usually help them to search for missing children for a certain number of weeks, but then they slow down and in fact to all intents and purposes stop looking for missing children.
We also heard how important it is that parents have money to continue to search for missing children. That is why we feel it is important that the family allowance be continued during the period a child is missing and until the child is proven dead. The parents have to pay for photographs and long-distance telegrams and telephone calls. There is much concern about this. We object to the clause as it stands and that is why we have presented the amendment in Motion No. 4.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made many promises which it has broken. There is an illustration of one of these broken promises in the legislation which is now before the House at report stage. Not only has the Government broken specific promises about family allowances but it has shown its true colours. Its true constituency is not composed of average and poorer Canadians but of those Canadians who are better off. Parliament will see Bill after Bill delivering goods to that constituency.
We see another broken promise in the case of the sale of the de Havilland Corporation to Boeing Corporation of Seattle. The Government is free to break its promises. It is free to tell the Canadian people one thing and to do another. It has control over this Chamber and eventually it will get its way here. Under the Financial Administration Act, the sale of the de Havilland Corporation is entirely within the control of Cabinet, not the House of Commons, to settle. But we believe that it does not have the authority or the power to keep the Canadian people in the dark about the terms and conditions of the de Havilland deal.


Alan Redway: Point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member for-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -in view of its refusal to allow that, I move that this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) but the Hon. Member-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He's moved a motion.
Family Allowances Act, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I moved a motion before you recognized him.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He moved a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) rose on a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, it was on debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Please. He rose on a point of order and I attempted to interrupt the Hon. Member for York Centre so that the Hon. Member could rise to speak.
I have no knowledge of what the point of order is. 1 can understand full well that the Hon. Member for York Centre, being in the middle of his speech, could not very well understand what was said by the Chair, as is usually the case, anyway. Having said that, I believe the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point or order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for York East-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order-


Harvie Andre: You are not at Queen's Park now.


Ian Deans: Let's hear what's happening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. 1 will hear the Hon. Member for York East on his point of order and we will take it from there.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, absolutely not. Absolutely not.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We will follow one set of rules in this House-one set of rules for all of us.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there is one set of rules for all of us.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not sit down. This is a show of partisanship on your part.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will not sit down. You guys can yap all you like over there and I will not sit down. I will give this guy a piece of my mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.

Family Allowances Act, 1973


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The hell with you guys if that's all the respect you have. There's a limit to what I'll take.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A motion to adjourn is not debatable. Any idiot knows that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. For some very odd reason something seems to be happening.


Ian Deans: What is it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Let's just take a minute here and recall the events as they are seen by the Chair. The Hon. Member for York East rose in his place on a point of order. The Chair attempted to recognize him.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He did not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He did not recognize him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Please.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let him say something. You will get your chance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: And we haven't yet heard that point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You don't have to hear it. You have a motion before you.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There's a motion before the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You can't have two motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I recognized the Hon. Member for York East on his point of order and I intend to proceed and hear him on that point of order first of all. All Hon. Members in the House could very well see that that was the situation. That is the decision from the Chair from which the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) knows very well there is no appeal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I'm not appealing anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Well maybe the Chair has another impression.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I'm making a point, Mr. Speaker. I will make it now if you will sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We are here discussing points of order and their precedence. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will be patient, as all Hon. Members of this House should be, I will hear the Hon. Member for York East on his point of order-and I presume the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is also interested in hearing what he has to say on his point of order-and we will then take it from there. Thank you.


Alan Redway: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In connection-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a question of privilege this time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I must raise a question of privilege so I can draw your attention to the following. There are rules in this House. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) had the floor. He presented a motion. As soon as he finished speaking, Mr. Speaker-I ought to know what I am talking about-immediately after he presented his motion, the Hon. Member rose and you gave that Member the floor. There is no debate on this kind of motion, Mr. Speaker. One cannot even raise a point of order on an adjournment motion. It is not debatable.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is right.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), also on a question of privilege.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor, and it was clear that you tried to give the floor to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), to let him raise a point of order, but meanwhile, before you gave him the floor, I had the floor, and I presented the motion before the Hon. Member was given the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Right!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: So I had the priority, my motion came first, but I was interrupted, which is a breach of my privileges-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I hope that the matter can be settled once and for all after I have stated the facts as I, as Speaker, see them, and it is the Chair who will decide ultimately.
While you had the floor, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) suddenly rose on a point of order. I tried to recognize him. You continued to speak. As far as I am concerned, you never moved a motion and I rose to interrupt you and bring to your attention the fact that-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Just a moment please. Let me finish, because it is I, as Speaker, who has the final word and the Chair is stating the facts.
I then recognized the Hon. Member for York East. I have every intention ... 1 will not change my decision-the Chair

December 11, 1985

will not change its decision-to hear him. After the Hon. Member has spoken, perhaps all Members of the House will have the patience to listen to him-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! We will all have the opportunity to listen to him; then the Hon. Member for York Centre may have something else to add and will have the opportunity to continue his speech. Let us proceed in an orderly fashion.
The Hon. Member for York East has the floor.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Therefore Mr. Kaplan, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) moves;
That this House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, 1 rose to point out the fact that we are debating Bill C-70 and before the House are motions to amend Clause 5, namely Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. All of the remarks of the Hon. Member should be directed towards and be relevant to the issue before the House, which is Clause 5. In fact, the Hon. Member's remarks were all related to something apart from Bill C-70 and something apart from Clause 5 and the motions which have been moved to amend it.
1 ask you to rule him out of order in that regard. However, I suspect that this is academic because I am sure that we are going to have some action on the part of the Hon. Member since he undoubtedly wants to go to his Christmas party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: See what I mean?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Let's try not to get into any more trouble than we already are.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is a repeat. I move that this House do now adjourn.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Table the de Havilland documents. Table the memorandum of agreement, the Tory rip-off, the Tory sell-out.


An Hon. Member:: Table the noise over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You don't have the guts.


An Hon. Member:: Just because you are wearing red doesn't mean you're a Santa Claus.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: That having been said, I have in hand the motion moved by the Hon. Member and 1 would draw to his attention the fact that he needs a seconder, who 1 presume will not be difficult to find. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is a volunteer to second this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those against please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the vote is recorded I must advise the Table that the vote by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) may not be counted. He entered the Chamber late.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I noted that while the vote was being taken a number of Members left their seat and were wandering through the House. I noticed that all of them were new Members of the House. It may be apropos that the Chair explain our procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all Members know that if they leave their seats during a vote they nullify their vote. The Hon. Member is asking that all Members be reminded that they should remain in their seats throughout the calling of a vote.
I declare the motion lost.
Prior to resumption of debate may I advise the House that I intend to hear arguments, if there are any, or discussions with regard to procedural admissibility at the earliest possible moment, presumably at eleven o'clock tomorrow if the matter is called again tomorrow.
Resuming debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which you grouped for debate earlier today.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister but may I also advise him and others that I have received a representation with regard to that grouping. I propose that matters continue as they are but I gather that one or more Members wish to make a representation tomorrow concerning the grouping itself. I think it would be appropriate, when we are hearing procedural arguments, to hear what Members wish to say. So I will hear that tomorrow but at the moment we will resume debate on the group as I indicated.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is helpful, Mr. Speaker. I hope my comments will be equally helpful to the debate tomorrow.
With the Chair's permission, to facilitate the work of the House, I intend to advise the Chair which clauses in that grouping the Government would be willing to accept.
The subject matter of these amendments has been a matter of intense discussion. Not only that, committee members tried to address an issue of growing concern, namely, how do parents best respond to a case of missing children. 1 want to emphasize to Members that the Billand our amendments relate only to any action concerning the payment of family allowances. With all due respect, the Hon. Member speaking for the NDP broadened the issue to one of provincial jurisdiction which is not at all at issue here. Let me give Members an explanation of the present legislation and then explain what the amendments we are willing to accept will do in future.
I want to set the framework very clearly on this basis. First, in no way are the changes in Clause 5 intended to reduce the amount of payment. That is the first point that has to be made. As well, we did not in any way look at those clauses as a cost-cutting exercise. That is the second point which has to be made. Finally, when we are dealing with a certificate of presumed death, it does not relate to provincial jurisdiction or any work which might be done by provincial coroners in any way. It deals only with the payment of family allowances. That is the third point that has to be made.
Let me explain the present situation. Under the present legislation a parent or guardian is eligible for family allowance payments if that parent or guardian is responsible for a dependent child below a certain age. When a child is missing the Minister of National Health and Welfare has one month before family allowances are no longer paid if it can be shown that those parents or guardians do not have expenses for and do not have direct care of that dependent child. What is happening, Mr. Speaker-Could we have some order?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a fair request. Could the meetings that are going on be held somewhere else, please?


David Charles Dingwall: We are talking about the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, only one person in the Chamber is supposed to be talking about the amendment at one time.


David Charles Dingwall: Oh, he was talking? I am sorry.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. Members have approached this issue in a very serious way and I want to help the House.
The second point that must be made in terms of the present legislation is that the Minister, the Department, and the Government have no authority to extend payments to a family beyond the month. That is obviously not acceptable. Payments have been made for up to six months but not, in the true sense of the words, by legislative authority. 1 think most Members would understand that it was a humanitarian response. As we looked at the amendments to the family allowance legislation
December 11, 1985

we thought we had to go further, especially in view of the unfortunate increase in the number of missing children.
The theory behind the amendment was that when a child was missing and its body was found at a certain date the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have the discretionary power, for family allowance purposes only, to declare the presumption of death on the date the body was found. In that way the parents would not have to repay moneys for the period of time that the child was missing. I think that is a humanitarian response to a very difficult social issue.
That is the intention, Mr. Speaker. With all respect, I believe that the wording does that, but some people will argue that it is archaic. Therefore, in order to facilitate the work of the House and the committee, the argument is to use the words which are in the legislation because they are judicially parallel to legislation now on the books. The question is whether we can improve on it. We have looked at this very seriously. I hope that this may assist you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members in tomorrow's discussion.
The Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has indicated that he will not move Motion No. 8. That is acceptable to the Government. When we come to that point, we will accept Motion No. 9. The Member for York East has been very helpful on this issue.He has been working hard on it. I believe this helps in terms of clarification. 1 think there is a general understanding that the words of the amendment of the Hon. Member will resolve the issue more fully than would those in the original text. I want to convey to the House that that is what we intend to do at the appropriate time. I thank that Member and others for bringing this matter to our attention.
I stress again that this is for family allowance purposes only. I obviously cannot deal with provincial jurisdiction. 1 think this is helpful and I thank Hon. Members. I also thank those who appeared before the committee as witnesses who tried to convey to us how we could resolve a very difficult issue.
There are, however, different situations. One example is the tragic Air India crash. I think that most people would accept the presumption of death of all on that aircraft. That would enable us to close those accounts in consultation with the parents who experienced the tragic loss of a child. That is obviously a case in which children are missing for other reasons. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Motion No. 9 meets those conditions. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to explain it.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words with regard to this particular grouping of motions. As has been pointed out, the motions which have been grouped concern more than one clause. The Minister referred to one particular clause, but the motions which have been grouped deal with two separate clauses. In the debate on this particular grouping no one has yet referred to the main amendment moved to Clause 4. Perhaps I could refer to that for just a moment.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
I see one basic thing which is wrong with the motion submitted by the NDP. I think it is the same error as that made by the Minister's Department in the wording of the Bill. It is not a major point but it certainly illustrates the faults of the Government. The word "remission" is used rather loosely. The word "remit" is used in the wording of this particular clause as meaning that the Minister would cancel the amount owing the Crown. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the word "remit" does mean "forgiveness", such as in the forgiveness of sins. Perhaps that is what the Minister was referring to in illustrating the point. Certainly the word "remittance" would mean that you are making a payment. Is there any other definition of "remittance"? Of course there is not.
Therefore, the word "remit" that is used in this particular clause is somewhat confusing. 1 wonder what a judge would say if he were presented with an argument based on the word "remit". "Remit the amount" would mean to pay the amount in one case and to forgive the amount in another. That is the standard wording used in other Bills to cancel amounts owing. For example, under the Unemployment Insurance Act "to forgive an amount" means to cancel that amount. There is certainly a major fault in this particular clause.
It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Government says in one section with regard to the Government's responsibility that there should be ministerial authority to forgive an amount of money owed the Crown because of an overpayment and then, in another branch of his Department, namely in the disabilities section, the Government creates a deal with provincial Governments whereby the amount owed by this Department for disability can be transferred to the treasury of a provincial Government because a person was paid welfare payments. As the Government took over we saw increased co-operation between the federal and provincial Governments in taking the majority of a man's cheque to which he was entitled. The disability which is owed to a gentleman under Canada Pension is being paid to a provincial welfare department because he just happened to be on his back, sick and had to collect social assistance in the meantime.
The Minister and Government then seek praise for bringing in this particular clause. No one disagrees with its general intent. But the Government forgets what it has also set in motion in other branches of his Department.
The clause which is used here states: "Repayment of the amount or excess of the amount which caused undue hardship to a person or institution". That clause is used in every regulation of the Government of Canada in order to forgive an amount of money owed the Crown because of hardship. I have not seen one case since the Government came to power when it used this wording to forgive amounts of money owed the Crown by a poor person who was obligated to repay as a result of a regulation of the Government. There has not been one case pursuant to any regulation in the Unemployment Insurance Act by which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) or any other Minister of the Crown

Family Allowances Act, 1973
have acted to forgive amounts owing because of undue hardship to that person or institution. The Minister only stepped in because a Member stated that the Minister could not allow this to happen because of a legal question.
Under the previous Government, Ministers acted on a weekly basis to forgive amounts of money owing to the Crown under this section. Not only did the previous Government have compassion, it listened to representations made not only by Liberal Members but Conservative and New Democratic Members as well. We were a compassionate Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The Minister ought to stand in his place and explain what the word "remit" means in this clause. Is he asking us to forgive his sins in other parts of his administration? What is the meaning of "remit"?
While he is explaining that, he should tell Canadians why there is this double standard. Why is he allowing amounts of money owed with respect to disability pensions to be passed over to provincial Departments of Social Services? Why is there a sweatheart deal with the provinces?
The gentleman to whom I referred does not even get his disability cheque any more. It goes to the provincial Department of Social Services. Of course, this is called provincial-federal co-operation. We support the clause in the Bill but we wonder why the Government applies this double standard. Since this clause is in effect in regulations under other acts of Parliament, why has the Government refused to act in cases of undue hardship to Canadians? The answer is quite simple. It is not a compassionate Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of generosity that pervades this place today, as we lead up to the Christmas season, and so that all Members from all Parties can continue to be-


John V. Nunziata: Enlightened.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Enlightened is too gentle. In order to broaden our vision and understanding, I ask unanimous consent that we hear more of the treasured words of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). Can we have unanimous consent?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government is here to work and I do not give unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, while I suspect that anyone attempting to follow the Member for Gander-Twillingate might not succeed at this time of the evening, I will attempt to make a few comments. I want to discuss the Minister's interjection which he made a few moments ago with regard to the possibilities for some changes
to the Act. I want to do so from the point of view of the appropriateness-and the legality perhaps-of the Minister issuing a death certificate. According to my understanding of the existing legislation, the Minister has the authority to discontinue payment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Has to.


Ian Deans: Has the authority.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Must.


Ian Deans: And has the authority to discontinue payment. The Minister nods his head in the affirmative. He now has the authority to discontinue payment in the existing legislation. I do not believe it is necessary for the Minister to enter into any kind of presumption of death. The Minister can discontinue payment because the child is no longer in the custody of whoever has that child's custody.
I suggest that there are two arguments with regard to the inappropriateness of a Minister taking it upon himself or herself to assume death. My opinion, which is backed up by certain legal opinion, is that the right to determine death and to note it in law is the right of the provinces because they have the sole jurisdiction over the registration of births, marriages, deaths and all vital statistics. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Minister to make any presumption or assumption of death and consequently it is not necessary for the Minister to make any reference in this Act to the authority to make that assumption.
For example, in the case of the Air India disaster, the Minister said that he would assume that everybody died. 1 suggest that it is not his assumption to make, as a matter of law. He can discontinue payment because anyone entitled to payment under this or any other Act could be assumed not to be in the custody of the person under whose custody they were intended to be. Legally, however, he should wait for the official notification of the determination of death from the appropriate jurisdiction before he draws that conclusion.
I admit that there is certain merit to the Minister's concern.
I acknowledge that it could be assumed that a child could have died on the date the body was found. I appreciate the concern he has shown in that regard. However, I suggest that in order for the Minister to assume death he must wait for whatever documentation is issued from whatever jurisdiction, whether it is a province, a state or another country, to show that death has occurred before he can make that assumption. That is how the Bill before us is somewhat flawed and why I would ask him to consider this question overnight. I will have more to say about this tomorrow. The Hon. Government House Leader says that he would like to have a couple of words before we adjourn.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A couple of words.


Ian Deans: 1 want to assure the Government House Leader that it is my intention to spend an hour or even more with him
December 11, 1985

after we adjourn. If he has two words that he wants to whisper in my ear, he can do so. I know that he is saying how much he admires me. He has been saying that for a while. He must be after something.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: This is really a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I want it to be dealt with seriously for just a moment. 1 do not mind the jocular nature of the exchange, but it is a very serious question. If we write into law that the Minsiter has the right to assume that death occurred without having the appropriate certification to prove it, then 1 suggest the Minister is acting improperly and illegally. I make that point to him. 1 suggest that that is the case. I suggest it is not necessary for him to be in that position.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
1 am satisfied that the Minister could achieve the goals that he has set out, many of which we do not disagree with, without making the assumption that this Bill would allow him to do that, and perhaps incorrectly. I make the point that in the case of a body being found, of course, the certificate of death would be immediate and, therefore, the decision could be taken forthwith.
I believe it is six o'clock. 1 would prefer to make the points after I have made my arguments on the grouping of the motions. Could I call it six o'clock and 1 will complete what I have to say tomorrow?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.12 p.m., this House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 12, 1985