1985-11-04

Hon. Michel Cote (for the President of the Privy Council) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That fifteen 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.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act is a very important part of the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that that Budget addresses two major problems facing Canada today, high unemployment and our spiralling national debt. We must bring the deficit under control if we are to secure a prosperous economic future and promote growth and the job creation that we know is a priority with the Canadian people. This Bill is a major element in our efforts to achieve those objectives.
The main thrust of the Bill is to increase revenues through changes in both the scope and the rates of federal sales tax and the Bill also seeks to ensure that the burden of these increased revenues is spread broadly and fairly.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, federal sales tax has been increased by one percentage point. This slight increase will result in considerable additional revenue without, however, adding significantly to the tax burden of producers and consumers of taxable commodities.
Second, the excise tax on gas and fuel will be increased by 2 cents per litre as of January 1, 1987. These increases will provide additional revenue that will help reduce the deficit and partially finance the program for full indexation of old age security pensions.
Third, the sales tax exemption for candy and confectionery, soft drinks, pet food, certain health care products and goods related to energy efficiency, has been abolished.
Finally, this Bill provides for a slight increase in levies on alcoholic beverages and a more significant increase in the excise tax on tobacco.

All of these are very important measures in the Government's efforts to address the deficit and to achieve economic renewal and sustained economic growth.
Some Hon. Members have stated that this Bill will raise over $2.5 billion in new revenues in the next fiscal year. They are absolutely right. None of us want to raise taxes, but these are exactly the tough kinds of measures that are required to take control of the deficit and to look to the future with renewed vigour and renewed anticipation of jobs for all of us.
I recall the active and thoughtful discussion which was part of the budget debate in the weeks after my colleague, the Minister of Finance, introduced the Budget on May 23. I certainly recall how well aired and discussed in this Chamber these issues were. This is an appropriate forum for such debate and 1 look forward to discussing with Members opposite their views on our Budgets for many years to come. The Bill before us is an integral part of our first Budget and as such has already received an open and ongoing discussion as part of the budget debate.
I wish to remind all Hon. Members that as part of the Government's May Budget, the Minister of Finance tabled a discussion paper entitled The Canadian Budgetary Process- Proposals for Improvement. That is of great interest to us and one of the key elements addressed in that document is the parliamentary process of consideration and implementation of budget proposals. This process has been the subject of criticism in recent years, partly at least because of the lengthy delays experienced in passing tax legislation such as the legislation we are considering today. It has become common for proposals from one Budget to be under consideration at the time of the tabling of subsequent Budgets. These delays in enacting legislation cause confusion to taxpayers and make the administration of the tax system considerably more difficult and less efficient. In some cases these delays deprive taxpayers of early payment of tax refunds to which they will become entitled under budget proposals. The paper on the Canadian budgetary process is a proposal for future improvements so that we can get around some of these difficulties for the Canadian people.


Time Allocation
[DOT] (U10)
The Government is committed to early implementation of improvements in the process. In this regard the Government has moved quickly to bring budget legislation before Parliament in this session and, after second reading, the Bill before us will be referred to a legislative committee. This will expedite consideration of such budget proposals, facilitate a more detailed and thorough review of all aspects of new tax measures and still be more efficient with regard to how taxpayers can deal with their affairs.
We have taken important steps in our Government toward improving the budget process; but the measure will only work if Hon. Members are prepared to allow Bills such as Bill C-80 to progress to subsequent stages of consideration after reasonable debate on the principles. We believe this has now occurred and that we should move quickly to complete second reading consideration of the Bill and refer it to committee for detailed consideration.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Government is again introducing time allocation with respect to a Bill on which there has been a limited amount of discussion in the House, although it is a Bill which fundamentally affects the lives of many individual Canadians and the whole thrust of Canada's economic planning. Since the House resumed its sittings under the present Government we have seen time allocation, or closure, introduced with respect to a number of Bills. This is a Government which promised a more open Government and reform of the rules of the House of Commons.
The Government moved time allocation on the Bill with respect to the reduction of family allowances. It moved closure on the Bill with respect to compensating uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank to the tune of $875 million. Notice of an intention to introduce a closure motion has been given with respect to the employment equity Bill. Today we are seeing the disgraceful introduction of time allocation on a Bill which will take $2 billion out of the pockets of low and middle income Canadian earners.
The Government wishes to rush this Bill through the House without full discussion. This is clearly a Government which is in trouble with its image. It intends to move to prorogue the House and, thus, Bills are being rammed through regardless of quality and regardless of the views of the public.
Let us look at the measures contained in the Bill on which the Minister has moved time allocation. I am sure she must be embarrassed by this move since I do not really believe she herself is in favour of this type of measure.
The Bill upon which the Minister has moved time allocation introduces a flood of taxes, taxes on non-prescription drugs, pet foods, an energy excise tax and a tax on building materials, all designed to take some $2 billion out of the pockets of consumers.
In its Budget the Government gave us no agenda for economic growth. Even worse, it is now taking money out of
consumers' hands which might have encouraged a consumer-led recovery.
The sales tax which the Minister has told us is fair is not fair. A sales tax is a regressive method of taxation. It bears equally on those people able to pay and those not able to pay.
The construction industry has made many recommendations on the sales tax on building materials. It has pointed out that many companies are locked into fixed rate contracts on which they are going to lose money-and this applies particularly to smaller construction companies-as a result of the increase in sales tax on building materials. Their representations are not being listened to.
The tourism industry claims that the 4 per cent increase in the price of gasoline will cause a reduction of 900,000 in the number of American tourists visiting Canada for a year and could cost our economy $135 million and over 5,000 jobs. Their representations have not been heard either.
The Canadian trucking industry is complaining that the higher gasoline costs are going to impair its competitive position. The municipalities are complaining that the increased costs of construction materials may result over-all in a loss of $1 billion to municipalities across this country and these costs are again likely to be passed on to the taxpayer in terms of municipal taxes. It is estimated that the cost of a new house may go up $600 or $700 as a result of these measures.
When you add the general sales tax increase and higher fuel costs to the other budget measures, the cuts in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation budget and the elimination of the RHOSPs, we can see that this is a heavy blow to the construction industry at a time when it is just beginning to recover from the recession.
The total bill which individual Canadians will have to pay in 1990 and 1991 as a result of the sales tax measures before us today, and the changes to the income tax which will be forthcoming in other legislation, will amount to $6.7 billion. The Government's justification for this is that it is important to reduce the deficit. No one questions that it is important to reduce the deficit. However, this Government is spending very lavishly and freely in other directions at the same time as it is imposing and loading up taxes on low and middle income Canadians.
The forecast documents of the Department of Finance, which were leaked to the press and became public knowledge at the time of the last Budget, show the Government's plans to reduce federal-provincial transfers by $2 billion in the year 1990. This is a cut which will have long-term influences on post-secondary education, health and many other services which are provided by the provinces. How can this Government claim that it believes in equality of opportunity for Canadians when it is cutting post-secondary education, the means by which bright young people, whose families are not well off, can still benefit from all the opportunities available in our society?


The same Government that is loading taxes on low and middle income Canadians, cutting transfers to provinces, and cutting back on regional economic expansion, post-secondary education and health is proposing a billion-dollar tax giveaway to a large energy business. It is proposing a capital gains holiday for very wealthy Canadians without any concomitant requirement that those who benefit from a capital gains holiday invest the money in Canada or create a single job in Canada.
The practice of limiting debate in the House is a serious one. This practice was used very sparingly by the last Government, but whenever it was used it drew howls of outrage from Members opposite who are now introducing a motion to limit debate practically every week on serious matters. The Government has no agenda for economic growth and no vision of progress for Canada, but it is not willing to allow the voices of the Opposition to be heard, just as it is not willing to respond to pressure from public groups.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a dark, dark day for democracy in Canada. It is a dark day for the House of Commons. I know many of my friends opposite have gloomy clouds hanging over their heads as they have to sit and listen to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) once again do the dirty work of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
She said that she has been instructed by the Government to introduce time allocation. That sounds like a nice term, Mr. Speaker. What it actually means is that the Government is going to gag the Members of the House of Commons and cut off democracy. No longer will the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada have an opportunity to comment on a Bill that, according to the words of the Minister of State herself, will cost the taxpayers of Canada S2.5 billion next year. The Government needs money to give to Dome, the Reichmanns and the bankers. After all, the Government must dig the money up somewhere, and once again the poor Minister of State for Finance has to do the dirty work of the Minister of Finance who does not have the courage to do what is rightfully his job.
This is a dark day, Mr. Speaker. The term "time allocation" sounds as if the Government were going to allocate time for discussion. It means that it is going to allocate 120 minutes and then say that that is enough. We have spoken for 11 hours, Mr. Speaker. It must be difficult for you to sit there as a strong proponent of democracy and freedom of speech in the House of Commons. We have only about 100 minutes left now to discuss a Bill that will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion.
This Bill will do much more than simply take $2.5 billion from the pockets of taxpayers. It is going to slap an extra tax on the construction industry upon which we depend for a great deal of job creation and the provision of much needed housing. Not many months ago the people who now sit across the way were sitting on this side of the House saying that we must take the sales tax totally off construction materials. Now that they
Time Allocation
are in power they say, "Hold it, we have had second thoughts. Not only are we not going to take it off, we are going to add to it". Oh, Mr. Speaker!
However, that is not the worst of it. "We have another good idea," they say. "We are going to tax everyone in the whole country, rich and poor alike. Whether you are from the poorest or the richest family, you are going to pay another 1 per cent sales tax on everything you buy". On top of that, if you have a canary and have to buy bird seed, or if you have dogs and cats, or children who want a bag of candy, they are going to tax that as well. How is this going to help Canada? I know Members Opposite, as responsible individuals, want to get the economy going. However, how will taking $990 million out of every single community do that? That will be the result of this 1 per cent sales tax increase in the next fiscal year. How is that going to help the communities of Clearwater and Barriere in British Columbia?
This legislation discriminates against western Canada most of all. The Government has decided it will tax especially those people who live in a region of Canada where goods are transported over long distances. This legislation will mean an extra tax on them because of an extra tax on fuel costs. That is simply a tax on distance, whether it be to a grain elevator or a mill pond in the forest industry. The people who make their livelihood by fishing on the West Coast or East Coast will be paying extra. Not only that, the tax will be passed right on down to the consumer so that everyone who buys a refrigerator, television set or shirt in western Canada will be paying more because transportation costs are being increased to the tune of over $1.3 billion over the next two fiscal years. The trucking industry must be leaping with glee over the fact that this new Government was elected in September of 1984. The farmers must be delighted, the fishermen must be excited, but the average consumer is absolutely dismayed along with all the other groups.
Then, of course, we have a safe tax, the one slapped on tobacco and alcohol. It is of course difficult to speak against those particular items, but one can make a case against increasing taxes on alcohol at the same time as we are taking out full-page ads in American newspapers asking them to come to Canada where their hospitality expenses will be much greater, and accommodation will be much more expensive because of the tax on rooms. Food is more expensive. When you buy gas to travel across the second largest country in the world, you will be paying much more than you do in the U.S. because of the increases in gasoline taxes.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: We have a Tory Government here, though; that is the appeal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will leave that unsaid, Mr. Speaker.
This legislation is regressive because it means everyone pays, no matter what. Consequently the taxes take up a larger portion of the income of low-income earners. The Canadian Council on Social Development has estimated that for a family


Time Allocation
of four the sales and excise tax increases will result in the following. If your family income is in the $15,000 range, the tax increase will be $140 next year. If you are in the $20,000 range, the increase will be $282. If your total family income next year is $40,000, you will be paying an extra $361. As the Minister of State for Finance said, and I appreciate her honesty, the Government needs the money. The Government will need the money in order to make up for the $500 million in free capital gains tax. It will have to find the thousands of millions of dollars if it is going to bail out banks, especially foreign bankers. It will have to find the money somewhere in order to give Dome Petroleum a billion dollar tax dodge or to pay for an extra billion dollars in tax loophole dodges for the Reichmann brothers in the Gulf deal.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) stood in her place to announce the Western Accord. That will cost taxpayers of Canada $9 billion over the next five years. That money must be found and the Minister of State for Finance has decided to dig into the pockets, wallets and purses of ordinary Canadian taxpayers. The Government will not look to upper income-earners or impose additional taxes on large corporations. It will look to the ordinary Canadian citizens, the individuals who are struggling to get their lives back in order and put their sector of the economy back on track.
Yet, the sinister Government will be reaching again to rip hundreds of tax dollars from their pockets in the next fiscal year in order to pay for the large corporate giveaways, the large corporate bail-outs and foreign banker bail-outs.
I think that today is very instructive. We have seen the Government go to ordinary Canadians to pay off its friends in the upper income, wealthy corporate brackets. It will not allow Parliament to discuss this because it is bloody well embarrassing. Therefore, it introduces closure and time allocation. The Government is muzzling Parliament and gagging parliamentarians. What we are seeing today is very instructive and it is a model of what the new Government of Canada stands for. As I said at the outset, it is a very dark day for democracy and the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a marvelous speech, but I think I must first correct the two previous speakers and what they said about the time allocation measure the Government is about to impose on debate. I am thinking more particularly of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who used the same argument the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) used last week, when he spoke of a black day for the parliamentary system, not because we were choking off debate but just because we were limiting the time available to the House for delaying tactics so we could proceed with concrete measures.
Mr. Speaker, we must remind the new Members, and I am one of them, of the basic principles according to which this
Government intends to operate: the three stages, namely, consultation, Parliament and action. I have been through those three stages, and I found them very instructive. Regarding consultation, we are no longer talking about consultations held in the past.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has just tabled two excellent documents and is already talking about the next Budget. He also mentioned his disappointment about the fact that the opposition has failed to produce any constructive work on the technical documents he tabled when he brought down the last Budget. Since the opposition is so reluctant to work constructively, he has no alternative but to rely on the people.
The arguments we heard this morning have added nothing new to the debate. In fact, they merely confirm what Canadians are saying when they ask us to stop our endless arguing in Parliament and do something. Actually, we have opportunities for some very effective work sessions when we go to committee.
Mr. Speaker, it was a revelation for me to see that at the committee stage, we can examine Bills with the help of Government and outside experts, while continuing direct consultations with witnesses that have been invited to appear before the committee. Personally, I can hardly wait to see the real world in committee, not people who have only negative criticism to offer. As soon as the legislative committee meets, it will invite as many witnesses as we want, and that is when we will have an opportunity to consider Bill C-80 in detail.
The motion for time allocation is entirely in order because it is part of a new approach taken by this Government since last September, a Government that wants to take action, and deal with the real world, either through consultation or by consulting with experts at the committee stage.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the last election campaign, when the public was upset because it did not understand the televised debates. They heard people talking, and talking, and talking, and unfortunately, quantity outstripped quality by far. I remember the owner of a garage in the wonderful riding of LaSalle, who told me: Why don't you go to Parliament and show them how to run Parliament like a business, and tell them to stop trying to show us how to run a business like a Government? I think they were right. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that time has come for Hon. Members to act responsibly, to stop making meaningless and repetitive remarks and speeches, and then to take concrete action in committees where Government and private sector witnesses can provide relevant evidence.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80 is a concrete extension of the last Budget which flowed from last November's economic statements. On September 4, 1984 the Canadian public gave Parliament a new steering course and elected a team of men with an unequivocal mandate. Canadians sent a team of new Members to Ottawa to tell Parliament they wanted action-no


more of those redundant parliamentary debates which do nothing to check our ever soaring deficits.
in the month of November the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDou-gall)-worthy Ministers who do not shirk their responsibilities-came up with economic renewal propositions which were heartily welcomed by business circles. From that day on, we consulted the Canadian people to find out their reaction to our forthcoming Budget. We talked to Canadians, Mr. Speaker- businessmen, the unemployed whose ranks were shrinking, people who were paying interests which have since decreased, and others who were no longer stymied by spiralling inflation-and all of them were enthusiastic. I think that for the First time in the life of a Government our May Budget received a lot more praise than criticism. In fact, we were criticized for not going far enough. A good many people told us the Budget should have been much more drastic to cope with the pitiful conditions left behind by the previous Government.
All we need do now, Mr. Speaker, is put an end to procrastination and act decisively. When I say that I am not referring only to Bill C-80, but also to the recent invitation made by the Minister of Finance to urge all Canadians to respond to the principles advocated in the two consultation papers made public last week.
Mr. Speaker, I think that all Members have had plenty of time to have their say on Bill C-80, and they will be given further opportunities to voice their opinion on other constructive measures-and hopefully they will stop making meaningless speeches.
The Budget has already been debated at length and, in recent days, Bill C-80 has been the subject of more debates on specific issues. This morning Hon. Members opposite made 10-minute speeches and I would have thought they had something important to say, frustrated as they claimed to be. No, Sir, they kept repeating the same irrelevant inanities about the banks and arguing endlessly that our Ministers of Finance have failed to live up to their responsibilities.
Well, enough is enough, we are through talking, time has come to do something.
Mr. Speaker, I made a few calculations and the House might be interested to know that our time here is worth $80,000 an hour, which works out to $1,300 a minute or $13,000 for a 13-minute intervention. Do you not think that this money could be better spent in committee or anywhere outside this House, just so we might tackle other Bills which are not necessarily more important but which would be dealt with more expeditiously than this measure which has been debated ad nauseam? I would therefore urge all responsible Members of the House to give us their support, end this debate and refer the Bill to a legislative committee.
Time Allocation


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I never thought that we would hear such a pathetic intervention as the one we just heard in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) failed to find any good arguments to put forward on Bill C-80. He had to resort to the cost per minute to taxpayers of debating matters in the House. He was unable in his 10-minute intervention to say one thing, which his constituents could support, in positive terms about the Bill. The Hon. Member has lost touch. That is the only and most charitable thing I could say about his intervention this morning. Evidently he has not explained the impact of the Bill to his constituents. He would like to see the debate Finished because he is embarrassed by the Bill. That applies to the totality of the Government. There is no other explanation which one can find as to why the debate on Bill C-80 should be choked.
The debate is being choked for the reasons the Hon. Member for LaSalle did not dare to mention, for example, that the Government is worried about its credibility. The sooner the debate is over, the better for the so-called Progressive Conservatives who, as time goes by, demonstrate that they are really regressive and conservative. When their credibility is in danger, they choke the debate; that is what they do. It hurts to hear what the Opposition has to say about the facts contained in Bill C-80.
The Government is beginning to become afraid. Its backbenchers, like the Hon. Member for LaSalle who is leaving his seat in fear, are afraid of the consequences of the Bill on their electors.


Mr. Lanthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not out of order to mention whether someone is or is not in his place?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is argumentative. I hope the Hon. Member will not raise such points of order, and I hope the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) will not mention whether or not a person is inside or outside the House.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty silly question by someone who has been in the House for over a year. The fact is that those back-benchers are afraid of Bill C-80. They failed in caucus to convince the Government to change it. The only avenue open to them is to see it moved ahead, out of the House and into committee, in order to avoid the embarrassing elements which can be raised. There are measures in the Bill which will hurt Canadians across the board.
By choking debate on Bill C-80, in essence the Government is saying that it wants to choke the debate on gasoline tax increases. Also it is saying that it does not want to debate the tax imposed on many categories of construction materials. It is really saying that it does not want to hear the facts about the taxes imposed upon equipment and construction materials used, for instance, in energy conservation. It does not want to


Time Allocation
hear any more about the taxes to be imposed on candy, soft drinks and pet foods. By choking the debate, this regressive Conservative Government does not want to hear anything more about the taxes on a wide range of health care products, which have been imposed in a mean and cowardly manner upon Canadian consumers, particularly upon elderly people. That is what is behind the intent of choking the debate.
The Government does not want to prolong the debate and hear the facts about how increased federal sales tax across the board will affect Canadians. On January 1, 1986, it will change from 10 per cent to 11 per cent. The Government does not want to hear the music any more. Its constituents probably have not been made aware about what is expected of them. The Government is choking the debate because it is politically unpleasant to have these things put forth in the House of Commons and through the media.
The regressive Conservative Government, as the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) pointed out, is imposing a number of regressive taxes which will hurt more those who have less. Consumers will have to pay something like $2.6 billion more in sales taxes by 1990 after this measure has been forced through as a result of the decision announced this morning. At the same time, corporations will enjoy a $2.2 billion decrease in their taxes, and the capital gains tax break alone will reduce the taxes of those who "have" by some one and a quarter billion dollars. That hurts, does it not? It hurts in terms of political popularity. That is why they want to choke off the debate in the House today. That is the reason. It is not for the reason given by the Hon. Member for LaSalle, who raised the red herring about the cost per minute of debate in the House of Commons. That was outrageous. There is a cost attached to democracy and, therefore, there is a cost attached to debate. The Hon. Member would have been better off giving us the reasons for the Bill having to go through.
The Government does not want to hear any further debate on the damage to consumers caused by their purchasing power being eroded when the higher taxes come into effect. It does not want to hear debate about the costs imposed upon many sectors of the economy as a result of increased taxes. For instance, because of the proposed increases in fuel costs as a result of the taxes proposed in Bill C-80, Canadian truckers will have more difficult times competing with their United States counterparts. This is why they want to choke the debate, is it not? It is not pleasant to hear the music.
They are changing the direction of the economy and imposing on consumers, the industrial sector and free enterprise a number to taxes which will make it more difficult for them to purchase and to compete. Hundreds of small and mediumsized construction companies will see their profit margins cut to the bone as they are forced to absorb a new 6 per cent tax on construction materials because of a regressive Conservative government measures in Bill C-80. Those involved in construction have to observe and respect fixed price contracts. They cannot change them when Ottawa changes the rules of the game.
The Hon. Member for Trinity already made reference to how the tourism industry will be severely affected in many ridings from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to British Columbia by the imposition of the sales tax on gasoline. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is preaching against the misfuelling of automobiles, while his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), is proposing through bill C-80 a tax on leaded gasoline that is lower than the tax on unleaded gasoline. Thus he is actually denying the thrust of the policy of the Minister of the Environment. It is a sham that two Ministers of the Crown are going in opposite directions regarding the same issue. This is why we feel a bit hot under the collar about this debate being brought to a halt by the regressive Conservative Government.
Canadians are beginning to realize that they were deceived on September 4. They are going to catch up with the Conservative Government step by step because of one measure after another. This particular measure is one that we will make sure Canadians will remember for a long time.
The list goes on. There is the imposition of a 6 per cent tax through this Bill on insulation materials, materials Canadians buy in order to reduce heating costs. There is the imposition of a 6 per cent tax on heat pumps, solar heaters and panels and wood-burning stoves. These are supplies that permit Canadians to insulate and maintain sources of energy other than costly ones and these supplies are being taxed.
What this morning's imposition of closure does to the credibility of the Government is that it reveals to the public that Government Members are uncomfortable with this measure and would rather sweep it under the carpet. Government Members do not want Canadians to know about the details of this measure and about how it particularly hurts the people on the street who have to purchase goods and whose capacity to buy will be affected by the imposition of such large-scale sales taxes.


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


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that it is a particular pleasure to speak on this closure motion. To begin with, I want to quote from a speech the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made to the Canadian Tax Foundation on November 28, 1984. At that time, he said:
As we grapple with the technicalities, the subtleties and the complexities of our tax system, we must never lose sight of the citizens it is ultimately meant to serve. That is what our efforts are all about. The real bottom line is people.
Today we are hearing his response to those particular remarks. Perhaps when he spoke of people, he meant only the people to whom he was speaking, the members of the Canadian Tax Foundation.
There was a time when closure was the ultimate step in the operation of Parliament. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is probably the only person in this House who was


830!
a Member at the time C. D. Howe brought forth a closure motion on the pipeline debate. That motion of closure eventually caused the defeat of the Government. The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who was Leader of the Opposition at that time, made claims which these Progressive Conservative Members have forgotten. He said that under no circumstances did a Government have the right to gag Parliament. At that time, in 1956, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs will recall, the Conservatives were elected to government because the Liberals brought closure on the pipeline debate.
I had hoped that this Government would remember the days when closure meant the gagging of Parliament. Now it does it on a daily basis and acts as if it had the right to decide when Parliament is through debating a Bill. The Government does not have that right. Parliament has the right to make its own decision on that matter. Government Members form only one group in this House of Commons.
Government Members are now doing something which they claimed for years while in opposition and in government they should not do. Decisions are being made on the basis of how they affect the attempt to get rid of the deficit. 1 will use the issue of transportation as just one example of this.
My particular interest lies to a great extent in the transportation of grain. A decision has been made that the user will pay for the cost of transportation of grain, something that never happened in the past. The Government decided to charge for the movement of grain and to increase that charge until it will eventually be a major cost to the producers who are shipping and exporting grain and providing the Government with a large portion of its foreign exchange.
There is now a user-pay policy regarding transportation, but this country was built on the philosophy that transportation should be a service paid for by all of the people of Canada, thus allowing all parts of Canada to have the same access to central Canada and the ports. We are moving further and further away from that philosophy. As it stands now, the producers who live a long way away from the ports of export have to pay more to get their products to port.
1 repeat that I am using the area of transportation as just one example of the Government's attempt to reduce the deficit. I am sure each Member of the House can give another example of this. In the area of transportation, the Government is moving toward cost recovery for services it provides, including ice-breaker and navigational services and communications services which are required for safe and effective transportation. The Government has decided that the people who use those services will pay for them. This will again increase the cost of transportation to those who are further away from the port. The further away a producer lives, the more it will cost him to be a part of the country.
Third, through the Bill we are discussing today, the Government has increased taxes on fuels that are used for transportation. In one single year, the Government has increased the cost of transportation to the extent that many farming areas are becoming less and less viable as time goes on. Effective transportation is the basis of a viable farming industry. If the
Time Allocation
farmers and producers cannot get their products to market at a reasonable cost then there is no point in producing them. Consequently, the remote areas of our farming communities are becoming less and less viable. So not only will the Government not allow us to put these arguments forward, but it is closing off any attempt to put them before the country.
The Government is increasing the cost of living for middle class Canadians all across the country. In particular, it is affecting the cost of production of the primary producers, the fishermen and farmers who provide the major portion of funds which go into the economy. If we did not have those primary producers then we would not have any of the rest of our economy. The base of our country is still made up of primary producers, fishermen, miners, foresters and farmers. Everyone else uses their products and moves them around, which is the basis of survival.
How long would the financial structure of our country last if we did not have a basic economy which depends upon primary producers? The Government has established a broadened base with respect to sales tax and excise tax in order to obtain a few billion dollars which it has already spent in providing tax relief for companies such as Dome Petroleum and for the takeover of Gulf by Olympia & York. This is the basis of its tax measures. The money has already been spent. It is taking away from middle class Canadians.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the closure motion which has been put before the House of Commons with respect to Bill C-80. I find it particularly frustrating that the Government has chosen this particular route to chokeoff debate with respect to some important economic measures which will affect Canadians right across the country. On numerous occasions in this Chamber and, indeed, in other areas of the country, I have voiced my concern with respect to the less fortunate regions and individuals in society who are having an extremely difficult time living in a difficult economic world. However, when I see Government measures such as Bill C-80 and this closure motion I find it even more perplexing and frustrating.
The Government has attempted to increase taxes in a number of areas which will affect Canadians in a negative way. I make mention of the imposition of the sales tax on carbonated beverages, candy and confectionery and pet foods. This particular proposal will have a devastating effect on small companies in my constituency.
When one looks at the history of this particular measure one notes that there has been no consultation-none whatsoever. In September and shortly thereafter the Government of Canada claimed in this Chamber and throughout the country that as a national Government in a period it deemed one of national reconciliation it would travel across the country and consult with Canadians. It said that it would not just listen but it would talk to Canadians and interested groups and it would share information on a variety of subjects. Unfortunately, and


Time Allocation
I say this with great sincerity, the Government did not do that in this particular instance. It went ahead in May of this year and implemented a Budget which affects small bottlers and small companies across the country in a negative way to the extent that we will find that these small companies will either go out of business entirely or they will have to implement massive lay-offs across the board.
Perhaps we on this side of the House have been wrong. We thought that the Government was concerned about small businessmen and small companies across the country. I think the facts are in place to show that it is not concerned about small businessmen and small corporations. It has designed its policies to assist and improve the economic viability not of small businessmen but of larger corporations which can afford to change, which have individuals on staff who are prepared to conduct the research and planning. That is what the Government has done in this particular instance. It is acting against the best wishes of small Canadian buusinesmen with respect to the imposition of this particular tax on carbonated beverages. It has never been done before. It will add substantial costs that will not only affect the labour component but that will add dramatically to the cash-flow problems of small Canadian entrepreneurs.
Why is the Government doing this? I suggest it is because the Government is concerned with promoting a select few, who are, however, friends of the Government, who contributed handsomely during the election campaign. The measure which is before us to chokeoff debate denies Parliament and the representatives of the Canadian people the right to debate that very issue here on the floor of the House of Commons.
Members of the Government can say: "Oh well, you will have a day or two to discuss these particular measures". I suggest that these measures are fundamental to the economic viability of the small business sector of the country. We ought to debate them and debate them for an even longer time and in more detail so that Canadians will know, and rightly so, just where the Government stands on the issues which affect them. Last week was Small Business Week. We now see the Government, which was elected with an overwhelming majority, betraying the wishes of the small business sector.
There are other measures which I find to be distasteful with regard to Bill C-80 and with regard to the motion to choke-off debate. What about the sales tax on health goods? Granted, there have been some exemptions since the tabling of the Budget. However, there needs to be more exemptions. The Government went from coast to coast advocating a consultative policy and it has not implemented one. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) will avail himself of the opportunity to stand up in the Chamber and denounce this particular imposition and use his clout within his own caucus to have this particular measure changed. I happen to believe that the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with these devastating measures. He does not agree with the imposition of the tax on health goods.
I hope that Government Members will not be pussy-cats or sheep when it comes to this motion. We saw a good example of
Government Members being sheep with respect to other Bills which have come before the House. I hope that Government Members, whether former athletes or would-be athletes, will have the intestinal fortitude and the conviction of their constituents to put partisan politics aside and stand up to be counted. I hope they will do that. I hope that the former journalists who now sit in the House on the Government side will avail themselves of this opportunity to stand up in the Chamber and echo that sentiment with respect to choking-off debate on an important piece of legislation which will affect Canadians from coast to coast. And it will affect them in a negative way.
Surely, as parliamentarians, hearing reports of what has happened over the last number of weeks with regard to poverty, the Government would not want to exacerbate that situation. The very taxes it intends to impose upon the Canadian people will affect the poorest in our society. I hope that all Members of Parliament on all sides of the House not want to exacerbate a situation which is already difficult. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of withdrawing this particular motion so that all Members of Parliament, including those in the Government, could participate in a full and open debate on the subject matter of Bill C-80 which affects all Canadians from coast to coast.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is committed to cutting the deficit and to renewing the economy. These are two objectives which one would hope any reasonable Opposition would welcome and to which it would give its co-operation. However, day after day the Opposition erects one parliamentary road block after another so that there is no reasonable alternative left but for us to move time allocation and to transfer this debate into committee.
I listened to a number of opposition speakers this morning call this measure a choking off of debate. It is just the opposite. Debate is not going to be choked off. There will be an adequate opportunity to examine the legislation in detail through committee study. There will be further debate in this Chamber and there will certainly be lengthy debate in the other place because the Opposition has its own means of communicating with it. There will be considerable oppportuni-ty to study this Bill in length and in particular.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-so far the only opposition speaker to remain in the Chamber despite their concern for democracy-with great interest as he recalled events which took place in 1956 because of my own recollection of the great pipeline debate. The fact is that in those days this House had a constructive, co-operative and rational Opposition, something it certainly lacks today. There is no practical alternative left to the Government but to introduce the measure which is before us, because what the people of Canada want is not simpy unlimited discussion of this legislation, but action-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Raise their taxes.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: -which will carry this country forward, and they are going to get action which will lead to the reduction of the deficit and which will continue the renewal of the economy.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: And higher taxes.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: We have heard one opposition speaker after another indicate that if Bill C-80 becomes law, it will have a negative effect upon the economy. The facts are just the opposite. Most of these measures were announced in the Budget last spring and are now in place. What has been the result of the Budget of last spring on the economy? There has been the beginning of the renewal of the Canadian economy which this Party promised. It is a promise which this Party is fulfilling.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There's more to Canada than Toronto.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: We will get to that. Perhaps the opposition speaker would take his seat rather than stand half in and half out of the Chamber. I wish there could be a recognition from the Opposition of the kind of economic renewal which is being enjoyed now, particularly by small business. We were told by one of the previous speakers that this measure would have a negative effect on small business, and I would like to quote the following excerpt from a report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:
The combined employment and investment plans of small business are the most optimistic we have seen since the current format of Hard Facts was introduced in October 1983.
We have seen further evidence of economic renewal throughout this country. A negative reference was just now made to Toronto. I would like to quote from the Toronto Economic Trends. The geographical area referred to in the bulletin is the Toronto census metropolitan area which stretches from Pickering right through to Oakville and towards the north. It states that in the first quarter of 1985, there has been an improvement in construction of 31 per cent over 1984 in North York, Scarborough, Markham, Vaughan and Pickering.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about Vancouver?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: We will get to Vancouver. What we want to recognize here is that the impact of the Budget, of which this legislation is an expression, has been economic renewal. The people of Canada have renewed confidence in the Government, in themselves and in their country and are willing to make investments and expenditures which are improving business and increasing employment. All the leading economic indicators support that claim. One of the reasons for this recovery is the way in which the Government has undertaken to address itself to the massive federal deficit which we have inherited from our predecessors.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Bank bail-outs. Dome bail-outs.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: This Government has shown its willingness to make the hard decision not only to restrain expenditures but to increase taxes, which is the other side of Keynesian econom-
Time Allocation
ics. It has done this in a balanced way with a balanced taxation program which already involves increases to personal and corporate income taxes through the surtax of 1985. There has been the announcement that there will be a minimum tax imposed in 1986, and there will be increased sales and excise tax on some commodities. There has been as well a balanced approach in avoiding extreme cuts in spending. There has been no significant effect on our social insurance program and no extreme increases in taxation. So we are approaching the problem of reducing the deficit and at the same time renewing the economy with the kind of well balanced and rational method which is characteristic of this Government's economic policies.
Our constituents raised the question with respect to one of the recent statements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson): "Why not stronger action?". That is a question we hear more often than the question put by Hon. Members on the other side of the House, "Why any action at all?" The answer by the Minister of Finance was, "Stronger measures in the shortrun could have jeopardized the economic recovery. Nonetheless, the impact of the action on the deficit builds up over time and such has already begun to be the result of the economic policies of the Government."


Mr. Cassidy:: That's no defence of closure.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: So it is right that we should have this legislation before us.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's no defence of closure. You don't trample on democracy and that's what you're doing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Jack-boot tactics.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: It is right that we examine this legislation and debate its principles in this House as we have done over several days.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It's a crying shame that a man of your calibre is defending this motion of the Government.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: We should now transfer it into committee so that we can study it rationally, not with the irrational noise of which Hon. Members opposite seem only capable. We will then be able to go over it item by item, clause by clause. Therefore, I believe this measure is a reasonable one, and 1 therefore move:
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(a), the House continue to sit through the lunch hour this day for the purpose of continuing consideration, together with any division if required, of the motion of the President of the Privy Council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Could I have a seconder to that motion? The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maison-neuve (Mr. Desrosiers).
According to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(a), if 25 Members rise in their places to object, the motion is defeated. Shall the motion carry?


Time Allocation
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There not being 25 Members rising in objection, the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(a) is deemed to be carried.
Motion (Mr. Stackhouse) agreed to.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek some guidance. My recollection is that it is inappropriate to refer to a division, as is the case in the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). Is that not correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The purpose of the motion was to continue debate. It had nothing to do with the amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Sorry.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do not have a copy of the motion but from what we heard of it it may not be in order. Before continuing debate I wonder if we can have a copy of the motion so we may make appropriate argument? If the Government does not have a copy of the motion to give to the Opposition I think that in itself raises a question of order. One might ask what the Government wants to hide, why is it afraid to give us a copy of the motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The purpose of the motion was to continue sitting. It does not change the motion at all, so I see no reason for not continuing debate.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member who is still somewhat of a neophyte, I must say that-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and 1 apologize to my colleague. As I understand the rule with respect to a motion of the nature which the Hon. Member intended to present, it refers only to continuing the debate and not to divisions. If the Hon. Member presented a motion dealing not only with continuing debate but with the taking of a division, I respectfully submit the motion is out of order and cannot be received and adopted at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Again, I say to the Hon. Member, who has been here a long time and is now operating under the new rules, this motion is just to continue debate. It has nothing to do with the division. It is to continue debate for the two hours and after the debate is completed we will then have the division. I see nothing wrong with that. The Hon. Member put the motion and I can read it again. He says, under Standing Order 9(4)(a), that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of a motion relating to Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. I see no problem. I believe the former occupant of the chair had the same problem with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when this Standing Order was cited not too long ago. 1
believe it was well read and put into the Standing Orders. I see no problem with it. If there is, would the Hon. Member please advise me what he sees wrong with what has just been done?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty in dealing with the matter since 1 do not have a copy of the motion. I appreciate your kindness in reading the motion, but the rule in question says that the motion must relate to the business then being considered. 1 respectfully submit that the motion in question does not relate to the strict terms of the rule because Standing Order 9(4)(a) says:
When the Speaker is in the Chair, a Member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
I have already read the relevant extract from the subclause which says:
The motion must relate to the business then being considered-
I think there are extraneous matters raised in the motion which make it out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have to disagree with the Hon. Member, and I do not like to do that because he is a long-time Member of this Chamber. However, this is a continuation of the business at hand, the debate. Therefore, 1 see nothing wrong with this motion. I am not going to start reading the Standing Order because the Hon. Member is well aware of it, having just read it. It says as well that the Speaker shall ask those Members who object to rise in their places. If 25 or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted. What we are talking about here is a continuation of the debate in the House.
The Hon. Member might like to bring this matter forward to the Speaker at a later date in chambers and discuss this particular rule with him, or perhaps with the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). However, 1 feel that the rules are there and I hope the Hon. Member will allow the debate to continue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another point of order. It is customary, when motions are presented, to provide copies ot the opposition Parties. It makes it difficult to assess whether the motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Not every motion. If the Hon. Member would like a copy when a motion is presented, I will make sure that this is done. However, I do not believe that every time a motion is presented in the House, the House Leaders should receive a copy. Only copies of motions requiring notice should be provided, I am told by the Table Officers. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) rises on a point of order?


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my colleagues opposite mentioned the fact that we did not have that much time to debate such an important measure. It


seems to me that we should now resume debate. We are trying to add one hour to this very important debate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry-

That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has the floor in debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am glad to have it.
As I was saying, I am a neophyte in this House and I understand the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) is an extremely erudite man and regarded as a very able Member of this House. That is a reputation 1 dare not challenge. However, one does wonder how one so able can have such a faulty memory. He claims that the Government finds itself in office by virtue of its promise that it would cut the deficit and by so doing stimulate economic growth. It strikes me that the people most affected by the tax measures contained in this Bill heard a very loud refrain, which I really hesitate to repeat because the Government has been reminded of it so frequently, and that is the promise to produce jobs, jobs, jobs. Given the conditions which brought the deficit about, 1 would think the Government would say that cutting it would be best approached by creating the jobs which were promised rather than by taxing the poor. The Government could be increasing the graduated income tax, restoring it to the level of a few years ago. It could have hit with a litle more severity the $30 billion to $50 billion in tax expenditures which in the main benefit large corporations. It is those corporations which are not producing the jobs that the Government promised to deliver.
Having made those comments, which have been reiterated time and again in this Chamber, we are told that previously we had a rational Opposition. One would expect that those who were members of a rational Opposition would speak rationally when speaking in this Chamber as part of the Government. It seems to me that it is just a little irrational to suggest that by limiting debate through time allocation the Government is not, after all, limiting debate. It seems to me to be just a little bit irrational, on the part of one who claims to be a part of a rational Government, to suggest that increasing the sales tax for those who have litle disposable income will not affect the economy. I do not know how one can argue that taking between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion out of the pockets of those who are most likely to spend their money as a necessity will not hurt the economy. He says, further, that the irrational Opposition has been putting procedural roadblocks in the path of the Government as it lurches toward its goal of ensuring that its friends benefit the most from the taxation system and that ordinary people suffer the most.
The fact is that no amendments have been moved by the Opposition. There have been no procedural roadblocks of which I am aware or of which he is aware. There are still a
Time Allocation
great many Members who wish to speak on the legislation before us.


Mr. Gurbin:: Where are they?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: They are here and available. Mr. Speaker, the Government has committed itself totally to consultation. Surely it is inconsistent with consultation, with whomever, to limit the debate as this motion does.
We have heard from the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) about the failure to consult with the constituency of the Party that holds the reins of power. 1 personally have had conversations with representatives of the heavy construction industry who, as I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, include many, if not a majority, who were somewhat pleased and encouraged by promises made to them by the Tory Party. They are now extremely angry, having had conversations with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and members of his staff and having returned to their offices, to receive an answer from the Government on the pleas they made. They are convinced that the Government is either perverse or completely committed to ignorance rather than to consultation in pursuing the measures that it has determined to pursue with respect to the sales tax on construction material. This will have a significant effect on many small businessmen involved in the heavy construction industry who will, due to the timing of the tax measures, lose a considerable amount of money due to contract commitments which cannot be corrected to reflect increased costs that they will face. This is from a constituency which I am sure the Tory Party would have considered to be its own and which is now extremely angry due to the actions undertaken by the Government.
Cutting off debate is a pretty sorry way of demonstrating commitment to the democratic process and a pretty sorry way of reflecting a commitment to consultation. We are now told that not only will we have limitation of debate with respect to Bill C-80, but the equity Bill is going to be subject to the same kind of motion. That is the Bill, Mr. Speaker, that says that the Government is going to be counting minorities and counting them twice to see which corporations are naughty and which are nice. The debate on that Bill will be limited as well, in spite of the fact that it is a matter of extreme concern and has been the subject of numerous reports. Consultation has taken place on that subject but has resulted in a Bill which does not at all reflect the consultation that took place.
To return to the subject matter of the Bill before us today, it is a tax measure which has previously been described as regressive. We need not engage in fine arguments about that obvious fact, but I will simply point out that as a result of this legislation an invidual earning $20,000 per annum will pay an additional 1.4 per cent in sales and excise taxes while an individual earning $40,000 a year will only pay an additional nine-tenths of one per cent.
There is another aspect of this tax that is extremely significant and should be emphasized more than it has been in the House, and that is the effect of actions of the federal Government upon municipalities. Municipalities throughout the


Time Allocation
nation are limited in the funding of their activities due to another regressive tax, the property tax. Recently the Federation of Canadian Municipalities pointed out that there is in the neighbourhood of $10 billion to $12 billion of infrastructure needs that must be pursued and paid for but cannot be with the limited resources available to municipalities. In the particular case of Windsor the increased taxes imposed by the federal Government will lead to an additional $1 million in budget requirements for 1986. Therefore, an increasing burden is being placed upon an already burdened sector of Government, the closest to ordinary people, which will now have to increase another regressive tax, the property tax-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, but the Hon. Member's time has expired. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I will continue with the remarks of the hon. gentleman pertaining to municipalities. It is a funny thing to see Bills presented in the House which adversely affect municipalities, and at the same time to see Government action to try to collect moneys due the Crown from small and large municipalities as the hon. gentleman just pointed out. I believe that the Department of Finance has a lot of explaining to do in this area, especially when it reviews its books and discovers that in the early 1970s certain municipalities in the country owed it money. In effect, in 1985 it is saying that the municipalities must pay what it is believed they owe dating back to 1972 and 1973, and they must also pay interest on that money.
In Newfoundland alone there are 80 municipalities which are judged to owe the Department of Finance funds due to a misunderstanding in an agreement between the federal and provincial Governments. The Department of Finance says that this is the time to collect. This is the time that the Government of Canada wishes to collect as much money as it can. It is telling these 80 municipalities that they owe money plus interest dating back to the early 1970s. As the hon. gentleman pointed out a moment ago, on the one hand the Government hits them with a tax increase on items which will adversely affect development in those municipalities and thereby cripple their ability to collect extra revenues while, on the other hand, they are told that they owe money, dating back to the 1970s, and must verify that they owe these amounts of money and confirm that these debentures are correct. While it is likely that this problem is confined to certain municipalities, there is certainly an imbalance when the Government turns around to say it will cut back on various services.
The Bill we are concerned with today provides for the imposition of sales taxes on energy conservation equipment. There is also the imposition of sales tax on previously exempt construction and building materials. At the same time, the Government of Canada will discontinue programs that assisted the construction industry, the lumber industry and the carpenters and plumbers who are out of work. We know what has happened to the RRAP program, the COSP program, the
CHIP program and other programs. As a result of discontinuing these programs, the federal Government will adversely affect the number of jobs and the amount of money that flows to the very small communities in this nation, including communities in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and rural Quebec. Not only is the federal Government discontinuing these programs which were absolutely necessary in these rural areas, it is imposing taxes on previously exempt materials that involved the construction industry in those small communities.
The Government, through this Bill, proposes to increase the excise tax on wines. We should consider the control mechanisms that are in place in the various Government departments. Will those sections of the department be subject to the same policy of control and no expansion of person years that we are seeing throughout the federal bureaucracy? At a time of controversy concerning the contents of certain imported wines in this country, Canadians also see a Minister who is abrogating his responsibility under the Food and Drug Act in this area, passing the matter on to the liquor control boards, while at the same time increasing the excise tax on those particular products.
We on this side of the House are most amazed by the Government's policy concerning closure. There is a small Opposition in today's Parliament, yet the federal Government decides to use closure practically every day. It has been used by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall). Other Ministers have introduced closure on other Bills. We have never seen a Government introduce closure on so many Bills.
I am sure that Canadians have not forgotten that prior to the election campaign Conservatives complained that the Liberal Government rammed Bills through Parliament by the use of closure. If one were to read the speeches made by Conservatives prior to the election, one could see how they condemned the Government for the use of closure in order to ram measures through Parliament. However, what do we see? Today we see a tax Bill being rammed through Parliament with the use of closure. It might be understandable if there was a large Opposition which filled all of the benches on the left side of the Speaker, but the fact is that there is only a small Opposition. This oppressive Conservative Government has decided to impose closure to shut people up and ram an unprecedented number of Bills through Parliament in a short period of time.
The fact is that I am sure most Canadians know why the Government is doing this. We believe it is attempting to shut down Parliamant for an extended period of time, perhaps to give time off to its MPs. However, why do MPs want time off? Their duty is to be in the House of Commons. Certainly they do not need two or three months off at Christmas-time. Does that mean that the employees of the House of Commons will have a vacation? No, the employees of the House of Commons-


Mr. Boudria:: They cannot even get one day off.


Mir. Baker: No, they cannot even get time off now when they want it, under this administration.
However, the Government would give MPs a vacation so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and cabinet Ministers would not be under fire in the House of Commons and would not have to face the press. That is why closure is being used on so many Bills before the House. What is most outrageous about this closure motion is that the Bill we are dealing with proposes tax increases that will affect poor people more than rich people. As various organizations have indicated recently in the national media, this Bill affects poor people like poor fishermen and poor farmers of whom there are many in this country because of adverse weather conditions and so on. It affects poor people in general more so than it affects Members of Parliament, lawyers, doctors and those who own a lot of property.
The Government will impose a sales tax on items that were previously exempted and on which poorer Canadians spent a proportionately larger amount of their income. For that reason, this is a bad measure which should not be passed through this Parliament. The time allowed to debate this measure should not be limited simply because the Government wants to get off the hook. It should not be rammed through Parliament by closure because MPs want an extended Christmas vacation. Those reasons do not wash with the poor people of this country.
It is unfortunate that it is the poor people who sometimes do not have the opportunity to make us aware of how certain measures will affect them. We must remember that poor people use gasoline, pet food, carbonated beverages and they eat candy and confectionery.
You are rising to cut me off, Mr. Speaker. I have been speaking for only Five minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You have been speaking for 10 minutes. I regret, but that the Hon. Member's time has expired. I always enjoy listening to him.
[ Translation]


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your French. I would like to take part in this debate on closure. It is now the fourth time since the session was resumed last September that the Government has imposed closure on our debates. The Government imposed closure to put an end to the debate on a Bill which involved an expenditure of some $875 million to assist the depositors of two Western Canadian banks. Then, closure was imposed on the deindexing of family allowances. The Government has also announced its intention to impose closure on the employment equity legislation. This Bill is very weak, Mr. Speaker, and it will finally cost about $2 billion annually to the taxpayers, but the Government is still imposing closure after only 11 hours of debate.

I want to participate in the debate on this Bill because I am very upset not only about the Bill-I have had an opportunity
Time Allocation
to speak on it-but with the process being used by the Government in this particular case. The Government has imposed closure on four occasions this fall. It is becoming clear that after six or seven hours of debate on any major measure, the Government becomes nervous and its finger begins to quiver at the trigger to terminate debate. The disturbing thing is that this was the case, as it was with Bill C-80, when the opposition Parties, certainly the NDP, were prepared to agree with the Government to bring the debate to a close, to have the vote, to indicate our opposition and to let the matter go to a legislative committee.
I was particularly disturbed by the intervention of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). He, above all, as a theologian and a man concerned about civil liberties, should be concerned about what is happening to this Parliament as a consequence of the frequent use of closure by the new Government. Prior to September 4, last year, I recall how many times the Conservatives objected to the Liberal Government because, they said, that the Government of the day was ramming through legislation. Yet closure is now being used as frequently by the Conservatives, the new Government, or more so than it was by the Liberals before them. In their view it is becoming an accepted parliamentary practice. As far as my Party and I are concerned, it is not an acceptable parliamentary practice.
The Government is undermining the spirit of the reforms of Parliament on which a special committee of the House of Commons submitted three report and which all Parties have been trying unanimously to reinforce. We are trying to reinforce Parliament, on the one hand, and the Government, on the other hand, is doing its best to undermine Parliament by terminating debate.
Was the termination justified in this case? No, it was not. We had debated a multi-billion dollar tax measure for a matter of 10 hours or 11 hours. Frankly, that is not very much time. We had reached the point where, according to the House rules, the contributions of Hon. Members limited to 10 minutes apiece. That means that if every member of the Opposition had a chance to speak on second reading debate, we would perhaps have had another eight hours or ten hours of debate, or maybe two days or three days of debate; no more than that.
In my view it is unreasonable for the Government to jump to the closure remedy when in fact there is not a problem which justifies the use of it. By using closure and by abusing it in this way, for whatever reasons it may be doing so, the Government runs the grave risk that the co-operation which this place needs in order for the House of Commons to work will be permanently lost.
The new rules provide for the creation of legislative committees. Those committees were intended to free up the standing committees of the House so that those standing committees could look into matters of special importance. At the same time, they were intended to expedite the Government's han-


Time Allocation
dling of House business. A legislative committee would be established as soon as a Bill passed second reading and would begin meetings, as has been the practice now for several weeks, within three days or four days of second reading being given to a Bill by the House of Commons. Therefore, the Bill had the possibility of coming back for report stage and third reading in a very short period of time. There have been some problems in the early days of the legislative committees with Government Members, in my view, being too insistent that the legislative committee terminate its work very quickly. Nonetheless, the idea in part is that there would be trade-offs between what happened in the House of Commons and what happened in the legislative committees. If, however, the Government is not prepared to talk through the usual channels about how that will be done, if it intends to use closure to terminate debate and then use its majority in the steering committee of legislative committees to limit the consideration of Bills when it gets down to the details, the frustration of opposition Members will have to find an outlet. The concerns which we express on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast will have to find an outlet. In my opinion, that will inevitably lead to a situation where report stage or third reading stage of Bills will be prolonged, perhaps unnecessarily as far as the Government is concerned, or to a situation where the Government, having fallen into the trap of using closure on second reading, will wind up using closure on every stage of Bills before the House of Commons.
Some Hon. Members have said that they think the Government has a hidden agenda. They want us out of this place at Christmas. They want to have a rest for a couple of months so that they can regroup. I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) smiling in assent to my particular statement. Obviously she is agreeing. Maybe she disagrees; maybe she does not think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should be going in this particular direction. Maybe she feels that this is an unworkable strategy being imposed upon Cabinet by the eminence grise in the Prime Minister's Office who thinks that this is the way to get the Government back on the right rails. Let me tell her that the Government would do a much better service to the people of Canada, if it intends to change direction, by keeping Parliament in operation and by bringing us back on January 15, rather than running away from us. It could come back with a new agenda on January 15, and we would be prepared to consider it. It should not hide and abuse Parliament by using closure. It should not use these procedural tricks. It should not undermine democracy, which is exactly what is happening by the use of closure.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we are not objecting simply to the Bill. The problem now concerns the responsibilities and rights of Parliament itself. If the Government imposes closure on all its legislation at the second reading stage in the House of Commons' the Opposition parties will inevitably have to find other means to express the
views of Canadians on legislation which our Party finds unacceptable for the great majority of Canadians.
Of course, in the parliamentary system, the Government has the right, and we accept this, to hold votes, and to have the assurance that its measures will be considered, and with a majority, probably adopted. However, if the Government tries to put an end too abruptly to the debate by imposing closure, we shall find ourselves in a similar situation to that existing under the former Liberal Government.
As for us, Mr. Speaker, we have often said that the two parties are like Visa and Mastercard, or as my friend Jean-Paul Harney in Quebec says, they are like Ding and Dong. It is very difficult to differentiate between the former Liberal Government and this Conservative Government.
Last year, on September 4, Canadians voted for a real change. They wanted a Parliament that they could see working. They believed the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he promised an era of civility in this Parliament. However, we will have no civility, Mr. Speaker, with measures like the motion of closure now being imposed by the new Government and it is not just one instance but four in the course of this session, and apparently, the Government intends to continue its abuse of Parliament. I deplore this behaviour, and I ask the Government to abandon a measure that undermines the rights of Parliament.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the House is meeting this morning to consider once again a motion of closure presented by the Conservative Government, a Government that was elected little more than a year ago with a huge majority, a Government whose majority in the House is sufficient for the Government to operate and make the parliamentary system work.
That being said, why is a Government with such a large majority abusing the powers it has in this House? Mr. Speaker, last year, when the Conservatives made their promises to Canadian voters, did they promise that if they were elected, they would abuse their democratic powers in the House? 1 don't think so, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, during the election campaign, the Conservatives promised Canadian voters many things, but they did not promise to abuse their power.

This is probably the most controversial Budget ever introduced in the history of the country. The Budget introduced by the Conservative Government is an awful one. The Budget is so bad that the Government has decided to try to salvage whatever credibility, as small as it may be, it may have left. It has decided to rid itself of what may be left on the political agenda.
How has it done this? First, the Government has a grand scheme whereby it will move closure wherever it can, get everything off the legislative agenda, adjourn the session, and


return in February or something like that. 1 should like to indicate how that strategy works on paper.


Mr. Ravis:: Where did you get your information from?


Don Boudria: 1 hear the Conservative Member. I must say that if he is a Conservative and has not figured it out yet, surely the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Cabinet are keeping him in the dark a lot more than they are keeping the rest of us in the dark. He must feel like a mushroom.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In more ways than one.


Don Boudria: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), says, "In more ways than one".
Returning to the Conservative strategy, the Government has decided to remove everything from the Order Paper of the House. It will withdraw Bills, let some die on the Order Paper and pass other Bills quickly because its credibility has been so badly affected by the Budget, the issue of the banks and everything else. The grand scheme, as I have just described it, will work on paper. However, in reality, it will not work that way at all. By attempting to stifle Parliament, Conservative Members will not gain any more respect from the voters.
Conservative Members have the theory that if Parliament does not sit, the Opposition cannot ask embarrassing questions and if the Opposition cannot ask embarrassing questions, the Ministers will not be embarrassed and will presumably rise in public opinion even if they keep on making the mistakes that they have made in the past. That is what Conservative Members think.

However, Canadians are smarter than that, Mr. Speaker. Canadians have already realized this Government made far too many promises, and that in many cases, it is not in a position to keep the promises it made to Canadian voters, and furthermore, has no intention of doing so.

Perhaps you are asking yourself, Mr. Speaker, why I am saying this. Let me give you some tangible proof. I have raised in the past the fact that Conservative Members made many promises to the Canadian people. I have here my little booklet of 338 Tory promises, a booklet which, incidentally, I will gladly send to any voter who makes a written request to my office. May I just add that several Canadians have already written to me asking for copies of this booklet. I am always glad to oblige.
My booklet indicates that 113 Tory promises involved spending more money and five promises involved spending less money. There were two promises to increase revenues and 26 promises to decrease revenues. Earlier on this morning, a Conservative Member, and I think it was an Hon. Member from Scarborough, had the unmitigated gall to say that the
Time Allocation
Government was elected to decrease the deficit. If the Government was elected to decrease the deficit, why did the Tories make so many promises to spend more money? Perhaps the Conservative Member across the way can tell us how he can save money by promising to spend more. Perhaps he can explain all this to us.
What has the Government done? It has cut back all over the place. It has cut back on very important social programs. It has cut back in the public sector. It has cut back almost everywhere. Has it done this to decrease the deficit? No, Mr. Speaker, it has done this to give the money to its rich friends. That is what the Government has done. They are using the money to make political appointments and bank bail-outs.
I understand that another Hon. Member wishes to speak briefly. I will give him the opportunity to do so because this is a very important debate and unfortunately Hon. Members have been stifled.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the one minute left to me I would like to say that if I had known that the Government intended to use time allocation in the way it is now using it, I would never have supported the changes to the Standing Orders. I would never have supported moving to 10-minute speeches on second reading debate. That move was intended to allow the Government to plan its agenda and to foresee how long debate on certain Bills might take given that some Bills would take longer than others to debate.
When we studied the changes to the Standing Orders, it was never thought that the Government would find it necessary, or desirable if not necessary, to use time allocation as it is now using it on almost every single debate. I find it offensive that the Government has chosen to do so.
When we sat together as a committee some two years ago or more, we agreed that there was a need to change the Standing Orders in order to allow for a speedier passage of Bills at the second reading stage and to allow the Government to see how long debates might take given that until fairly recently, speeches went on for half an hour each for an indeterminate period of time. I am disappointed that the Government is now, in my opinion, breaching what I understood to be the agreement that we would not see the unfettered use of time allocation in the way we are now seeing it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being 1.05 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 84 have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mrs. McDougall, moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-80, an act to amend the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and that fifteen 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


Time Allocation
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.
Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 
Claudy Mailly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, an Opposition Member entered the House after the vote was called, and I would like to say that the Member in question was the Hon. Member for the riding of Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr. Dingwall).


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. I was not in my place when the vote was called but 1 was here while the vote was being taken.


Mr. Speaker:: In which case, the Hon. Member's vote may not be counted.
1 declare the motion carried.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I recently had occasion to glance through a colourful brochure entitled The House of Commons/la Chambre des Communes. Inside the pamphlet it states: "The House of Commons is the focal point of parliamentary democracy". I agree that it certainly is that.
My interest having been aroused, I looked further into this brochure only to be confronted by an empty Speaker's chair. Curious. It is not the chair itself which is vital to this focal point of democracy, but rather its occupant. Fearing the worst,


Mr. Speaker, 1 turned to the end of the brochure and, yes, there it was-an empty Chamber!
Whoever prepared this otherwise attractive pamphlet failed to realize that this lovely, old, noe-Gothic hall is irrelevant without its Members. Without the people's representatives, Sir, it ceases to be the focal point of democracy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this publication will be withdrawn very soon and, when it is reissued, let it depict Your Honour presiding over a full and active House. Democracy is not an empty Chamber, it is a rigorous reality.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, regardless of who finally wins in Guatemala's presidential election, the fundamental problems of human rights abuses must be faced before Guatemala can have any international respect. Showcase elections cannot lead to an open, democratic society so long as 900,000 Guatemalans are forced into civilian patrols, a conscripted army of occupation over their own brothers and sisters.
There cannot be any open society so long as people are herded into so-called model villages where they are under constant military surveillance. There can be no open society so long as trade unionists, church leaders, and university students and professors are made to disappear whenever they speak out for change. There can be no open society so long as the undeclared war continues against Guatemala's Indian people.
The present, Government of General Mejia Victores has refused even to meet with high level mediators for the families of the disappeared who continue to occupy the cathedral in Guatemala City. The Canadian Government must speak out on these fundamental abuses of human rights, and I urge individual Canadians to join me in sending telegrams to the Guatemalan Government demanding a full accounting for the families of the disappeared.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian Pacific Railway, a private sector company controlled by shareholders, negotiated with three of its major bargaining groups representing about one-half of Canadian Pacific Railway's unionized employees. In their settlements it was agreed to eliminate free passenger passes for current employees. In its new pension plan the company will introduce an early retirement provision at age 55 and replace the pass privileges with a new extended health care plan. While the new health care plan could be commended, it does not necessarily enhance health benefits for current CP pensioners residing in
Ontario or Saskatchewan who already enjoy extensive health coverage.
Since the unions do not represent current CP Rail pensioners, nor are they legally allowed to negotiate on their behalf, the company unilaterally revoked pass privileges from its pensioners without sufficient consultation. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on all sides of the House to offer their support to the pensioners in their efforts to have the option of retaining their pass privileges. The reason for my statement is to help the elderly who need help.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Today, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to pay particular homage to the best Government this country has had for a very long time. It has been years and years since the Canadian economy has felt so buoyant. Day after day it is becoming ever more obvious that this Government is rebuilding our economy.
In the first nine months of 1985, Mr. Speaker, the value of building permits has gone up 20 per cent over the same period last year. The inflation rate has been hovering at about 4 per cent for more than a year and the climate is more stable than it has ever been since 1971. In the first nine months of 1985 bankruptcies have decreased by 12 per cent as compared with the same period last year.
That is why I would like to congratulate this outstanding Conservative Party team and the greatest Prime Minister of all times.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government's silence on the Japanese Canadian redress issue gets more depressing. Over the weekend in Calgary the President of the National Association of Japanese Canadians stated: "Mr. Mulroney indicated prior to the election that if he were Prime Minister he would surely compensate Japanese Canadians, but now he says they really aren't going to compensate us. 1 guess power does that".
The Government's attitude is distasteful. Despite his campaign pledges for a fair and speedy resolution, the Prime Minister shamefully and arrogantly continues to refuse even to meet the Association.
Also, the new Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) has failed to make any public announcements on this


to date. Instead of resuming official talks between his Government and the National Association, he prefers to conduct ad hoc, informal chats. The issue demands and deserves much more than that.
There is well-founded fear within the community that the redress issue is not a priority of the Prime Minister. Moreover, they believe that the "reinvention of the wheel" process conducted by the new Minister of State for Multiculturalism is ineffectual and time-delaying. I, therefore, call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to maintain their electoral promises and to reconvene immediately official negotiations with the National Association so that the redress issue can be dealt with in an expeditious, fair, and honourable manner.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, there is growing concern among employees of the federal Government about the Conservatives' budget decision to fire large numbers of federal public employees. Last May the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that the Government would eliminate some 15,000 public service jobs within five years. However, the reports that have leaked out give a rough count from just a few Departments of more than 10,000 cuts, many of which are scheduled to take place in the coming fiscal year. If this trend continues, we may see the 60,000 cuts that the Clark Government attempted to make in the Public Service. This will result in a significant loss of service to Canadians, and represent hardship for many employees who have honourably served Canada for many years.
Clear information is lacking, and the Government's system of redeployment of surplus employees simply will not be able to cope with the large number of lay-offs now being announced or threatened. As the Auditor General pointed out last week, the Public Service Commission is not effectively monitoring the situation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the Government's decision to use the reverse order of merit in determining staff cuts is inviting abuse on the part of departmental managers who are free to operate with a policy of vengeance and vindictiveness as they target for cuts employees they have never liked. I call on the Government to take private sector examples which show that, if lay-offs cannot be avoided, the seniority principle is the best way to determine who is to lose their jobs. I call on the Government to use the seniority principle, starting now, and to reinforce job security for public employees rather than undermining it.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT TO ASSIST BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, since coming to office one year ago the Progressive Conservative Government has initiated new programs and improved existing ones that directly benefit British Columbia. These include the over-all umbrella ERDA, a $525 million funding agreement for economic development, between the federal Government and the Province of British Columbia.
The five-year agreement will provide joint funding for initiatives in forestry, industrial development, tourism, agriculture, and mineral exploration. Over the term of the agreement it is expected that 15,000 person years of employment will be generated in forest management. A full-time federal forestry Minister was appointed in response to concerns expressed by British Columbia, which is by far the largest producer of forestry products in Canada.
The Government is actively involved in negotiations with the United States to head off U.S. tariffs on Canadian products.
The latest figures from Statistics Canada prove that the Government is doing a good job for B.C. The Retail sales in B.C. this August were up 11 per cent compared to August of last year. The unemployment rate in B.C. has fallen from 15 per cent to 13 per cent. There are 23,000 more jobs in B.C. since September of 1984. Business bankruptcies in B.C. in the first nine months of this year were down 16 per cent relative to the same time last year. British Columbia exports in the first half of 1985 are up by 8.3 per cent. Mr. Speaker, these are positive steps, but there is still more to be done.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don) raising a matter in the House last Friday concerning an environment problem in the St. Clair River and my riding of Kent.
I must emphasize that we can and indeed should trust the ability and expertise of the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Environment Ministry, as well as Environment Canada. Having said that, I want to encourage continuation of the extensive efforts to determine the source of toxic material found in the sludge at the bottom of the river, and to ensure on-site monitoring equipment at water intake points.
Quoting unidentified sources which indicate that the St. Clair River is more polluted than the Love Canal has succeeded in putting communities like the town of Wallaceburg in a panic position. The Town Council must and should rely on reports it is receiving from the Ministry. Politicians who attempt to gain visibility and recognition by spreading fear,


should be ashamed. Smearing the ability of a team of Canada's best scientists, who were already on the scene before the Member for Essex-Windsor made his pitch to panic residents, is appalling.
Wallaceburg Town Council should be congratulated for being aware of the seriousness of the situation, and also for the professional way in which they have co-operated with the health officials. It is safety first, along with common sense, in Wallaceburg. I would urge my hon. colleague from Essex-Windsor to confine fear tactics to his own riding.


AIR TRANSPORT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, you would think that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) would have some say in Cabinet when it comes to issues like transportation in the North. However, much to my chagrin, Cabinet has not chosen to listen to the strong supportive letter which was directed to Ann Marie Dawe, President of the Consumers' Association of Canada, Yellowknife local, which states:
Dear Ms. Dawe:
I share your concerns regarding the removal of the $30 ceiling on the air transportation tax as expressed in your letter of July 24, 1985. I will be raising this issue with my Cabinet colleagues with a view to obtaining an exemption from the tax increase for northern and remote areas.
Such an exemption was also supported in a letter from another Minister, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta). Such an exemption was also supported by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and by the Hon. Member from Yellowknife. Four eminent Members of the Conservative Party believe that it is wrong to impose further air taxes on travel in northern Canada.
Why have the Cabinet and the Government ignored the representations of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the representations of the Deputy Prime Minister, the representations of the local Member, and the representations of the Minister of State for Tourism on an issue which quite clearly penalizes the people of northern Canada?
I would ask that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance review this-


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


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the recent recommendation by the Canadian Microelectronics Corporation, a non-profit organization funded by the
Presence in Gallery
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, that the Government fund the establishment of two silicon chip facilities.
Having worked over the past year with members of the Ottawa-Carleton high technology community in encouraging the Government in this initiative, I am particularly pleased that CMC has recommended Ottawa as one of the sites for the proposed centres. The corporation has suggested that the Ottawa centre would co-exist with the Ontario centre for microelectronics, presently located in my riding of Ottawa West.
This is an important announcement, not just for "Silicon Valley North" in that it recognizes this region's unparallelled high technology infrastructure, but for the development of science and technology in Canada that is so essential for the continued economic growth of Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National Railways have been double tracking throughout western Canada. In the Kamloops area, the construction of a second track has caused serious ground vibrations throughout a major part of the city. Co-operation between city council, CN and concerned citizens resulted in a study which indeed revealed that it was serious ground tremors, as a result of a second track, that have caused structural damage to the homes of a number of residents.
The matter has been brought to the attention of the Chairman and members of the Standing Committee on Transport as well as of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). Both have indicated that they would look into this situation.
I urge the Minister of Transport in particular to contact Canadian National and encourage them to slow down the trains as they go through this critical area in order to minimize the vibration and structural damage, and to compensate those home owners who can justify clearly that they have in fact experienced structural damage to their homes as a result of CN's double-tracking program.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Edwin Meese, Attorney General of the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Acting Minister of Communications, apparently following a policy enunciated by the former Minister of Communications, had advocated a strong Canadian cultural policy with respect to our book publishing industry. This has particular relevance in view of the potential takeover of Prentice-Hall.
My question arises out of a reported letter from our Ambassador to the United States to the effect that this posture on behalf of the Canadian Government is jeopardizing our negotiations in the matter of trade with the United States.
What is the policy of the Government of Canada, reflecting upon the potential takeover of Prentice-Hall? Who is speaking for the Government; the Acting Minister of Communications or the advocacy of our Ambassador to the United States?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the House and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would know, the Prentice-Hall question is before Investment Canada for decision and that decision will be taken there.
I should reiterate to him, as he well knows, the determination of this Government to maintain and strengthen the cultural industries and cultural expression of Canada, whether that is in any negotiations that might occur with the United States, or elsewhere.
My collegue, the Acting Minister of Communications, and I, have made it quite clear that we intend to meet personally with representatives of the cultural industries in Canada, including the publishing industry, to make sure that their interests are well reflected and well protected in any negotiation that might occur.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES-CANADIAN POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if that is to be taken as a statement by our Secretary of State for External Affairs, it means his ambassador in the United States is in for a letdown.
In any case, could the Minister clarify the position of the Government of Canada? Is our publishing industry on the table as a subject for negotiations with the United States, yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not new to Government. He knows perfectly well it is an ambassador's
responsibility to reflect the situations he encounters. That is one of the duties of our ambassadors. I am proud to say that Canadian ambassadors are performing their duties very effectively.
As far as the Hon. Member's question is concerned, it is clear that the Canadian Government, through the statement made by my hon. colleague, the former Minister of Communications as well as by other means, has given a clear signal of our determination, not only to protect but to promote the development of our cultural industries, and that includes our publishing industry.


AGENDA FOR NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think our Ambassador to the United States, within the terms of his letter, was not only reflecting the reactions that he met in the United States but was also advocating a diluting of our cultural nationalism. I think it was clear from his letter.
My question for the Minister is made necessary because the Government has adopted a strategy of keeping Canadians in the dark as to what is on the table and what is not on the table; what is a subject for negotiation and what is not a subject for negotiation. Is our publishing industry part of a negotiating item on the agenda with the United States, or is it a matter that will be left apart and intact?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was a member of Governments which concluded international trading negotiations in the GATT and elsewhere, from which the people of Canada were excluded utterly. That approach has been changed by this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There has already been a process of consultation more complete than any which has been known in this country, in preparation for any negotiations that may occur with the United States.


Mr. Broadbent:: Now answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: That consultation will continue. There have been meetings with provincial Ministers of Trade. There will be, as I have indicated, meetings directly between myself and the Acting Minister of Communications with representatives of the cultural industries.
Obviously some of our cultural industries are interested in achieving access to the larger markets which are available in the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Some of them are; obviously some of them are not.


Mr. Ouellet:: The answer is yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the purpose of the consultation in which the Government is involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


STATUS OF BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Presently we do not have tariffs on books coming across our borders. Right now, $600 million worth of American books come across our borders duty free.
From what the Acting Prime Minister just said, are you caving in to the kind of pressures which will open up our borders-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Sheila Finestone: If the book publishing industry is central to Canadian nationhood, is it or is it not on that hit list to be considered under free trade negotiations?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there is no hit list. The Hon. Member has indicated that there is a situation in which United States books come tariff free into the country. The Hon. Member will also know that there are a number of Canadian operations publishing books and other periodicals which are interested in access to a larger market. We think, if there is to be a negotiation with the United States, it would be the height of folly for us to say, before those negotiations began, that we are going to cut off the opportunity for Canadian publishers to have access to larger markets. We are interested in strengthening the situation of the Canadian publishing industry, and we are determined to do that.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I asked the Minister, and I shall therefore repeat my question.
This Government reestablished the rules of the game for the Canadian publishing industry. It published them in the Canada Gazette in July. Am I to understand today that the Government is going to change and modify the rules of the game for these sensitive cultural sectors?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for a long time, Government policy in Canada, as embodied in the Liberal Government, failed to defend Canada's cultural interests, and it was because of this that the former Minister of Communications made a policy
Oral Questions
statement on the publishing industry in July. Of course, a policy formulated by a Minister of our Government is a policy of this Government, that is clear.


AMBASSADOR'S ALLEGED LETTER-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In July, the former Minister, the Hon. Member for Frontenac, announced a tougher Canadianization policy in the publishing industry. In August, we now know, our Ambassador in the United States sent a letter advocating the abolition of this policy, warning of a scorched earth attack emanating from the U.S. unless it was abandoned. On September 26, the very day the Prime Minister announced trade talks with the U.S., the Government also announced the abandonment of the policy in the takeover of Classic Books, no doubt hoping that it would be buried in the news. My question to the Minister is a simple one. Why did you abandon Canadian interest in the face of this U.S. pressure?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I suppose, with a Member less experienced with the House of Commons, two errors in parliamentary procedure would be excusable. They are not, with the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. First, he knows that he is talking about a leak, a rumoured leak.


John Napier Turner: Rumoured leak!


Charles Joseph Clark: He is talking about the leak of a document which may or may not have been written by the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, with regard to the policy of the Government of Canada indicated by the Minister of Communications. That policy, initiated or stated by a Minister of the Government, is obviously the policy of the Government.


UNITED STATES PRESSURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely our concern, and we want a change in that policy. That is what we are talking about.
On the weekend following the resignation of the Minister of Communications, we also had the U.S. Ambassador to Canada appealing to put our cultural industry on the negotiating block. Last Monday, Secretary of State Shultz, in a meeting with the Minister, specifically called for the publishing industry to be put on the block.
Once again I ask the Minister why he is yielding to U.S. pressure. Why does he not stand up for Canadian cultural integrity and say that our publishing industry is not up for negotiation?


Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the point is clear to the people acquainted with the interests of the publishing industry in Canada, that there are some aspects of that industry which are concerned about the possibility of negotiations with the United States. There are some aspects of that industry which are looking forward to the opportunity for substantial, new markets being available to them, available to Canadian publications. The Government of Canada is committed, without any question, to expanding and strengthening the Canadian publishing industry. That is why we are going to be involving representatives of that publishing industry directly in our preparations for any negotiations that might ensue. We want to protect those who require protection. We want to achieve larger access for those who are looking forward to larger access. That strenghtens Canadian cultural industries. That is what we are seeking to do.


PRENTICE-HALL TAKEOVER BID
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish, for once, the Minister would answer a direct question. Since the alleged letter from our alleged Ambassador in the U.S. said that there would be a scorched earth policy emanating from the U.S. if the Prentice-Hall takeover bid in Canada was not approved, will the Government announce now that it will not approve this takeover bid, and give us a clear answer? Will the Minister say that our publishing industry will not be negotiated, will not be part of the trade talks, and that the Government of Canada will stand up and protect our cultural sovereignty, at least in this area?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government has already acted to protect Canada's sovereignty in so far as the Arctic and the North are concerned, after two decades in which that was ignored and abandoned by the Liberal Government, supported by the NDP. That was one action to establish the sovereignty of Canada.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A $1 billion flag-pole.


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to the Prentice-Hall decision, that is before the Investment Canada Board now. There will be a decision by the end of December, and the Hon. Member knows it. He should not tie his interest so absolutely to newspaper reports. If he is interested in those questions, his credibility would climb if he pursues those questions on their merits, not because they simply become a subject of publicity.
With regard to the cultural integrity of our country, the Government is determined to maintain and strengthen our cultural integrity. To repeat myself, we know that there are aspects of the cultural industry which are concerned about potential negotiations. We are taking account of that. We know there are sections of the Canadian cultural industry which look forward to larger markets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is the Minister aware of the Eagle Combat and Bodyguard School near Vancouver, run by a veteran of guerilla wars in Africa and allegedly providing training for guerilla and mercenary activities? Could the Minister tell us whether the RCMP has investigated this operation? Considering Canada's position on international terrorism, will the Government take steps to close it down?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that there is a training school providing self-defence and related training to the public, licensed and operating in New Westminster, British Columbia. It is operating under a municipal licence in British Columbia. Any questions which the hon. gentleman might have in that regard could be directed to the Attorney General of British Columbia.
There is no indication of any criminal offences being committed in connection with that school which teaches selfdefence and related training.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What related training?


John Carnell Crosbie: Surely we are entitled to learn the art of self-defence. That is something the Hon. Opposition might learn.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I ask if there is any place in Canada for a school like this, run by an ex-guerilla fighter in Africa, and for people, it seems, involved in militant international activities.
An Hon. Member:: Is there any proof of that?


Mr. Allmand:: I am asking that this be investigated-


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Is this an allegation?


William Warren Allmand: It seems that the Government approves of this type of school. I am asking the Minister if the Government has or is developing a policy to deal with schools like this which are proliferating in the United States and are of no good to a country like this.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a school that apparently provides general self-defence and bodyguard training, which training is offered to the general public.


John Napier Turner: You sound like a broken record.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you do not mind, I will answer the question. It is licensed and operates under a licence issued by the Municipality of New Westminster, British Columbia, and is doing nothing which we know is in violation of the law. What kind of procedure is the hon. gentleman suggesting should be taken in connection with such an institution that is not operating illegally and is licensed?


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With regard to Ambassador Gotlieb's communication of August 6 in which he advised the Government to reconsider its policy of increasing Canadian ownership in domestic book publishing, has the Minister instructed Ambassador Gotlieb that, in line with the cultural sovereignty arguments the Minister has been making, Canada will not be reconsidering its policy of increasing Canadian ownership of the Canadian book industry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government of Canada is clear, as stated by the former Minister of Communications in July. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party suggest a few moments ago that he wanted that policy to be reconsidered. That is his position, but the position of the Government of Canada is clear.
In so far as the Ambassador to the United States and anything he may or may not have said in private communication is concerned, the Ambassador knows, and the Hon. Member should know, that ambassadors give advice. It is Ministers who decide policy. The policy of the Government has been decided by a Minister of the Government as expressed by the former Minister of Communications.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the problem for the Ambassador is undoubtedly that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has said something contradicting the former Minister of Communications, as indeed did the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given these conflicting signals, will the Minister now communicate clearly to the Ambassador in Washington that it is not the Canadian Government's policy to renege on its policy of increasing Canadian ownership in Canadian book publishing?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one thing that is abundantly clear is
Oral Questions
that this Government, unlike the Government that preceded it, has been acting vigorously to promote, assert, and strengthen the sovereignty of Canada. We did that in the North, we have done it on other fronts, and we are doing that in publishing.
With regard to the publishing industry, we are aware that it is a complex industry with different interests. That is why we are consulting directly with cultural industries. We will provide support where it is needed. We will help to seek new markets where those are needed.


CONTAMINATED ITALIAN WINE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For the second time in as many months the Government has failed to protect the health interests of the nation. First the Government failed to remove the contaminated tuna until forced to do so by the Opposition. Now we have learned of the problem of contaminated Italian wine. Upon learning of the contamination of the wine, why did the Minister not issue an immediate health warning and follow it up with the complete removal of the contaminated wine from consumers' shelves?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House on Friday last, the information regarding contamination in certain Italian wines was received by the Department through various international sources at the end of August. The information was conveyed to the various provinces, and particularly to the Province of Quebec in late August. The provinces immediately undertook to start the testing for diethylene glycol. If the Hon. Member wants further information, I can give it to him as well. The provinces removed the wine from shelves pending further testing and further results.
The question that has to be addressed now is not that the federal Government become a quality control and inspection operation, as that is the responsibility of the provinces, but I have undertaken today to have officials of mine meet with the provinces to determine further what kind of testing should be put in place. That meeting will take place on November 21.


FEDERAL TEST FACILITIES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister going to order his Health Protection Branch officials to step up checking at border points? The Minister knows full well that there are several provinces in the country that do not have the facilities to test wines and therefore the consumers in those provinces will not have their health interests protected.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that allegation is not correct. For up to 20 years some of these chemicals have been present in wine without our knowledge. Since the incident with the Austrian wine, the


Oral Questions
Government has taken action. We have an agreement with the Austrian Embassy that it will inform us. We are now going to make the same agreement with the Italian Embassy. We have also put a test in place which the various provinces can use and are using. We are going to have the meeting on November 21 to take further action. We are taking action, and I wish the previous Government had looked after the matter as well.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. On Friday I had the honour to be in the Federal Court when Justice Jerome, in strong and clear language, said that the public's right to know how its tax dollars are spent far outweighs the tradition of secrecy that surrounds cabinet deliberations. There is now no excuse. The Government has had the weekend to look at this matter. Will the Government now release documents regarding the Petrofina takeover to Mr. Dye, the Auditor General?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am still reviewing that decision. 1 did not have the weekend to look it over since I was in Newfoundland over the weekend on other important matters. I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree that this is a very important matter and the principles involved are too important for any hasty decision to be made. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that a decision will be made this week.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF CABINET DOCUMENTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the hon. gentleman is stonewalling and being such a pussycat to the federal mandarins and the senior bureaucracy. He and his Party promised this in the election campaign. There is no excuse now. The decision was clear. Quit pussyfooting around, quit stonewalling, and release these documents to the Auditor General.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if we want to be factually correct, there was no promise made during the election campaign that the Auditor General or any other person would be given access to cabinet minutes, cabinet documents, correspondence of Ministers and the like. That was never promised, but that is the effect of this judgment which is not being reviewed. The hon. gentleman can be assured that the decision made will be in the best interests of the House, the country, and the Members of this House.


RESPONSIBILITY OF WINE IMPORTERS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that the importer is responsible for the quality of wine and its testing. Will the Minister also, through his responsibility under the law, make sure beyond any doubt that the importer does that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, under the authority of the Food and Drug Act, the federal Government, and specifically the Department through the Health Protection Branch, has that authority. Diethylene glycol is an additive which is illegal in any food, and wine is classified as food for these purposes. We will withdraw any of the wines that come into question. Happily, so far the provinces, through their commissions, wherever these questions have come up, have removed those wines voluntarily. There is absolutely no doubt from this Minister's point of view that that wine will be removed if any traces of the substance are found.


PRESENCE OF MONOBROMACETIC ACID
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke of diethylene glycol. Is the Minister aware that another dangerous substance called monobromacetic acid has been found in some wines entering North America? Is he aware of that? Can he tell the House what it is normally used for, apart from giving one a good kick?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it has been discovered in Austrian wines. To date, that is as of this morning, none of those wines have been imported into Canada, at least not to our knowledge as of noon today.
Sodium azide has been found in some Austrian wines. That is used as an additive for detonators.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. During the election campaign the Prime Minister stated it was totally unaccept-


able that the Liberal Government should refuse access to Cabinet documents concerning Petro-Canada's purchase of Petrofina. Can the Minister of Justice now explain why this Government continues to deny access to those documents, after last week's ruling by Mr. Justice Jerome?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may have had trouble understanding what I said in my previous answer. This is a very important decision with respect to constitutional questions of great importance to the country. That decision is now being reviewed. It is not just a question of having the Auditor General look at papers in connection with Petro-Canada's purchase of Petrofina. Why would we have any objection to that? The whole principle is whether or not the Auditor General can have access to every cabinet confidence and make it public if he wishes.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not every cabinet confidence.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not just a question of cabinet papers regarding Petro-Canada and Petrofina, which brings up the question: can Cabinet Governments survive if all deliberations of Cabinet are to become subject to public disclosure? That is the question I am considering. When the matter has been properly considered I will advise the House with respect to the decision.


REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL HAVE ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is as though the Liberal Government were still in office, for nothing has changed since September 4 last year. Given the crystal clear ruling of Federal Court of Canada Justice Jerome, could the Minister of Justice assure the House that the Government will not thwart the ruling by launching an appeal? Are you stating unequivocally that no appeal will be made in this case and that the Auditor General will indeed have access to the documents?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that there are a million reasons why this Government is in no way similar to the Liberal administration: the decline in interest rates, the increase in the GNP, and all other reforms which have been instituted since-


Some Hon. Members:: Enough, enough.


John Carnell Crosbie: There are many reasons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are two other problems. Both the Turner administration and the Trudeau administra-
Oral Questions
tion had the right to request that their papers be undisturbed by their successor administrations. That is also an issue involved in this matter. If Mr. Turner and Mr. Trudeau want to give consent to have their papers given to the Auditor General, then I would like to hear from them. I have not yet heard from them to that effect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have noted with grave concern the statements made by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor with respect to the presence of toxic substances in a dark material found at the bottom of the St. Clair River. The fact of the matter is that the Ministries of the Environment have known about this substance for a good number of years. Can the Minister of the Environment dispel the concerns generated by confirming that the dioxin found was contained only in the analyzed sediment samples and not in the water samples?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the Hon. Member about some of the exaggerated rhetoric being resorted to in connection with the question he has raised. I can confirm that while there was a tar-like substance found in the St. Clair River which was found to contain hazardous chemicals, those chemicals were not found in the river at large, let alone in the drinking water. We are concerned and we are exercising proper vigilance-but we are not panicking. We are most certainly not encouraging others to panic.
Let me simply say to the Hon. Member, and through him to his constituents, that analyses of the water in the river at large indicate that the amount of chemicals is well within the World Health Organization guidelines for drinking water.


IMPORTATION OF ADULTERATED WINES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it relates to tainted wines.
Despite the assurances the Minister is giving us today, one fact stands out-for more than a month new Quebec consumers have been exposed to wines which may contain diethylene glycol, something the Minister has known all along.
What I want to ask the Minister is simply this: How could he have been so indifferent to the health of Quebecers by


Oral Questions
failing to publish forthwith a list of tainted and sweetened wines and, instead of waiting for a whole month as he has done, to bring pressure to bear on the liquor board so that such products would have been immediately taken off the market?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, no, the Hon. Member is not correct in saying that I knew. As I said, the information which we receive internationally was passed on. Again, it needs testing. I guess one could make the argument that we should have pre-market testing of all wines before they enter Canada.
I specifically go back to the test for diethylene glycol which was a test performed after the first so-called Austrian incident. Quebec began testing. Quebec and Ontario are the only two provinces which have independent laboratories. All other provinces use either the Quebec or Ontario labs, or they use our labs or private ones. Even as late as October 16 those tests were very inconclusive. It was at that point in time that the Province of Quebec through the Societe des Alcools du Quebec, came to us and Ontario asking for further testing to see if we could corroborate what at that time were very inconclusive results.
I should also remind the Hon. Member that-


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


REQUEST THAT PRODUCTS BE TESTED ON ENTRY TO CANADA
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if it is now imperative to take a wine off the market, it was just as imperative to do so a month ago when it was thought to be dangerous to consumers' health.
Here is my question to the Minister: Can he assure us that henceforth products will be tested at the time of entry just so we know for a fact that wines unfit for consumption are not displayed in our liquor outlets and readily available to Canadian consumers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, as I am sure the Hon. Member is concerned, that those wines which are imported are not adulterated. I have to say to the Hon. Member that it is for that very reason the meeting has been called for November 21. It is to see what other system should be put in place to ensure that if any gaps exist they are closed, and to see who should handle the responsibility. That is why we have taken a co-operative effort with the commissions. They are co-operating with us. I think that after November 21, even as this matter evolves further, we will have made sure that every co-operation and effort have been made, as far as our knowledge base goes in these areas and that, in fact, everything is done that can be done.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The External Affairs publication Canadian Export Control Law and Policy was in effect until March 1 of this year when it was amended. Will the Minister confirm that in the amended version of the policy handbook he has deleted the restrictions prohibiting the export of military equipment to regimes considered to be wholly repugnant to Canadian values, especially where such equipment could be used against civilians? Did the Minister delete this category and, if so, why?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have to read the version of the document from which the Hon. Member quotes.
Le me take this opportunity to repeat a request I made to the Hon. Member some six months ago when he raised questions concerning export controls. I told him that I thought the questions he raised were important. 1 was reviewing them, and I still am. I asked him for his suggestions. I have heard nothing but silence from the Hon. Member since that time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will certainly have my list to the Secretary of State for External Affairs later today just to be specific about it.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. On June 18, the day to which the Minister has just referred, he stated that he and the Government had expressed their revulsion to Chilean authorities with respect to the practices of that regime. Prior to March 1 of that year the Minister authorized over $6 million in military exports. Did the Minister violate the export policy then as outlined up to that point? Did he amend this policy to legitimize selling military equipment to countries such as Chile?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no, I did not do that. However, I think what has been violated is an elemental sense of responsibility in the House. Day after day the members of the New Democratic Party, including the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, raised questions seeking action by the Government. In a range of fields, including export controls, we have invited Hon. Members in the Opposition, if they are sincerely interested in the issue and not simply in headlines, to help us to come to judgments on questions which are difficult and important. I repeat, I have made that offer to the New Democratic Party and we have heard nothing but silence and we have seen nothing but irresponsibility.


COMBINES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses) and concerns the Combines Investigation Act, which indicates very clearly that any combination that occurs in setting the prices of insurance premiums is illegal in Canada.
It is obvious that insurance companies have acted as a group to set the price of insurance premiums.
What is the Minister prepared to do for small businesses and municipalities which can expect a dramatic increase in the cost of their insurance premiums, indeed as much as 1,000 per cent?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to answer this question by pointing out to the Hon. Member that we are currently reviewing the Combines Investigation Act. We will be recommending various measures to Cabinet which will be adopted very shortly, and we will announce what these changes contain.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should stop the blarney and start acting.


INCREASE IN INSURANCE PREMIUM
Alfonso Gagliano: Would the Minister tell the House what he is going to do about the case of the Hilan Corporation in Almonte whose insurance was increased from $6,000 a year to $47,000 per year? What is the Minister going to do about that?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this will be part of the recommendations we will be suggesting to Cabinet and which will be adopted. My hon. colleague will be advised of what they contain at that time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Would the Minister tell the House how the Navy justifies a multimillion dollar refit for each of four destroyers when, as a Canadi-
Oral Questions
an Press report indicates, they will be destined for the scrap heap one year later?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, because of many, many years of neglect, we have a destroyer fleet which is in sad need of repair in order to make it safe for sailors to go to sea. There is a program to replace these destroyers with new frigates actively under way. In that meantime there is a need to refit the existing destroyers for the reason I have just given. We are doing that in a way to minimize the cost involved, yet make it possible for our ships to satisfy our NATO requirements.
The press reports are inaccurate. The first destroyer will be tied up in 1988 when the first of the new frigates is commissioned. As other frigates are added, the ships will be mothballed. But it will all be done in an orderly fashion so that we can maintain our commitments to NATO and at the same time do it as economically as possible.


LOBBYING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Friday, in answer to a question about a future Bill for registering lobbyists, the Minister is quoted in Hansard as saying: "Of course, we are examining all options to prepare a Bill which will meet the needs of the business sector". Will the Minister now rise in this House and explain what he meant by that statement? Would he also explain whether or not in the legislation he will guarantee that the names of the clients will be listed, as well as the amount of the fees and, more important, the amount expended by lobbyists for their clients will be made public?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Friday in my answer that we were looking at recommendations and various alternatives, since we want to be in a position to give this Government the assurance that our recommendations will be in the best interests of the business world, and that is indeed our intention.


PARLIAMENTARY LOBBYISTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Last September the Prime Minister promised that the Government would request lobbyists not only to register but also to make public the names of their clients, as is the case now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is a long preamble. Is there a question?


Oral Questions


Svend Johannes Robinson: Why is the Minister failing to honour such an important promise to the Canadian public?


Michel Côté: Through the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, we have assured the House on a number of occasions that we would eventually recommend guidelines to guarantee the integrity and openness of this Government, and that is what we intend to do when we will make recommendations on the lobbying Bill.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport. Last Friday one of my constituents, Viola Powell, travelled by train from Toronto to Ottawa to attend a conference for the disabled. Although she booked her ticket more than a month in advance, the train services advertised by VIA Rail for wheelchair users were not available. As a result, she had to travel in the vestibule of a coach, with the baggage, and without access to a washroom for over five hours.
Will the Minister indicate if she is aware of any particular problems at Toronto Union Station which result in disabled Canadians being unable to travel in the dignity they deserve?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, this situation is evidently unacceptable. I am meeting with the authorities of VIA Rail tonight and I intend to raise that question with them.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Given the visit of the Minister last week to the toxic chemical dumpsites along the Niagara River, would he say whether he is prepared to reverse the ill-advised decision of his Government last November to cancel the Guelph Toxicology Centre, and proceed with the construction of these much needed facilities?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure it is true that the Government has cancelled the plan for the Toxicology Centre. I know a very worth-while proposal was put to the Government which was being considered by my predecessor at the time I was appointed Minister of the Environment. That proposal still stands. However, the decision is not mine, nor the Government's, to make alone. All I can tell the Hon. Member is that we are considering the proposal. We recognize the need for toxicology and Guelph would be a very worthy applicant.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, are we on this side of the House to interpret the Minister's answer that he is putting the health of Canadians ahead of cutting the deficit, as the Minister of Finance did not a year ago when he announced the cancellation of the Centre?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, that question does not do the Hon. Member, or his Party, a service. I am quite convinced that if I were St. Francis of Assisi the Hon. Member would attack me for spilling bird seed on the ground.


MINES AND MINING
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. I wonder if the Minister would tell the House how he responds to charges which have been made by certain leading Canadian mining companies that the reopening of the Cyprus Anvil Mine at Faro will, first, disturb the international market for zinc and, second, is going to postpone other zinc operations which would otherwise possibly go into production? What is his response to those very serious charges by these companies?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, the original report which was presented on this subject contained many inaccuracies. In the meantime there have been several stories and reports which say that this was a private sector initiative and it was the Legislature or Government of the Yukon which approached the federal Government for its assistance in the reopening of this mine, and that it can, according to as many as four reports, both engineering and feasibility studies, be a viable mining operation in the Yukon.


COMPANY PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister then concur with the view expressed by Mr. Clifford Frame that his company, Curragh Resources, is not receiving any special deal at all from the federal Government but is simply taking advantage of existing programs available to any mining company which wanted to use them?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that this Government recognizes the very basic importance of the mining industry, and that all proposals for the development of this natural resource will be given the same kind of fair treatment.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, November 1, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), 1 am pleased to table in both official languages a document entitled Procedures for the Surveillance of Imported Wines. Included is a list of the 10 Italian wines which have been withdrawn.



PERMANENT AND PROVISIONAL STANDING ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it was Edmund Burke, in a speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774, who said:
It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents ... It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfaction to theirs; and above all, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own.
That principle has not changed since 1774. It remains as true today as the day Burke gave voice to this belief. We who serve in this place were not elected to serve our own interests, nor indeed any interests which run contrary to, or causes us to lose sight of, the interests, both individual and collective, of our constituents. That is not to say that in the interest of ensuring greater representation we must sacrifice the value of leadership and independent judgment. It is to say that when Members rise to speak or vote in this Chamber, the people of Canada must be confident that Members are acting in good conscience and in the larger interests of our land.
It is for that reason that I have today given notice of two motions which are directed at ensuring that Members' interests are declared. In these motions the Government proposes that the Standing orders be amended immediately to provde for a public Register of Foreign Travel by Members of Parliament, and that the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services be instructed to consider and report on the feasibility of extending the register to include, in the public disclosure of Members' other interests, the categories of interest that might be included in such a register.
Statements by Ministers

For some time, the public, the media and Members of this House have been concerned about the fact that accepting trips abroad gives at least the impression of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, no one would claim that all these trips are taken with no useful purpose. In an international community that is becoming increasingly complex, it is important that legislators have a thorough knowledge of the way of life and aspirations of people in other countries.

Recognizing this need for the exchange of information and views, the Government is calling not for an end to foreign travel but for the public disclosure of travel when the cost is not borne by the Member personally, the House of Commons, recognized parliamentary associations, the Members' Party or the Government of Canada. We believe that the people of Canada have a right to know if a Member of Parliament has accepted travel at the expense of foreign Governments or interests. Furthermore, we are convinced that the principle of declaring interests is of merit. To that end, we believe that an honest attempt should be made to establish a registry of Members' interests in order to permit the interests of the public to be served. At the same time we must attempt to ensure that the right of Members to retain a private life beyond the walls of this House is not violated. As Thomas Jefferson said:
When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A man?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thomas Jefferson said that, and that was before the Progressive Conservative Government of 1984 and its outstanding record on women's rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that with the responsibilities of public office comes the burden of public scrutiny. A Member's personal interest must be subsumed to those of the public good. To date, the responsibility has largely rested with individual Members to ensure that their actions as Members are above suspicion and beyond reproach. The Government believes it is important that there be no shadow of doubt cast on the ability of a Member of Parliament to represent adequately the views and interests of his or her constituents and the better interests of the nation as a whole. [Translation]
The step we are taking today, and which we hope will receive the support of the opposition parties, is a logical extension of reforms we have already initiated.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on September 9, the Prime Minister rose in the House to announce a series of measures dealing with a code of ethics for the public sector. [English]
That package included a new conflict of interest postemployment code for public office holders, instructions to


Statements by Ministers
Ministers imposing specific and strict limitations on the hiring of family members, an experimental program of parliamentary scrutiny of Governor-in-Council appointments, the registration of lobbying activities, advice to Crown corporations respecting appropriate conduct in their dealings with the Government of Canada, and a review of the judicial appointments' process. This process of administrative reform directed at providing more open and responsible Government parallels the process of reform in the rules and practices of the House now under way. The objective of the House reforms is to ensure that the House of Commons and its Members have the necessary tools to play a greater role in the development of policy and in holding the Government to account for its actions.
If it is time, as we are convinced it is, for Ministers and other individuals holding government offices to be made subject to a comprehensive code of ethics, and if it is appropriate for the Government to restore authority to the House, it is also appropriate that Members of Parliament meet the high standards which will now apply to other public office holders.
[ Translation]
It was for this reason, when tabling the other measures dealing with ethics in the public sector, that the Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of the Opposition parties, asking their help in establishing a code of ethics for Members of Parliament and suggesting that the three House leaders meet to discuss recommendations that would make it possible for the House to take action.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I am sure your caucus is very happy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not only is my caucus very happy about this initiative, Mr. Speaker, it is one which I think will meet with some approbation from the people of Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of these disclosures these are reasonable proposals which we are putting forward. They are for the consideration of the committee which is chaired by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I think the committee will be able to consider these recommendations and receive representations from interested parties and Members of the House.
This particular initiative was one which was indicated in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on September 9. We hope to have the unanimous support of all Parties with respect to the proposals, the motion and the thrust. I appreciate very much the serious attention which Hon. Members have given to this important matter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, some days prior to the Minister's statement, which we have just heard, I said publicly outside this Chamber that I looked positively on the idea of a registry of Members' travel. Certainly, we of the Official Opposition look positively on the concept as set out in the draft motion read to us today by the Government House


Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). 1 had pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, that they have had a registry of both Members' travel and interests in the United Kingdom Parliament for some time.
There is much to be said, Mr. Speaker, for the view that Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to learn, first-hand, about conditions in other countries and that this opportunity should not be available only to those who have been selected by the federal Government of the day, or only to those who have been selected to represent parliamentary associations, or who have ample personal private means. However, Mr. Speaker, if Members accept payment for foreign travel from other than the Government or parliamentary groups, they certainly do so as a matter of their own judgment and responsibility. They should be willing to account publicly for the exercice of that judgment and responsibility and the implications of this for the appearance it may create for the carrying out of their duties. They should be willing to account publicly, as I have said, if called on to do so, and a registry of Members' travel is important in this regard.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we generally support the concept of the proposed motion that the House maintain a publicly registry of such travel by Members. With regard to this notice of motion, which the Minister was kind enough to give me at around one o'clock this afternoon, 1 certainly want to discuss the matter of its contents with my colleagues before making any definitive comments about them.
With respect to the proposed reference to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, which the Government House Leader has also read into the record of the House, this proposed reference is quite sweeping in its scope. I think all Members will want to examine this reference and consider its implications. We agree that the committee ought to receive such a reference and that it ought to have the time required to come to its conclusions. I would hope, however, that Members will give serious consideration to the implications of these proposals for themselves and their successors. Members on all sides of the House are affected by proposals in this area and 1 believe that the committee in its efforts to resolve it will find this matter to be quite complex.
The Government House Leader spent a good portion of his statement talking about the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in this House on September 9 when he outlined a package of initiatives relating to public sector ethics. I do want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that none or almost none of the measures announced by the Prime Minister some two months ago with great fanfare are yet in force, except perhaps for the conflict of interest guidelines which are to take effect only this coming January 1. Where is the program of parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments? Where is the register of lobbying activities? Where is the review of judicial appointments?
The public will wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the Government has begun with the measures outlined in the Minister's statement. I hope the Government does not think that by putting forward what is in the Minister's statement the public will
Statements by Ministers
forget that there is an equal and, in fact, a greater priority to move quickly on the other measures set forth in the Prime Minister's statement, about which we have, so far, heard next to nothing.
I would like to say that the measures set out in the proposed notices of motions as read out by the Government House Leader a few moments ago are subjects in which we take a great deal of interest. We will co-operate in having them given the fullest and most expeditious study because we believe that it is necessary for Members of Parliament to conduct themselves, and to be seen to conduct themselves, with a very high degree of probity.
! conclude by saying that this applies in equal and perhaps greater measure to the Government and its officials who have in our parliamentary system a great measure of decision-making authority that we should recognize. We should not let the statement, useful as it is, hide the fact that we and the Canadian people expect more action in the other aspects of the Government's package with respect to ethics than we have seen so far.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that it is almost safe in the House of Commons to quote Edmund Burke and Thomas Jefferson. It seems to add a certain amount of validity to anything that one might want to say.
However, I want to express some personal concern because at this point I do not pretend to speak on behalf of all my colleagues. I have not had an opportunity to consult with them on this matter and, therefore, do not know what their views might be with regard to the measures proposed by the Government House Leader.
It is good that we will have a chance to review the proposals and deliberate on their effect before they become law, as far as we are concerned, within the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is interesting to note that no recommendation is made with regard to enforcement. To a large extent, the reporting process is one which is voluntarily undertaken by Members of the House within the proposals put forward by the Government House Leader.
It is difficult to express the real concerns 1 have because, rather than being specific, it is an uneasy feeling and goes to the trust and obligations that Members of Parliament must assume when they are elected.
How much is a citizen entitled to know about the day-to-day lives of Members of Parliament? For example, is it necessary that all the interests of every Member be made a matter of public record, given that the overwhelming majority of Members play little part in the actual management of the affairs of the country but, rather, simply pass judgment on the recommendations of the Cabinet?
Let me draw a comparison between the two bodies. The Cabinet has direct responsibility for the making of policy and the expenditure of funds. Clearly, the cabinet members have
8326


Statements by Ministers
the opportunity to make use of that information, gathered as a result of the cabinet process, to improve their own personal lot in life. Of course, one hopes that this opportunity is never used. Members of Parliament only become knowledgeable of cabinet decisions when they are made public and, therefore, have no greater opportunity than any other citizen of this country to achieve any personal gain from a decision made by Cabinet. Therefore, I think those two bodies must be viewed separately.
I say quite bluntly that 1 support the Government's move to strengthen a code of ethics for cabinet Ministers and require higher standards than heretofore might have been in place. It does not necessarily flow from that, however, that changes are absolutely necessary for the ordinary Members who serve on the back-benches in Parliament. I repeat that I feel a sense of concern rather than concrete knowledge that the measures being proposed are wrong.
The questions that come to mind about this proposal are not specific. However, one of the proposed draft orders states that the Clerk shall maintain a public registry of foreign travel by Members of Parliament in which Members shall register all trips that they make outside of Canada arising from or relating to their membership in the House of Commons where the cost of any such travel is not wholly borne by certain groups.
If a Member were to be invited to address a university in Detroit, for example, and the passage was to be provided by that university for the purpose of making a representation at a seminar, is that to be listed? If so, why? What would be the reason for doing that? If a Member were provided with return tickets from Ottawa to Washington, Baltimore or New York to speak to a board of trade about matters relating to the policy of that Member's political Party with regard to public policy, is such a trip to be reported and, if so, why? What purpose would it serve to list those visits?
I believe we are trying to address an issue that is quite different. I think it is time we recognized that we are talking about Members who take trips at the expense of groups, individuals and Governments to exotic places in the world for well-paid holidays.


George Albert Proud: What is exotic?


Ian Deans: Exotic is any place where one has not been. That seems to be the definition for exotic.
I do not doubt that there may be some reason to consider seriously listing visits like that because the public may have the right to know who is paying for it and, therefore, why certain representations are being made in the House of Commons on a particular subject which bears a direct relationship between the Member making the representation and the group being represented. Perhaps there should be a way to check up on trips like that.
However, with respect to other trips, such as the examples I have given, I wonder if it makes much sense for the Clerk, busy as he is at all times, to be required to be in the office each day while Members troop in and fill out the registry and then to have it verified as being correct. Furthermore, what will we
do if a Member did not indicate where he or she went? Do we issue a statement to the effect that the Member is in breach of the guidelines? But being in breach of the guidelines does not matter very much since there are no penalties.
Therefore, I say to the Government House Leader that these are matters that came to my attention when I heard what he said and read what was contained in the proposed orders. I am curious to know what useful purpose can be served.
Incidentally, I have no objection to listing everything I do, but what purpose does it serve to list the various remunerated trades, professions or vocations or Members? The people who will make the judgment about whether the Member is doing his or her job properly will be the electors. They will judge whether the Member was present frequently enough to perform his or her duties. Therefore, is it necessary for an ordinary Member, who has very little influence within the House of Commons, as it now stands, to list the remunerated trades, professions or vocations which he or she may have or to name the clients when the interest in those areas includes personal services by the Members?
I think it would be better to suggest that a Member cannot act on behalf of anyone for remuneration when the matter that is to be acted upon is one that falls within the ambit of the responsibility of a Member of Parliament. Frankly, I believe a rule arleady exists that no Member should be able to do for money that which he or she is being paid to do for the House of Commons, for their constituents and for the public of Canada. I would say that the law now covers that and that it does not have to be contained within these guidelines. Nevertheless, let us look at it anyway.
I do not propose to go on any longer. I think you understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am in a general way supportive of having some way to deal with what we have identified as a problem. 1 am concerned, though not yet focused on my concerns, about this kind of approach. I would certainly welcome hearing the views of other Hon. Members; not only those of my own colleagues, but the views of other Hon. Members in the House of Commons. I invite-although 1 do not often do this and it may be a little unusual-other Members who have views to express on this to do so, if they would not mind, since it is a totally non-partisan matter. In order to help me in my deliberations, I invite them to feel comfortable in letting me know how they feel about it and how they see it affecting their lives or the way they are able to do their work. In the final analysis, the argument which will take place on whether this will become law or otherwise, within the context of the House of Commons, will be determined behind closed doors. In the final analysis, the decision on whether or not to proceed with it will be made rather quietly, and then will or will not be proceeded with in accordance with what appears to be the over-all wishes of the majority of Members.
Therefore, I urge Hon. Members to pay particular attention to this matter because it could detrimentally or beneficially


affect every one of them for as long as they are in the House of Commons and even beyond.



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
November 1, 1985-the Minister of Employment and Immigration:
That, in relation to Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill;
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 later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, i ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders today will be extended by 29 minutes this day. Therefore Private Members' Hour will begin at 5.29 o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, laid upon the table on Friday, November 1, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 124)
++YEAS
Members
Belsher	Gray	NicholsonBernier	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	(Niagara Falls)Bertrand	la-Madeleine)	NickersonBissonnette	Gurbin	NielsenBlackburn	Gustafson	Oostrom(Jonquiere)	Hardey	Pa proskiBlais-Grenier	Hawkes	PennockBlenkarn	Hnatyshyn	PietzBourgault	Holtmann	PorterBoyer	Horner	RavisBrisco	James	RedwayCarney	Jardine	ReidClark	Jepson	Scott(Yellowhead)	Kempling	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Collins	Kindy	SiddonCooper	King	SpeyerCorbett	Landry	StackhouseCrofton	Lanthier	TaylorCrosbie	Lewis	Thacker(St. John's West)	Mailly	ToupinDantzer	Mantha	TurnerDarling	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Daubney	Mazankowski	VankoughnetDella Noce	McCain	WeinerDesrosiers	McDougall	WenmanDomm	(St. Paul's)	WhiteDuplessis	McKenzie	WilsonEdwards	McKinnon	(Swift Current-Fennell	McKnight	Maple Creek)Forrestall	McLean	WilsonFretz	McMillan	(Etobicoke Centre)Friesen	Merrithew	WinegardGormley	Minaker	Witer-89.Graham	Mitges	
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Epp	MarchiAlthouse	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdyBaker	Finestone	MurphyBenjamin	Foster	NicholsonBlackburn	Frith	(Trinity)(Brant)	Fulton	NystromBlaikie	Garneau	OuelletBoudria	Hovdebo	ParryCaccia	Isabelle	PennerCassidy	Jewett	Prud'hommeChretien	Lapierre	RobichaudCopps	MacLellan	RobinsonDeans	Malepart	Rosside Corneille	Manly	Waddell Young-40.
Income Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table on Friday, November 1, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would be our intention to vote against this motion. However, we would be prepared to have the same vote as was taken on the previous Ways and Means motion recorded as applying to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Rather than calling the yeas and nays, it is understood that the same vote will apply to this motion.
Speyer	Members Vankoughnet	WilsonStackhouse	Weiner	(Etobicoke Centre)Taylor	Wenman	WinegardThacker	White	Witer-90.Toupin	Wilson	Turner	(Swift Current-	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Maple Creek)	NAYS Members	Allmand	Epp	MarchiAlthouse	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdyBaker	Finestone	MurphyBenjamin	Foster	NicholsonBlackburn	Frith	(Trinity)(Brant)	Fulton	NystromBlaikie	Garneau	OuelletBoudria	Hovdebo	ParryCaccia	Isabelle	PennerCassidy	Jewett	Prud'hommeChretien	Lapierre	RobichaudCopps	MacLellan	RobinsonDeans	Malepart	Rosside Corneille	Manly	Waddell Young-40.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I declare the motion carried.

The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will be included in the vote, and I assume he will vote with the Government.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
(Division No. 125)
++YEAS
Members
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Bourgault
Boyer
Brisco
Carney
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Collins
Cooper
Corbett
Crofton
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Dantzer Darling Daubney Della Noce Desrosiers Domm Duplessis Edwards
Fennell
Forrestall
Fretz
Friesen
Gormley
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventurc-lles-de-la-Madelcine) Gurbin Gustafson Hardey Hawkes Hnatyshyn Holtmann Horner James Jardine Jepson Kempling Kindy King Landry Lanthier La Salle Lewis Maiily Mantha
Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Merrilhew
Minaker
Mitges
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oostrom Paproski Pennock Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Siddon


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental Affairs-Niagara River pollution-American chemical waste dumps; the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Shipbuilding-Implementation of Government policies; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Regional Development-Economic conditions in Atlantic Canada, (h) Municipal infrastructures.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-45, and Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, before my time starts, could the Chair or the Clerk tell me how much time I have remaining? I did not get a reading on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that the Hon. Member has 10 minutes left in his speech under daylight or eastern standard time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now, what is the good news?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue my remarks on what 1 was talking about last Friday, the general principle of the rights of employees on Parliament Hill in terms of collective bargaining, negotiations, right to strike and all those things entrenched in the laws of Canada and the provinces, even in the by-laws of municipalities, which are sort of taken for granted. There are large numbers, including those employed on Parliament Hill and its environs, who do not have those rights, and the Government is seeking ways to grant at least part of those rights.
The right to bargain not only concerns hours of work, rates of pay, holidays and so on. It also concerns the conditions of employment in the workplace. There have been far too many examples around here, since I came here, beginning in October, 1968, where, at the whim of a supervisor or someone at the lower or middle management level, people who had been working here for some period of time were left out when it came to assignments, job classifications, transfers or applications for promotion. They seem to have been left in limbo or left to the whims of those who were their immediate or top managers.
I should like to refer to an example of this. A senior technical position becomes vacant around here, several employees inquire about a competition being held, and none is held. However, the husband of a manager in another department of the same service is brought in to fill the position on a temporary basis. Several months later, a competition is held. Then, the now-experienced husband in that position enters the competition and is hired permanently, and the appeals of the other employees are denied. No self-respecting employer anywhere else would ever countenance that sort of accidental or "left to the whim of' procedure, which you, Mr. Speaker, or I or the Minister in charge would never even hear about, let alone know about. None of us, as Members, would counte-
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
nance that treatment of staff in our own offices, let alone employees of the House of Commons.
Another example would be that of several employees in a support service who hold supervisory positions on an acting basis. Some could have held these positions from two years to seven years respectively, and they are informed that they have been downgraded four levels and that their salaries will be reduced from $21,000 to $17,000. However, during the same period, other working supervisors are hired for the same service without any competition process. Again internal appeals are denied.
I have only referred to two examples of some 14 which 1 have in my possession. I have no doubt that my colleagues on all sides of the House have other examples. It is one of the rights which is presently being denied employees of the Parliament of Canada, a right which the House has to instate for them. The matters of who gets what jobs, who gets transferred and how the process is carried out must be given to the employees to have in a collective agreement so that they may bargain about them in an orderly manner. This must be done so that someone does not hire someone else's brother-in-law simply because it is easy to lay off some people and not call back others when they have no recourse. That is a denial of fundamental justice let alone the laws that apply to others regarding collective bargaining and conditions of employment.
Again I must cite the experience of my own province as an example. In the Province of Saskatchewan, all three political Parties have been in power and employees have had the right of collective agreement since 1947. While there have been disputes, strikes and disagreements, those would not represent more than 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the difficulties encountered. In the overwhelming majority of instances, agreement has been reached through bargaining. Agreements were negotiated for employees of every Department and for every employee, whether it be a technical, professional or service employee, year after year for almost 40 years. There were some occasions on which Crown corporation employees went out on strike. There were some occasions on which members of the Public Service worked to rule. By the way, I always figure that working to rule is a darn good tactic when there is a disagreement with an employer. When employees work to the rules the employer has laid down, they can grind the place to a halt. That that can occur in both the private and public sector and has to tell us about some of the rules that are put down by some employers.
I think the Government is only dipping its feet into this matter. It wants Hill employees to appear to be equal to the workers in the other sectors of the Public Service and the private sector. However, these employees will not be quite as equal as others. Others will be more equal, but the Government wants to have at least the appearance of equality.
I admit that this Bill makes some positive moves toward making these long withheld rights available to Hill employees. Frankly, though, I think this Government and previous


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
administrations worried too much about the effects this would have. The experiences in municipalities and some of the provinces have not been nearly as bad as those which were expected. I can recall that in the 1940s, officials of the Province of Saskatchewan thought that it would be a horrible idea to give public servants and employees of the Legislature collective bargaining rights. They thought that anarchy would follow and Government would not be able to function.
1 have often wondered what it would be like if we did not have any messengers, pages, security guards or waiters and waitresses around here for a couple of weeks. Perhaps it would be a good lesson for all of us in this Chamber and the other place as well as for the top administrators. Perhaps then we would find out in a difficult way what all of these things that we take for granted mean to us on a day-to-day basis. 1 am including in this the interpreters, the Hansard employees and others as well. Some of these employees are well paid but they are certainly not, by any stretch of the imagination, overpaid. They darn well earn their keep. There are some employees of the Parliament of Canada who, if they wished, could make more money somewhere else but they are dedicated, loyal and they like it here. That is no reason to take advantage of them.
1 hope that the Government will be amenable to improvements in the legislation and that the legislation itself will be amendable. I hope that proves to be the case because there are some shortfalls in this legislation about which none of us should be proud or brag and which all of us should be anxious to correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to join in this debate. When looking back at the promises that were made by members of the Conservative Party when they were in opposition, I find that they made a fairly thorough representation of their perspective in response to some specific questions directed at them about their position on collective bargaining rights, staffing procedures and classification possibilities for the Public Service and in particular for employees on the Hill. 1 would like to refer specifically to some promises that were made and that were in fact tabled as a result of the commitments made by the Conservative Government. The Government stated for the record the following:
A PC government will negotiate directly with public service unions and associations toward the establishment of an improved collective bargaining system based on the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. Staffing procedures, classification, technological change, designations, and other issues will become negotiable. We will pursue joint bargaining as a means of achieving greater fairness and efficiency in the collective bargaining process. Our Party will seek advice from PIPS and other public service organizations as to how we can improve the many regulations governing the use of arbitration and conciliation so that disputes can be resolved quickly without disrupting government service to the public.
An element of today's debate which we have not had a chance to address in the House is the Canada Labour Relations Board decision which reversed its previous position by announcing today that it was going to issue certification orders for certain bargaining units on the Hill. 1 have just received a copy of the judgment in my office. I understand that certification will be accorded to certain employees in the Library of Parliament, drivers, messengers and security services employees with others expected to follow.
It seems to me that what the Canada Labour Relations Board has done in announcing the reversal of its original position of June 28, 1985, in which it suspended proceedings for certification, is that it has in fact accorded to those hundreds and indeed over 1,000 employees of the Hill who have sought the right to certification the right to pursue that particular certification under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. In that regard, this particular decision, a decision which in fact had been stalled for a number of months, sheds new light on the debate and on the Bill that is before us today. Quite clearly, in according the right to certification under the Canada Labour Code to a number of employees on the Hill, the Canada Labour Relations Board is saying that mechanisms that are currently in place can be utilized effectively for employees on the Hill. In that regard, it seems to me that it would further muddy the waters to follow up with Bill C-45 at a time when we know the Government has 20 days in which to respond to the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. You can believe me about this, Mr. Speaker, in light of the promises that were made by the Conservative Party and the promises that were issued to Public Service unions across the country. The Government said that staffing procedures, classification, technological change, designation and other issues will be negotiable. It is quite clear that the Government will have a chance to respond to the veracity of those statements within the 20-day period which has been allotted as a result of the Canada Labour Relations Board decision today.
I have had a chance to consult with a number of my colleagues on this issue, including representatives on the Hill who have worked hard to sign up members. At this point they have signed up more than 1,000 members, some of whom have been required to sign again and again and again indicating their interest in becoming part of a certified bargaining unit on Parliament Hill. It seems to me that while the Canada Labour Relations Board is awaiting summary action from the Government as to its good faith in adopting its recommendations it is futile for us to continue the debate at this time. I would argue, as have my colleagues, the Hon. Members for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), that there are a number of amendments to the legislation which is currently before the House which this Party would like to see. However, it seems to me that with the decision which has been announced today that at this point in time it is futile for us to continue discussion of the Bill when we are still awaiting the response of the Government to a potential certification under the Canada Labour Code. Prom the perspective of the organizers on the Hill who have been trying to get the Canada Labour Relations Board to come to grips with this issue for two years it was a surprise decision. I have had discussions today with representa-


tives of employees on the Hill and, therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer:
That Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employees relations in the Senate and the House of Commons, be not now read a second time but one month hence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that this amendment will give the Government a chance to respond within 20 days to the rulings that have just been issued by the CLRB.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it quite clear that if the Government insists on continuing consideration of this Bill, we, our party, intend to demand a number of amendments to ensure at least that the promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the election campaign will be properly discussed and considered, including classification questions, and many other items not covered by the Bill at this time. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Bill in its present form, does not meet the requirements of the Canada Labour Code. Obviously, we would rather have something than nothing at all, but I think that all Hon. Members who are concerned and involved, whether we are talking about the rights of union members or aspirant union members, or whether we are talking about employers-
Since the CLRB has just ruled on a subject of such significance today, I personally, with the support of my caucus and that of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), want to give the Government a chance to have time to reflect. It would give them 30 days' time. During those 30 days, it will be up to the Government either to accept or reject the recommendations made by the CLRB.
Mr. Speaker, we want to wait for the Government to respond to the news announced today, before proceeding with a Bill that may undergo fundamental changes as a result of the decision that has just been announced.
I know Hon. Members in the corner find it difficult to talk about union matters because that is not where their interests lie. That is obvious. However, as a Member representing the most industrialized riding in Canada, I have a right to speak, and I will continue to do so until my time has expired. That is why . . . Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to reject the Bill out of hand but to give the Government a chance to reflect, during the period of 20 days they are being offered, on the ruling announced today by the CLRB, and that is my purpose in moving this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been thinking about the Hon. Member's amendment. It is our custom not to interrupt debate. However, since the Hon. Member has moved a motion, which I take as a hoist motion in general terms, it is therefore in order.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Ms. Copps, seconded by Mr. Isabelle, moves:
That Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and the House of Commons, be not now read a second time but one month hence.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate, on the amendment. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to know whether I have the right to speak now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to consult for just one moment. The Hon. Member may know that our practice is, in fact, that speeches are normally made with amendments of this type moved at the conclusion of the speech. I appreciate that the Hon. Member may not have realized that and she may think that she has the right to rise again. Technically, she does not, unless the House were to give its consent.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We would be prepared to allow her to continue for her full 20 minutes and then move the motion at the conclusion of her speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is signalling to me that she feels, in fact, that she has put on the record what she wanted to put on the record.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With the consent of the House, I would like to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent to follow the Hon. Member the normal time to finish the speech which she began and assume that the amendment was moved at the end of her speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to demonstrate that even on a Monday I am prepared to show the usual generosity of spirit of the Government and have the Hon. Member finish her speech with the understanding that she moved the amendment at the end of her speech.


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to enlighten those Members who perhaps have not been following the sequence of events which, in fact, have led to a decision of the Government to move ahead with Bill C-45 which, in fact, led us to move this hoist motion. In fact, a number of groups of employees on the Hill have been seeking the right to certify for some time. That right was originally upheld by the Canada Labour Relations Board and subsequently suspended. During the course of the suspension we


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act find that over 1,000 employees have signed cards on at least three occasions indicating their interest in aligning themselves with a certification process on the Hill. In the meantime, the Government has come in with a Bill which would, in a very limited way, begin to recognize the rights of organizations on the Hill. Unfortunately, contrary to the promises made by the Conservative Party at the time it was in opposition, the Bill before the House does not address a number of issues. It does not address those issues which have been highlighted by a number of representatives from PSAC, as well as NABET, as being very crucial to the discussion.
For example, indications that this particular Bill will do nothing to allow an employee voice in certification and classification are obviously of great concern to us. Meanwhile, as the Government introduces this Bill and discussion and debate goes on-indeed, we have been waiting for some kind of Bill for several months-coincidentally, and totally by chance, the Canada Labour Relations Board today announced that it had reversed an earlier decision and would now issue certification orders to certain bargaining units on the Hill. The effect of that particular announcement is that the process of certification has effectively been approved by the Canada Labour Relations Board and certifications on the Hill can begin.
In deciding, together with my colleagues, to move a motion which would cause the delay of the Bill for 30 days, it is not our intention to stop the process, as was suggested by the Government House Leader. On the contrary, it is our intention to allow the employees an opportunity to receive the fullest representation possible within the bargaining process. It seems to me that the particular decision today by the Canada Labour Relations Board is going to impinge very directly on this piece of legislation. In fact it has granted to employees on the Hill the same rights which are currently available to employees in a number of other areas. We know, of course, there are questions of the implications of the freedom of association clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There were a number of rights which were fought for and won through the Charter which have in fact been reinforced by an application which has been accepted under the Canada Labour Code.
There is a very valid question raised today as to whether we should proceed with this Bill or whether we should allow the course of events which could lead to a faster and fuller exploration of rights for employees on the Hill. It would be a misrepresentation of our intentions for Members of the Government to suggest that we are attempting in any way to somehow impugn or prevent the valid and due process of certification. That is simply not true. In fact, it is with the support of, and in discussion with the representatives of the movement to organize on the Hill, that we have suggested a 30-day delay in further discussion on this Bill pending the reaction of the Government with respect to the very current and pressing announcement that finally the employees will be allowed to organize under the Canada Labour Code.
Quite clearly, it was an unexpected decision in the light of the discussions which are taking place at this moment in the House of Commons. It is the feeling of the Liberal Party that while the Government has 20 days to respond, it would not want to allow anything to infringe upon the possibility of the Canada Labour Code decision going forward when the federal Government has the legal right and responsibility to respond. We do not know what the response is going to be. We know what the Conservative Party said during the election campaign. We know that promises which were made during the election campaign, specifically with respect to certification, classification and to other rights of employees, have not been respected. In fact, the Conservative Party has flaunted the very promises it made in the past by refusing to accord even those minimal rights. We will be suggesting amendments to address that basic injustice.
At the same time, it would be the position of this Party that a 30-day delay of further discussion on this Bill would permit the Government to move ahead in good faith in light of the current and crucial decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. It would be my suggestion that all Hon. Members on all sides of the House who would like to have a full discussion of an issue which could affect them very directly, even their own employee relations, would find it in their best interests to take a look at what the Canada Labour Relations Board had to say. I only just received a copy of the decision in my office this afternoon and 1 have not had a chance to review the particulars. I would like to do so and see whether in fact the suggestion of the Canada Labour Relations Board, in its decision to allow certification, should supersede the Bill which we have before us. Is this Bill redundant? That question has not been properly explored. It is a question which remains in the mind of the union, for one.
The amendment is one way of addressing all the issues surrounding the certification process, and in particular the relationship of the employees on the Hill to the Canada Labour Code, and it would delay further discussion of this Bill for 30 days while we anticipate the Government's reaction to the most recent announcement by the Canada Labour Relations Board.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate since many of the people who are affected actually live, and certainly all of them work, in my riding of Ottawa Centre. On the other hand, I participate in this debate somewhat in sorrow rather than anger because Bill C-45 falls so far short of what should have been provided and what my caucus, the New Democratic caucus, has been advocating for a long time.
In April of this year, our caucus passed a unanimous motion endorsing the efforts of the House of Commons employees to gain recognition of their union under the Canada Labour Code. Our motion urged the House of Commons administration and the Government to cease the use of procedural and legal techniques which were delaying union recognition for Commons employees. We welcomed your commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the principle of union recognition for Commons


employees and we urge that the Commons administration give informal recognition of union representatives for those employee groups where a majority of the employees had signed union cards.
That was the position we took at that time. But what really angers and upsets me is the fact that the legal and procedural road-blocks which have been put in the way of unionization of the Elouse of Commons employees have come from the Government. 1 would say before my friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), leaves, that it has come as much from the Liberals prior to last September as from the Progressive Conservatives. However, the delays have also come from the House of Commons. You, Mr. Speaker, stated publicly that you supported unionization, and the chief administrator of the House stated, at least to me, that he would like to see a union here so that there would be a better way to deal with House of Commons staff. Nonetheless, the House of Commons continued to either go along with the Government or the administration itself put up legal road-blocks to the route of certification which is the only route those employees had to follow. It is noteworthy that today the Canada Labour Relations Board has reviewed and reconsidered the position it took in June when its panel decided that, pending legislation, it was not appropriate to proceed. The panel decided on Friday that it had made a technical mistake, that it was wrong and it should not take cognizance of legislation which to this point was just a proposal and had no guarantee of being passed. Today, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Board has decided to grant recognition to some 960 House of Commons employees in the bargaining units.
1 regret the decision of the CLRB to reject the certification of the staff of Hon. Members, just as I regret the proposal of the Government to reject that certification. However, it is noteworthy that the CLRB has now certified something like half of the staff in the House of Commons, including those who work for Hon. Members. That is quite a lot of people. That certification has taken place because of the determination of those employees to try and get union recognition against some pretty overwhelming odds.
What will happen now? The workers are caught in their reaction to Bill C-45. Although they won certification, the comments of the Government House Leader in opening this debate on Friday were really quite unequivocal. He said it is conceivable "after lengthy and costly legal proceedings that owing to the particular situation of Parliament, parliamentary employees might have no right to join a union". He said that by "eliminating disputes before the courts with respect to the jurisdiction of the CLRB, the ultimate effect of this measure will be to speed up the efforts of the employees concerned to form a union". The Government House Leader was talking as though there was some alien force out there who keeps on taking these employees before the courts, but that is not the case at all. It is the Government which has been taking these employees to the courts. The Liberal Government and now the Progressive Conservative Government have systematically put legal road-blocks in the way of these employees to form a
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act union. The new Government is no better than the old Government. At this time there are no legal cases pending. There is a certificate which would allow the bulk of the employees who filed to have a union to have bargaining units which could now sit down, effective within a couple of weeks, and start bargaining for a first contract, a deal with question like the terms and conditions of work, pay, holidays and the other things which form the subject of collective agreements. However, the Government is not prepared to play by those rules and is going to change them. If this measure is too long delayed in the House of Commons and the Government has to proceed on the basis of the CLRB decision having effect, then it is threatening to appeal. The appeal will be costly, could take another year or two, and those employees are damn tired of having to wait while the Government delays and obfuscates. The Government, on the other hand, is saying we should trust it and it will give us legislation which I am sure the Government itself must recognize is inadequate and falls far short of what the employees have been seeking. In particular, it fails to address the grievances of greatest concern to these employees.
I have no doubt that some House of Commons employees are underpaid. However, the concerns they have raised in particular concern arbitrary actions by the employer, the failure to have a fair system of classification, and actions which appear to them to smack of nepotism, patronage and favouritism, as well as being arbitrary. I will just cite one with which I was very closely connected, the treatment handed out to Prudence Dallaire. She was the employee assistance counsellor in the House of Commons and had been for a very long time. A few months ago she was fired, her position abolished and her responsibilities turned over to the nursing staff. As recently as one week ago some of those nurses went to a conference on that particular subject. They were told that they needed training which they have not had, and independence to carry out the job. Employee assistance requires sufficient independence that the person responsible can act as an advocate for employees who have personal problems such as alcoholism, family problems or perhaps mental problems, things which lead to their having difficulty at work. The employee assistance counsellor has to be able to intervene with management. You cannot do that if you are reporting to management day by day, as do the nursing staff here in Parliament Hill. An appeal was made to the Speaker asking that Madam Dallaire be reappointed. The appeal was denied. Two petitions signed by 1,500 Hill employees were ignored.
That is but one of many examples of how the present administration of the House of Commons has ignored the needs of employees working here. Yet they are now told they have no choice, you have to take what is here. It is not appropriate that the CLRB should govern employees of the House of Commons. I ask: Why not? After all, Privy Council Office employees are unionized, as are those of the Governor General. Therefore, what is wrong with House employees having full union rights? I do not see what the fuss is all about. It has been pointed out in other jurisdictions that legislative


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
employees are unionized. In the NDP caucus here on Parliament Hill we have had a collective agreement since 1977. At times it has been a bit difficult to administer because we are not a formally recognized employer and the staff association is not a formally recognized union. Nonetheless, we have been able to function and we have made that agreement work in good faith. The employees here in the House want to make such an agreement work. We should recognize that these people serve our meals, deliver our messages and provide an enormous range of services. They do our research, get our books and magazines, provide clippings. They handle parliamentary relations, and represent us in our dealings with Parliaments and parliamentarians around the world. They help staff our committees and make this Parliament look good and work effectively. There is no reason, given the importance of those functions, that we should give them the second class status and second rate form of unionization proposed in Bill C-45.
My caucus has decided that, although we recognize the need for unionization, we do not believe this Bill is anywhere near good enough. That is why we have decided, while we are not going to speak on the Bill forever, if this is all that is available we are going to have to live with it but we are going to oppose it because it simply does not live up to what we should be providing. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) worked in labour relations as a negotiator, mediator and conciliator for many years. He first came to public prominence as counsel to the Cliche inquiry into labour relations in Quebec in the 1960s. He knows intimately the stuff of labour relations. He, of all the Government and cabinet Members, should realize that the House of Commons should be looked to by employers and employees across our country as a model of what labour relations should be, a model for co-operation, employee involvement, and labour-management harmony which can exist where there is a real commitment on both sides. There are Members on the Government side who were terrified about the fact that people working in the cafeterias might actually go on strike if they were governed by the Canada Labour Relations Act.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is nonsense.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Then why is the Government seeking to override the CLRB, first by court challenges and now by proceeding with Bill C-45? The employees here have certification according to the decision handed down by the CLRB today.
Why on earth can we not demonstrate that other areas currently being discussed between Public Service unions and Treasury Board for inclusion in joint determination should be the same as far as the House of Commons is concerned? There is a very serious problem in the classification and staffing of House of Commons employees. There is no outside body monitoring those decisions. If you are a member of the Public Service of Canada the Public Service Commission does that job. they do not do it perfectly well all the time, as the Auditor General's report pointed out last week, but there is an outside and supposedly impartial authority which looks at those decisions. That will not be the case with the people working here, according to this Bill. Yet it was precisely that which drove many of those employees to sign cards and form a union.
I would point out as well that there are real problems in a very practical sense in the harassment these employees have gone through having to sign, re-sign and sign again their union cards. The CLRB has indicated what it believes the bargaining unit should be. If the Government is determined to move forward on this Bill, it should at least indicate that it accepts those classification decisions. One thousand employees have signed union cards. The Government should amend this Bill in order to ensure that those cards signed under the CLRB will be acceptable for the Public Service Staff Relations Board rather than forcing the employees to sign again, in some cases for the fifth time, in order to form a union. We, as parliamentarians, have to accept the fact that we have been bad managers. We have been bad employers. We have not done the job we should. The Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is here and I am directing these comments to him because he has a chance to exercise some leadership here.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Which I am doing.


Michael Morris Cassidy: He can act in a very positive way. I suggest that he accept the CLRB jurisdiction and certification. If not, at the very least accept the decisions made-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! If the Hon. Member wishes to carry on with his debate, he may do so tomorrow if Bill C-45 is before the House. He will have six minutes remaining plus a 10 minute question and comment period.
It being 5.29 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING GUN CONTROL
William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-205, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in the House to plead with Hon. Members to implement stronger measures for


gun control in Canada. When I speak of gun control I am talking about a measure to restrict the too easy availability of guns and bullets which lead to violent crime, especially armed robbery and murder. We know that Canadians are concerned about the level of violent crime in the country. If we in the House are genuine in taking that concern seriously, we will want to do something to prevent murders and armed robberies from taking place rather than relying on measures to be applied after the fact. If we are genuinely concerned about this serious problem we should concentrate on preventive measures and effective gun control is one of the most effective measures we could take. While there has been a decline in recent years in Canada of the total number of murders and the percentage of murders committed with guns, the rate is still too high. There are still too many crimes committed with guns.
If we look at the statistics, Mr. Speaker, we can see that an overwhelming percentage of murders are committed with guns. Guns are used far more often for homicide than any other instrument. I will refer to the most recent statistics available. In 1983 there were a total of 682 homicides in Canada and of those 224, that is 32.8 per cent, were committed with guns. The other means of committing murder fall way behind. Each constitutes less than 10 per cent. In 1982 the percentage was even higher, 37 per cent. Two-hundred and forty-eight of 670 homicides were committed with guns. Therefore, we can see that if we want to reduce the rate of murder we should concentrate on a preventive measure which is geared to the source of the problem, that is, guns.
When we look around the world the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that where guns are less readily available the number of crimes committed with guns is lower. In Holland, Belgium, Britain, Scandinavia, France and Italy there are tough gun laws and low rates of crimes with guns. In Japan there is a very low rate of crimes with guns due to their strict gun laws. In the jurisdictions of the world where there is loose control of guns there is a high rate of murder and armed robbery with guns. Unfortunately, our neighbour to the south is the worst violator in the so-called modern developed countries. They have very loose gun laws and very high rates of murder with guns.
There was a report prepared for the Solicitor General in 1983 which followed a five-year study of the new gun laws introduced in 1978. The intention was to examine those new gun laws over a period of five years and evaluate their effectiveness. In 1983 they published this report intitled Evaluation of the Canadian Gun Control Legislation: Final Report 1983. It comes to the conclusion that stricter gun laws have led to a lower rate of crimes with guns. I have a clipping from the Montreal Gazette dated August 20, 1983 in which it is pointed out that gun control legislation has restrained the use of firearms in robberies and homicides. I could refer to a lot of other examples.
I can remember when I first came to Parliament. A particular occurrence in Ottawa led me to introduce one Bill after another to bring about stricter control of guns. A young, mentally upset high school student went to a sporting goods
Criminal Code
store on Sparks Street and bought a shotgun. In those days a firearms acquisition certificate was not required. There were no controls. One could go to any department store or sporting goods store and buy a rifle or shotgun. That is what this youth did and then he went back to his high school, began shooting at random, and killed several students in the school.
Guns are too readily available in homes where there is a history of alcoholism, drug addiction and family disputes. I have a report from Montreal of a case where a son killed his father with the father's gun after the father had threatened the mother and a younger brother. In examining this case the coroner said that if guns were not so readily available they may have ended up hitting each other, but it would not have ended with people being killed.
Also, the way in which guns are stored without great care has very often led to the theft of guns and the use of them by others in crime. I have a story from the Montreal Gazette of October 24, 1984 telling of an incident in which the gun of a security guard, a powerful .357 magnum revolver, was taken from him. Many security guards are elderly and not well trained. His gun was taken from him by a group of young people and used in an armed robbery in which they killed a police officer. In the United States there are very loose gun control laws and some states have hardly any gun control laws whatsoever. In that country, guns have killed 440,000 people since the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. In addition to that, over 1.7 million people were wounded by gunfire in crimes involving guns. Approximately 2.7 million people were robbed at gunpoint.
Many of us heard about the incident at the McDonald's restaurant in San Diego in July of 1984 where a mentally imbalanced young man-not a career gangster or criminal- who had never committed a crime with a gun before, took the readily available gun in his home, announced to his wife that he was going downtown to hunt human beings, went into a McDonald's restaurant and, by firing at random, killed 21 individuals. That was because the gun and the bullets were readily available.
As I said, the evidence shows that in those jurisdictions of the world where there are strict gun laws there are lower rates of murder and other crimes committed with guns. The polls in Canada show that a very high percentage of Canadians favour stricter gun laws. Every time a poll is taken once every two years we see that 80 per cent to 85 per cent of the people favour stricter gun laws. That includes every region of the country, including the prairies, British Columbia and the Maritimes. Despite the fact that over 80 per cent of the people in the country favour that, a very well organized and well financed gun lobby in this country, which represents a minority of Canadians is able to prevail upon Members of Parliament not to enact the stricter gun laws we need.
I must admit that we have made advances and 1 have been instrumental in helping us to move forward somewhat. However, every time we attempt to do something there is a


Criminal Code
minority of Canadians who organize themselves into the gun groups who are anti-gun legislation and they are able to hoodwink Canadians with phoney arguments. They hoodwink Members of Parliament with phoney arguments.
Those phoney arguments include the slogan: "Guns do not kill, people do". Of course, people do the killing but they require a means by which to do it. Guns are the most effective, in my view. A person who has the intention to kill and is emotionally upset in one way or another, but only has his hands, a stick or a stone, obviously cannot do the damage that is possible if a gun is readily available. A gun is an instrument that is designed and manufactured to kill, whether it is an animal or someone in war. We are not talking about pellet shooters, but guns. Their intent is to kill. In my view, that requires some control.
It is true that people can be killed with other instruments whose design and manufacture is not meant to kill. You can kill someone with a baseball bat if you can catch the victim. However, a baseball bat is meant for a game. It is possible to kill someone with scissors, a razor blade or chemicals, but those things are designed for other purposes. Even some chemicals are subject to restrictions and control. Of course, people do the killing but the gun is an essential instrument in killing.
Studies in the United States have shown that the capacity to kill with a gun is five times greater than any other weapon. That is obvious to any of us who know anything about guns. I do not think anyone would deny that a gun has that killing capacity.
Another argument we hear from the gun lobby is that if we ban guns, only criminals will have them. That dictum forgets that two-thirds of the murders in this country are committed in emotional circumstances between people who are usually members of a family, friends or acquaintances. A very small number of crimes are committed by the so-called professional gangster. Of course, gangsters will always know where to find guns.
We should concentrate on those people who would commit one crime in their life, to kill someone in an emotional argument, like the young person I referred to in Ottawa. I can give many cases of people who have never committed another crime until the day they have killed someone in an emotional disturbance or other dispute. Therefore, the argument that if guns are banned only criminals will have them is nonsense. Two-thirds of our murders are not committed by professional gangsters and criminals, but by those who do not usually have a history of crime.
Of course, we also hear that it is our constitutional right to bear arms. That particular argument is made because so many Canadians read American magazines and watch American television and movies. There is even doubt that it is a constitutional right in the United States, but it certainly is not a constitutional right in Canada.
We also hear that we must have guns in order to defend ourselves. I will talk later about the legitimate rights of
hunters and sportsmen with whom I have no objection. However, with respect to people who say that they must have guns in order to defend themselves in their homes in their cities, studies show that those who have acquired guns to defend themselves usually end up having those guns used against them. In Chicago, elderly women and young people were trained to use hand guns in order to defend themselves. Those people were being killed with the very guns they were given to protect themselves. Criminals would shoot them with their own guns.
In order to defend ourselves we should have an effective national, regional and city police force, rather than relying on defending ourselves as they did in the days of the American frontier when people carried guns and shot it out to defend themselves and their rights. That is not the Canadian way and never has been.
Some will say that the way to deal with the problem is by imposing stricter penalties for the misuse of guns. I am in favour of tougher penalties but that will not solve the problem. When we deal with other matters such as traffic offences, we do not allow people to drive without passing a test or having preventive measures, only to fine them when they break the laws. We use both precautions. Most provinces have strict licensing provisions for driving an automobile. We test the vehicles from time to time to make sure they are safe. There are standards for brakes, tires and other components in order to prevent accidents. We do not simply rely on tough penalties which will be applied against those who might kill, injure or maim if they drive negligently. They are all phoney arguments.
What is the present law? Presently, the gun control law is in the Criminal Code. There are three categories for guns: prohibited weapons, restricted weapons and non-restricted weapons. The prohibited weapons are machine guns, rapid-fire guns and sawed-off shotguns and rifles which can be easily hidden. They are prohibited to all individuals in Canada, without exception. They are allowed to the Armed Forces and the police.
Restricted weapons are hand guns which are allowed to certain people in certain circumstances with a registration certificate and a carrying permit. They are allowed to Olympic or competitive shooters and private detectives and others.
With respect to the long guns, the rifles and shot guns, we now have a firearms acquisition certificate. In order to buy a long gun, unlike the young man to whom I referred earlier in my remarks, it is necessary to have a firearms acquisition certificate. However, that is not enough because it leaves out a whole gamut of people in this country who have obtained guns either as a hand down, through a will or by trade. They are not covered by the legislation. Nor does it cover the purchasing of ammunition.
My Bill does nothing more than simply change the firearms acquisition certificate to a firearms possession certificate so that it would apply to the possession of all firearms. Anyone who wanted to use and possess firearms must have one of these certificates, just like a driver's licence. That person must be tested for criminality, background, mental balance and history


with alcohol and drug abuse. Those criteria exist right now for the firearms acquisition certificate. It would also provide for a cooling off period. For instance, if someone buys a gun today 1 believe it should take two or three weeks before that person receives a firearms acquisition certificate. During that period, very often the emotional circumstances will change. I am reminded of the famous case in Montreal last year. A woman by the name of Tadio killed her boyfriend whom she found fooling around. She went to buy a gun and was told at the gun store that she needed a firearms acquisition certificate. She received that certificate and the gun registration form within three hours. Obviously, the police did not do their job according to the legislation. She went to her boyfriend's place of work and shot him dead on the spot. That was the only crime she had ever committed. She obtained that gun because it was easy to get and she committed that crime because it was easy to carry out.
I want to make guns and ammunition less readily available.
I know this Bill is not a panacea. It will not solve all of the problems but if we are able to reduce armed robberies by 100 or 200 a year out of the 800, we will accomplish something. I do not want in any way to prevent the legitimate hunter and sportsman from continuing their sport. We had oustanding success in Olympic shooting. These people would easily pass the tests because they are balanced people with a good record in their communities. They would receive their certificate just as they would receive a driver's licence; just like pharmacists would receive licences to sell prescription drugs. We do not let anyone sell prescription drugs which are harmful. That is done by specialists who must have a licence. We should do at the least the same for the most dangerous consumer good on the market, that is the gun; that is the very least we can do.


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate and have this opportunity to give my views on Bill C-205.
In the spring and summer of 1976 and again at about the same time in 1977 the House of Commons experienced emotional moments which gave rise to controversy, particularly after the introduction of Criminal Code amendments concerning gun control. Finally, in July 1977, the House passed Bill C-51, the legislative measure I want to talk about this afternoon.
The legislation features several noteworthy provisions, including one on the issuance of firearms acquisition certificates for which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is now attempting to substitute firearms possession certificates. The legislation also marked the beginning of the firearms selling permit issuance system which makes it possible to ensure that retailers display, sell and store firearms in a cautious and responsible manner, and it also provides for stiffer penalties for those who use firearms for illegal purposes. Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the
Criminal Code
courts are making even greater use of their powers with respect to penalties and interdictions, and that is as it should be if we want to prevent people from using firearms for criminal intents.
I would suggest that, as a result, the existing legislative measures related to gun control are adequate, and that their implementation does not create major problems nor lead to controversy. I am in favour of judicious gun control in Canada but, in my estimation, the Bill under consideration this afternoon is unreasonable and would prove to be an administrative nightmare for ordinary and responsible Canadians who own guns and, for instance, enjoy hunting. Not only does the Bill deal with firearms, but it provides as well that any person having ammunition without being the holder of a firearms possession certificate will be guilty of lawbreaking. Even the Liberal Government which shepherded the legislative measures we are expected to amend today did not see any point in controlling ammunition. Indeed, under one of the amendments proposed in Bill C-19 introduced during the previous session, ammunition dealers were to be exempt from the obligation to secure a firearms selling permit because, according to the Bill sponsor, such a measure would not serve any real purpose. Now, then, if Bill C-205 were adopted, some people could be hauled before the courts simply for having forgotten, for example, that they happen to have a box of cartridges at home. That is going a little too far.
Through his Bill, the Hon. Member wants to impose even stricter gun control in Canada. We did consider a similar measure during the previous session and, as I recall, the Hon. Member failed to rally the support of his own Party. Our Party then opposed this kind of legislation and nothing has changed since. My constituents are fully aware of gun controls and, in that field, most people do not want overly strict and perhaps overly cumbersome legislative measures.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government has created a ministerial task force responsible for looking into each and every departmental program. This exercise will enable us to set up a program chart which at the same time will be simpler, better, clearer and more readily accessible to users. The Bill now before the House does not improve anything, nor does it meet the needs of the millions of firearms owners in Canada. Should this Bill ever become the law of the land, every single one of them would be directly involved in the administrative rigmarole advocated by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. Our Government has launched a genuine and practical reform of all its programs, but that does not mean the adoption of peacemeal measures.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) believes that there are problems related to some of the provisions on gun control. He has therefore introduced a small Bill to deal with what seems most urgent. If another problem comes up, he will propose other band-aid solutions until the legislation is impossible to enforce. How-


Criminal Code
ever, I am not saying that no improvement is necessary. Legislation can always be improved, but this requires a comprehensive examination of the legislation itself or the related program and consultations with the provinces and those most directly affected.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the existing legislation, and particularly about the firearms acquisition certificate. This system was established in 1975 and requires that all those who want to purchase a firearm first be issued a firearms acquisition certificate. As of the end of last September, one million certificates had been issued.
When these provisions were adopted, the Government had promised that an independent agency would be asked to evaluate the firearms control program for three years. Two preliminary reports were submitted and the final report was tabled in August 1983. Afterwards, the public was invited to comment on both the evaluation and the program itself.
The Canadian public unanimously objected to additional gun control measures. Canadians believe that the existing measures are adequate and that nothing would justify stricter controls. Many have however requested that the provisions on the use of firearms for illegal purposes be much more rigou-rously enforced.
Those who commented on the firearms acquisition certificates believed that these certificates represent no infringement on individual freedoms and seem to meet their purpose, namely to reduce armed violence and prevent dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians have accepted the principle of firearms acquisition certificates. I do not believe that they would agree with the proposal made today. As legislators, we have to guarantee that Canada has adequate, and most important, reasonable legislation to control firearms in general. In my opinion, the proposals made by the Hon. Member are unreasonable in addition to being rather controversial, and I believe that it would be a mistake to support them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-205, which has been tabled by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). In fact, I seconded the particular Bill. However, in doing so, 1 want to emphasize that this hour is Private Members' Hour. In supporting this Private Member's Bill today, 1 am speaking in my capacity as a private Member of the House. I am not speaking on behalf of my caucus or on behalf of my Party. I am speaking as one Member of the House.
In doing so, and in speaking in support of the legislation, 1 know that a number of my caucus colleagues take the opposite point of view, particularly some of them from rural communities, such as the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy),
the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who take a position in opposition to the legislation. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Skeena has himself tabled a Private Member's Bill which would eliminate the search and seizure provisions of existing gun control legislation and would eliminate the firearms acquisition certificate in rural areas of Canada. It is obvious, even within caucuses, that there are differences of opinion on this very important question.
However, 1 am pleased to rise today in support of the principles of the Bill tabled by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. As well, I want to take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Member for having in fact pioneered the original gun control legislation in the country. In 1976, the Hon. Member, who was then the Solicitor General of Canada, introduced Bill C-83. That Bill in fact contained principles in respect of firearms acquistion certificates which would have applied to all those who possess long guns, not just those who purchase new guns. That Bill died on the Order Paper when the session ended. The Bill which followed, also introduced by the then Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Notre-de-Grace-Lachine East, had in fact been watered down, to the extent that the firearms acquisition certificate licensing proposal only applied to the acquisition of new guns.
The purpose of this Private Member's Bill which 1 support is to restore the original provisions of the gun control legislation as tabled in 1976. That means that it would not just be those who have purchased guns since January 1, 1978, who would be required to have firearms acquisition certificates but it would provide that all those who wish to possess long guns, namely rifles and shotguns, must possess a firearms possession certificate.
The other change that this Private Member's Bill would implement is to ensure that, although one has to produce a firearms possession certificate when one buys a gun, one would also have to produce it whenever one buys ammunition for that gun. 1 think that that is a reasonable proposition and one which I support as well.
The fundamental purpose of this Bill is quite straightforward. It is to ensure that all of those who possess these lethal weapons which are manufactured, after all, to kill either animals or human beings, should possess a firearms acquisition certificate and a firearms possession certificate under the terms of this Bill.
The Bill does not in any way affect those who are responsible, law-abiding hunters, sportsmen and sportswomen and those who use guns in competition. Certaintly Canada has had some outstanding competitors at the Olympic level in the area of competitive shooting. This Bill does not affect them nor does it affect hunters who would, I am sure, readily qualify for these certificates and who, I would think, would be supportive of this principle.
As well, the Bill would respond to some of the concerns which have been raised by those who argue that the present


provisions of the gun control legislation are too weak. There are still too many crimes committed in Canada involving guns. The evidence is clear that in those jurisdictions and countries in which there are tough gun-control provisions, there is less crime involving guns.
Let us look at the provisions in place in the United Kingdom. British law provides that one may not possess or acquire rifles, pistols, revolvers or shotguns unless one has already obtained a certificate from the local police and the local police will not issue such a certificate unless they are satisfied one has good reason for having the gun, public safety is not endangered and one is fit to be entrusted with a firearm. That applies to everyone who wants to have a firearm, not just to those who have purchased one since January 1, 1978, as is the case with the Canadian legislation. The effect of the law in the United Kingdom is that there are only 8,000 to 9,000 hand gun and about 30,000 shotguns in the British Isles among a population of some 55 million. In the United States, there is a population of some 220 million to 230 million and it has been estimated that there are more than 55 million hand gun alone plus 150 million to 200 million rifles and shotguns.
In addition to the requirement to obtain a certificate, certificates have to be renewed every three years in the British Isles. In general terms, these licences are issued only to members of registered target-shooting clubs and shotgun and rifle licences are issued only to citizens who can show acceptable reasons for shooting and hunting.
What are the implications of these laws for crimes involving guns in the United Kingdom? In fact, while hand gun were involved in over 10,000 deaths in the United States in 1979, in England there were only eight deaths involving hand gun in the same year. I suggest that tough and effective gun control does reduce the number of crimes that are committed and the number of deaths that result from guns. In fact, an average of less than one policeman per year has been killed by hand gun while on duty in the British Isles. Contrast that with the situation in Canada. Here hand gun were used more than any other weapon in the murder of Canadian policemen in the 1970s. This is according to a report from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, a branch of Statistics Canada. In fact, of the 73 policemen who were murdered between 1961 and 1981, 71 were slain by firearms. That can be contrasted with the situation in the United Kingdom where there is tough gun-control legislation. There are far too many crimes involving guns committeed in Canada.
The final report of an evaluation of Canadian gun-control legislation done by Decision Dynamics Corporation clearly showed that the purpose of that legislation which came into effect in 1978 has been achieved to a significant extent although the report points out a number of problems with the administration of that legislation. I will deal with those problems in a moment. I would emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this study was looking only at the watered-down gun-control provisions which were implemented as a result of Bill C-51.
The study found that the proportion of violent crimes committed with firearms declined in the post-legislation period.
Criminal Code
Where firearms were used in a violent crime, there was an increasing trend for the firearm to be a hand gun. There has been a moderate displacement of firearms by other weapons in robberies. There was a strong relationship between alcohol and drug use and firearms misuse in the true rural jurisdictions that were examined. Accidents with firearms were declining prior to 1978 but the legislation contributed to further downward trends. Finally, and I think very importantly, suicides with firearms declined moderately in the post-legislation period.
In terms of process, the study found that following 1979, courts imposed more severe sentences for firearms offences and that robberies with firearms resulted in longer jail sentences after the implementation of Bill C-51. Following 1979, sentences for repeat firearms offenders were more severe.
The study did go on to find that the application of the return procedure which is set out in Section 101 of the Criminal Code, the search and seizure provision, needs to be more clearly delineated. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena has been very critical of this provision in the past. Unquestionably there have been abuses of this provision. The legislation now in force provides that following all Section 101 searches with or without a warrant, the Attorney General immediately shall make a return or report to a magistrate showing the grounds upon which the search was conducted. However, the study found that that requirement has not been met and that the use of these returns appears to be limited. They are only made if a seizure has occurred and a request for forfeiture was intended. Clearly that is flouting Parliament's intention when it adopted these provisions of the gun-control legislation.
Another point that the study made was that the mandatory nature of the Section 98(1) prohibition order must be emphasized to Crown Attorneys and judges. The study notes that the enforcement of the mandatory prohibition upon a Section 83 conviction is very poor and that it may be that many Crown Attorneys and judges are simply unaware of the mandatory provisions of Section 98(1).
We do need tougher and more effective gun-control legislation in Canada. I would like to give an example of one of the problems which has arisen from the current inadequate gun control legislation. Two 18-year old Woodbridge High School students in Toronto were gunned down with a 12-guage shotgun as they stood outside their school. An 18-year old man was arrested in connection with the incident. The day after he was charged with two counts of attempted murder and his mother asked the question, which I think all of us must ask: "Why does the law allow my son to have this gun?" In fact, a York Regional Police constable said that, quite clearly, the gun laws are not strict enough. He also said that if something is not done we will see a lot more shootings and maybe even police officers killed.
All the young man had to do was go into the regional police station, apply for his certificate and pay the $10 which the law


Criminal Code
requires. Originally, his mother said that she did not want him to have the gun. The station phoned her for permission since her son was 16 years old when he bought this gun. His mother said: "No. Do not give it to him. He should not have a gun." However, he returned home and his mother said that he did not speak to her for four days or a week and she finally said: "What am I supposed to do? The law says it is okay, how can I say it is not?" Today, the law allows kids who are 16 years old to have guns. I think that is wrong. I think we need tougher and more effective gun control legislation. Many police across the country agree with that conclusion.
Finally, I wish to note that in previous Parliaments the provisions of this Bill have been distorted out of all recognition by those who really oppose any form of gun control legislation. The purpose of the Bill is two-fold. First, it is to ensure that anyone who possesses these lethal weapons meets the standard criteria which have been set out in the Bill, that is, that they do not have a criminal record for an offence in which violence was involved and that they have not been treated or hospitalized for a mental disorder. Is it really unreasonable to suggest that those criteria should be applied to all in Canada who would possess these dangerous weapons? Second, the Bill applies to ammunition and to the possession of ammunition as well.
Of all the consumer goods which are sold in Canada guns are by far the most dangerous and most destructive. It is the only consumer good in Canada the purpose of which is to kill-to kill animals or people. It is the one consumer good in Canada which has the greatest potential to criminal violence. We licence those who use cars. We license those who must sell prescription drugs. I suggest it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that those who want to use guns should have to meet the very basic standards which are set out in the existing provisions of the Criminal Code. For that reason, 1 am pleased to have been able to second this Bill and to rise to speak in support of it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased as a private Member to be able to participate in this debate. It is my understanding that the essence of the Bill is to impose stronger measures for gun control which, in the opinion of the mover and the seconder, will right all wrongs which have occurred or may occur in the future.
I would like to speak on this issue from the point of view of those people who obey the law. The vast majority of Canadian citizens who own firearms use them for sport. I say this based on my discussions with many, many sportsmen, people who fire guns, both men and women, from the riding of Simcoe North who obey the law, not only every day but every time they use a firearm. I resent the suggestion that there will be a further persecution of these people who, by and large, respect the weapons which they use for sport. I think Hon. Members would find that these people have a high regard for law and order at all times. I come from the vantage point not as one who owns a gun but as one who represents people who own firearms.
I can remember attending a meeting where the consensus of a group of about 100 sports people was that there should be a stronger penalty in the Criminal Code for any crime in which a firearm is used. Carte blanche, they were ready to tack three years on to any penalty under the Criminal Code if a firearm were used in the commission of an offence. In other words, the people I represent want to get at the people who abuse firearms. They do not want to have a horde of bureaucrats testing people for mental stability and forcing needless examinations on the people of Canada.
I have had submissions continuously from my riding and 1 would like to review some of those with Hon. Members if I may. I remember on August 2, 1982, I presented a petition to the House on behalf of 728 residents of my riding, many of them members of The Orillia Fish and Game Conservation Club, to which I will refer in a moment. These people said that Canada needs tougher laws to control the criminal use of firearms. They said that we need tougher courts and tougher punishments, not further controls on those who use firearms for sport purposes. For that reason they stood in complete opposition to a previous Bill brought before the House by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I supported that petition with the conviction that I was representing these people and that they were right. I have had correspondence from The Orillia Fish and Game Conservation Club, a group of men supported by their wives and girlfriends who are very strong on conservation and who support the measures for gun control so long as they make good common sense. For example, The Orillia Fish and Game Conservation Club is in favour of deleting the present $10 firearm acquisition certificate providing that ail first-time firearm purchasers are required to take a firearms education course. Instead of some psychiatrist trying to decide whether someone at the time he or she saw them is mentally stable or not my people want gun control legislation which speaks to the safety of people who use firearms. They say that when one looks at the current legislation the onus of proof is put on to the private citizens as opposed to the state. For example, if a firearm is sold or transferred to a person who has a firearms acquisition certificate and a question develops later as to whether or not the person really had a certificate, the onus is on the vendor to prove that he or she did have it. We believe that the onus should be on the authorities and not on the innocent sportsperson who, as I say, wants to comply with the law and is very aware of the dangers of the improper use of firearms.
The Orillia Fish and Game Conservation Club with regard to the question of penalties and regulations which relate to storage and safe keeping of firearms have an unusual suggestion for the bureaucrats. They want the people who use and handle firearms all the time to have some say in these myriad regulations. I can tell Hon. Members that if they go up Highway 11 to Elwood Epp's store the most vivid part of the safe keeping of weapons in Elwood Epp's store is this. It is a sign on the door which reads: "Beware of dog." There is no bureaucrat in the world who thinks that is protection; but I can


tell Hon. Members that Elwood Epp does not get robbed all that much because some people have seen those dogs behind the store and know just what sort of chance they would have. The fish and game club and others speak to a common sense approach by the authorities and to the involvement of those in the club with regard to the determination of regulations.
I have further correspondence from the Orillia Gun Club, a group established in 1929 by a group of people from my area, some 180 family members, who point out that they have a proud record of purpose, safety, accomplishment and dedication to providing recreational shooting for the people of Simcoe County. When they looked at the previous legislation put forward by my colleague, they said, and I quote:
-we feel it should be scrapped in its entirety and replaced by legislation which will seek to reduce the "criminal use" of firearms through a legal process of laws that deter those that act in a criminal manner while using a firearm in that act, and will cause the "irresponsible use" of firearms to be approached through FAC screening and as importantly through the continuance of safety training programs which we wholly endorse.
1 feel I must say once again to the House, Mr. Speaker, that this is where the sports people are coming from when we talk about gun control. They want safe, responsible use of firearms. That is where their emphasis is. They go on to point out that they will accept any constructive changes brought about in a democratic manner. They speak to the question of input from law enforcement agencies, sportsmen's groups, collectors and conservation authorities. Their goal, as stated in this correspondence, would be to see that the criminal and careless use of firearms is reduced, while protecting the interests of the firearms enthusiasts.
As their Member of Parliament, I support the submissions made to me by the Orillia Fish and Game Conservation Club and the Orillia Gun Club Inc. I am pleased to be able to put their position on the record of the House of Commons in speaking to the legislation put forward by my colleague.
I believe what the Hon. Member is trying to do is to make every individual who has owned a firearm prior to 1979, and who has not found it necessary to acquire a firearms acquisition certificate, to submit themselves to a screening by the police. These are people who have never had to submit to this type of screening before. They are innocent. They have never run into any problems with the law through their conduct with firearms in terms of sport hunting. Suddenly they have to trot down to the police station to be screened by the police, so that my colleague can determine whether or not their possession of the firearm for the previous five years constituted a hazard to their safety or to the safety of others. There is no mention made of what sort of examination will be conducted. There is no mention of what sort of protection the ordinary citizens are going to have from harrassment on other issues. I believe the Bill is sadly lacking in that kind of common sense.
Second, anyone who possesses ammunition-presumably they must have a gun as well-would also have to pass this screening by a hoard of bureaucrats who are going to determine whether or not these people who have always obeyed the
Criminal Code
law are capable of not obeying the law in the future. Finally, anyone who has a firearm or ammunition in a motor vehicle would require a firearms possession certificate.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the present legislation is drafted to deny individuals who wish to acquire a firearm the right to do so if there is reasonable cause to believe that for the safety of the public they should not have one. The legislation is intended to prevent convicted criminals who have used violence against another person, or who have used firearms in the commission of their crimes, and individuals who have been treated for mental disorders associated with violent behaviour or who have attempted or threatened violence against others- all within a previous five-year period-from legally acquiring firearms. I see a great deal of sense in that but 1 do not see any sense in individuals who have obeyed the law during their ownership of firearms, and who have acted in a safe manner whenever they used firearms, to be brought down to a police station and made to submit to this kind of inquisition.
I could continue, Mr. Speaker, but 1 see that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) would like to make a few comments. I know that his constituents, like mine, are all law-abiding people and they want their Member of Parliament to have an opportunity to address this important matter.


Moe Mantha: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for relinquishing his time to allow me to speak for a few moments.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-205 on gun control. This legislation raises issues of concern not only to my constituency but to millions of Canadians throughout the country because the issue of gun control touches on the very nature of our individual liberties in a free and democratic society. It is also a matter which touches on the issue of public safety and, therefore, is of interest to all Canadians. These are the realities which help to explain why the very subject of gun control is controversial and continues to inspire sharply divided opinion.
The use of firearms in sports, recreation and as a means of livelihood has been a part of our Canadian heritage for well over four centuries and that tradition continues today. Gun control also has a long history in Canada since its inception in the earliest days of Confederation. It has been an important aspect of Canadian and social policy. It is not the concept of gun control, however, which is at issue here. Measures which deal with the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms deserve our support. I do believe, however, that Government policy must strive for a reasonable balance between the need for public safety and the legitimate interests of firearms users and owners.
To achieve that balance it is important that we consider all of those affected before this House brings about any change in gun control legislation. It is in the consideration of millions of Canadians who would be directly and adversely affected by Bill C-205 that I must speak out against its main thrust.


Adjournment Debate
When I said millions of Canadians would be affected, I was not exaggerating. Back in 1976, it was estimated that there were at least 2.5 million Canadians who owned firearms. Today that number would be at least three million. Over one million Canadians have had to get firearms acquisition certificates since 1979 in order to acquire firearms. That means that over two million Canadians-and it could be many more- would have to obtain a firearms possession certificate if Bill C-205 were to be enacted. I am concerned about the possible cost and major inconvenience that this measure would cause.
There are serious implications for all of those affected by Bill C-205 and 1 will address them now in the House. But first I would like to refer to a first-hand expression of the concerns of many affected citizens. It is a letter which was written to the previous Government protesting a previous Private Members' Bill, Bill C-451, which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand). It was identical in content to this present Bill C-205. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have run out of time. I would like to thank you for the privilege of speaking for a few moments.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for Private Members' Business is now over.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, back on October 17, the Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan) met with Mr. Lee Thomas, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in connection with the cleaning up of the chemical dumps on the American side of the Niagara River. As you are aware, there are four chemical dumps of great concern in that area: the Love Canal, Hyde Park, the S Dump, and 102nd Street in Niagara Falls, New York. All of those chemical waste dumps are owned or controlled by the Hooker Chemical Company or the Occidental Petroleum Company in the U.S. They were created over a period of years with the accumulation of waste and toxic material originally in great pools or surface dumps which have now seeped into the ground and are causing potential danger to the water of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario.
It has been evident over the last few years, when we see the glistening of the moisture on the rocks on the banks of the Niagara River, that seepage is taking place. Traces of toxic materials, including dioxin, have been found in the waters of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario.
Because of the complaints about the Love Canal and these other chemical dumps the American have been making some efforts to investigate the possible cleanup of these sites. However, all their efforts so far have been aimed at the containment of the dumps, leaving them where they are and containing the materials in a better way. This has caused a great deal of concern on the part of Canadians generally, and environmentalists in particular, because there is the real possibility that the toxic material will move towards the banks and then burst those banks on the Niagara River. This would make completely unusable the drinking water of over six million people. About four million of those people are in the Province of Ontario, two million in the City of Montreal, and about 200,000 in the U.S. Therein lies the problem.
The fact is that these dumps are on the American side of the Niagara River, but the problems caused if the toxic materials burst the banks of the river, will really be felt in large part by Canadians. Somehow or other we have to come to grips with this problem. The Americans have not just been sitting idly by. They have looked at this problem and have done something. Five years ago they created what they called the "Super Fund" to try and deal with hazardous industrial dumps and solve these problems. They put a great deal of money into this "Super Fund". However, they have an awfully large number of waste dumps all over the U.S. In fact, most of them are concentrated in the States of California and New Jersey. That is where large numbers of people are located, as opposed to the Niagara frontier and Lake Ontario. Therefore, it is those areas which have been getting most of the attention. As I understand it, the legislation creating this "Super Fund" has expired and has not yet been replaced. There is no funding at all at the moment.
If we are going to deal with this problem the only effective way is not just to contain it but dig it up and destroy it, which is a very expensive process and there has been a lot of discussion as to whether it can be done in fact. However, it is being done in Europe, in the Netherlands and West Germany. They have plants in which they destroy this toxic material. That is what we should be doing in North America.
It has not only been these dumps along the American side of the Niagara River which caused this problem. There are other sources. Other industries, other hazardous dump sites, as well as municipalities, are causing pollution of the Niagara River and the Great Lakes generally. We have to do something about that.
It seems to me there are three things we can do. First, we can press the United States to get on with cleaning up their act. Second, we should be funding our own environmental


groups to take court proceedings in the United States to encourage them to get on with cleaning up their own act. Third, we should be funding the sewage improvements of our own municipalities so that we can look after the pollution and waste material we are producing and dumping in the Great Lakes and Niagara River.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that tonight the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that we are doing these three things and, in particular, tell us that we are going to clean up our own act, by funding the sewer improvements of some of our municipalities to ensure that we are not polluting our own Great Lakes.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I want to thank the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for his excellent and ongoing representations relating to the serious environmental problems which exist, particularly in the Niagara area. In fact, we can find such conditions in many parts of the Great Lakes. One part which is currently in the news is in the Sarnia area. There have been questions asked about that area which are not dissimilar to those asked regarding the Niagara region.
The meeting of October 17 was in consequence of a main meeting that Mr. Lee Thomas had with the previous Minister of the Environment, at which time the United States made an undertaking to come forward with an action plan, a proposal to in fact deal with the ongoing and serious problem in many of the waste dump sites and point sources that exist on the American side of the border which contribute greatly to the problem we have in the waters of the Niagara region. In fact, the United States accounts for about 90 per cent of the pollution, while Canada accounts for about 10 per cent, so we both make some contribution to the ongoing problem.
The administrator of the EPA came to Canada and brought with him a proposal. This proposal is being examined by our technical and scientific staff. At the time he was here, with his agreement and support, we arranged for the next stage, which is a meeting in four days from now between New York State, the Province of Ontario, the EPA and Canadian Government officials. At this meeting we will try to bring into focus some of the things that are important from the Canadian perspective and to help define those parts of the proposal that we feel need definition.
The Hon. Member has asked many questions. I do not expect to be able to answer all of them in the short time I have available, but I will try to deal with a couple of the specific issues he raised.
I think he would be interested to know some of the specific parts of that proposal. The thing that we are very interested in regarding the proposal, and this is not meant to be exclusive, is the destruction of the chemicals. Dioxin is the most lethal, and dioxin 2378TCDD is second only to plutonium as a lethal substance known to man. That is, indeed, the point. The EPA understands that those things must be destroyed. The question is how to most effectively do that. We are dealing with massive amounts of land, some of which include the leachate that is coming out on the face of the Niagara surface and into the
Adjournment Debate
waters. This is a technological problem. It does, in fact, demand destruction, and that is something which is understood by both the American representatives and the Canadian Government. We know that it must be destroyed. The question is how we go about doing it. The second question is how we come to grips with these technologies. We intend to work together to ensure that we accomplish that destruction. Third, we know that we need specific timetables and budgets. The cost is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. All of the ingredients are there so that the Canadian Government, in conjunction with other parties, can come to grips with this problem which has existed for many years.


SHIPBUILDING-IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the election on September 4, 1984, the Party which now forms the Government took a position on the matter of shipbuilding and developed a Government policy area. We recognized at that time that Canada has established itself as a leader in the cold-water shipbuilding technology industry and that indeed we should be addressing ourselves to the concerns of the shipbuilding industry. We further stated that when elected we would work to make Atlantic towns and cities the leading maritime and marine service areas in the north Atlantic. We developed a number of proposals which we would bring to the attention of management, labour and the industry as a whole when we were elected.
It has been over a year since the election. On September 23 I asked the Minister responsible for shipbuilding policy when he anticipated action on implementing the shipbuilding policies which we talked about and promised to shipyard workers during the previous year. The Minister responded that the shipbuilding policies were under review and discussions were taking place with representatives of the shipbuilding industry both in labour and management.
During the period in 1983 when we were talking about the shipbuilding industry there were only 7,800 jobs. That was down by some 34 per cent over the previous year. We agreed that there was a need to address this deplorable situation. Therefore, we developed the policies to which I have alluded. The sad fact of the matter is that according to the statistics, today we are experiencing: "The slimmest order book since before the Second World War", as described by the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association. That is a sad situation indeed.
What has taken place with reference to the policies we talked about? We have phased out the performance improvement grants as well as the shipbuilding industry assistance program, which now means that for new orders there is nothing left in the shipbuilding policy to provide an incentive to Canadian or foreign builders to have ships built in this country.
Having said that, we recognize that there is approximately $100 million worth of credits remaining to be disbursed. Indeed, that will be done over a period of time and we will


Adjournment Debate
probably see the effects of that for some seven years. However, that will not bring into the yards the new work that is so badly required.
We also know that the federal Government is the mainstay of the industry. That is simply not acceptable. We know that nearly all the work that is now under way, or work that is planned is being financed and undertaken on behalf of and for the federal Government. In a nation with a coastline the size of ours, we cannot accept that the federal Government, it would appear, as the sole supporter of our shipyards and the sole provider of work for those few Canadians today who are able to find work in our shipyards.
I suggest that we now get on with the commitments we undertook during the pre-election period. I understand the serious restraints under which the Government finds itself at the present time. However, now that we have had a full year to assess the situation, I believe it is time-and those who represent shipyards in the Atlantic area and beyond agree-to get on with implementing policies which encourage, not discourage, Canadian and foreign businesses to build and repair ships in our yards. Time is of the essence for these workers. It is time for the Government to undertake the initiative and to implement the policies we said we would implement.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and confrere from Fundy-Royal has raised an important issue, one to which the Government of Canada is devoting close attention. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is acutely aware of the difficulties suffered by the shipbuilding industry in Canada, and has discussed the situation on several occasions either with representatives of the shipbuilding industry or with union leaders.
There is no easy or magic solution. Our Government has already made an enormous contribution to the survival of this industry by providing, through its own orders, the great bulk of the business now on the order books. It has also shown flexibility in its contractual dealings with the shipyards. For example, it agreed to renegotiate its contracts with Halifax Industries Limited, so that the company could complete work on Coast Guard vessels despite evident financial difficulties.
Our Government will continue to support Canadian shipyards through public procurements. The Polar VIII ice-breaker program is under study, and the patrol frigate program is well under way. These two programs together represent 10,000 person-years of work.
However, to assure the future of shipyards for the longterm, they must also obtain commercial work from private industry. In the face of a collapse of world demand, coupled with the addition of new capacity in countries such as Korea, competition is fierce in all ship markets of the world. Therefore, we must ensure that Canadian shipyards work at very high levels of efficiency and without imposing an economic burden upon the users of Canadian-built ships.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion will be most pleased to advise his colleagues in the House as soon as a practical solution can be found.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN ATLANTIC CANADA. (B) MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise concerning a question I directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on October 23, 1985. In my question I indicated some relatively staggering figures regarding unemployment in different regions of the country. Specifically, 1 talked about Newfoundland and other provinces in Atlantic Canada where unemployment in some communities exceeds 40 per cent to 50 per cent.
Unfortunately the Minister of Finance was not very forthcoming regarding proposals or remedial actions he and his Government were anticipating putting into place over the next number of months. However, he availed himself of the opportunity and talked about the Atlantic Accord, assistance to the Fishery Products International Company and the Cape Breton Island tax credit. These measures to which the Minister referred are certainly far from sufficient. He may allude to the fact that it costs a number of millions of dollars for these particular proposals to be implemented, but the fact of the matter is that those proposals do not reach the magnitude of the bail-out of two western banks in excess of $875 million. They are in no way equivalent to the billions of dollars provided to multinational oil companies or to the capital gains tax exemptions, which will cost Canadian taxpayers from coast to coast billions upon billions of dollars, providing a benefit to the wealthy.
However, the Government has implemented a Canadian Jobs Strategy Program, a program which I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary is not working and will not work in the regions.
The Government has refused to carry through with a decentralization of Government offices in the outlying regions. In fact, the Auditor General, astute man that he is, indicated quite clearly that the Government had wasted approximately $1.5 million by cancelling the decentralization of an office from Halifax to Sydney, Nova Scotia.
The Government has refused to take an active role in the substantive issue of regional development. It has given the sole prerogative in regional development to the provincial Governments. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has refused to stand up for the poorer regions of the country, whether it be the Provinces of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or any other community in the country. He has refused to assist them. We have heard his answers regarding the Toyota, Hyundai and Honda plants. The Minister and the Government do nothing.
Some $2 billion in transfer payments will be cut. This means that those in the less fortunate regions will have to pay more


for medicare and post-secondary education. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance disputes my figures, let me tell him what the Department of Finance indicates will be cut from the Established Programs Financing: $115 million will be cut in 1986-87; $240 million will be cut in 1987-88; $385 million will be cut in 1988-89; $545 million will be cut in 1989-90 and $720 million will be cut in 1990-91. All of this will be lopped off, thus causing further unemployment in the regions.
The answers provided by the Minister of Finance to my question of October 23, 1985 are totally insufficient, and the inadequate actions taken are to meet the needs of Canadians in the less fortunate regions. 1 would ask him, out of concern for the economic benefit of those Canadians, that he alter the economic course which is causing thousands upon thousands of Canadians in the regions to go onto the unemployment rolls. Would he change or alter that course of action?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must be feeling generous, since he left me a lot of time for my answer. In any case, I am happy to be able to give you an exhaustive list of projects that constitute a direct answer to the comments of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr. Dingwall). Mr. Speaker, the following are measures specifically directed to the Atlantic region:
-Subsidiary regional economic development agreements have been signed with the Atlantic provinces, involving federal commitments for funding totalling approximately $270 million.
-We have concluded an energy agreement with Newfoundland, thereby removing a major obstacle to the development of the Hibernia field which is rich in natural resources.
-In order to maximize the impact of this projet on the regional economy, we have contributed $225 million to the Newfoundland Offshore Resources Development Fund.
-Last May's Budget provided for a new investment tax credit for Cape Breton, which was subsequently raised from 50 to
Adjournment Debate
60 per cent, in order to create new jobs in the private sector on Cape Breton island and in the Mulgrave area. Furthermore, a private sector consultative committee was set up which has just submitted its report. The Government is now examining the committee's recommendations and will act on them as soon as possible.
-A grant of $16 million was approved to enable Devco to build a second gallery in the Morien coal mine in Cape Breton.
-Furthermore, we recently paid a contribution of $77 million to Fisheries Products International; in addition, Canada and Newfoundland have agreed on a five-year plan aimed at ensuring the long term viability of this company.
We also added $60 million to the equalization payments paid to the Atlantic provinces earlier this year, and we did so without prior contracts or commitments.
I would like to remind the House that these steps were taken despite the strict budgetary constraints necessary as a result of the extent of federal expenditures. The impact of these expenditures is very significant and will be felt throughout the Atlantic region and in all its communities.
However, even more important than these various financial commitments is the new climate of constructive co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces which has been established in the Atlantic region and in other regions in this country since we came to power on September 4, 1984.
If the Hon. Member wishes to obtain further information on the subject, I suggest that he get in touch with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) who will be able to give him more detailed information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 5, 1985