1985-12-06

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, after two months of uninterrupted and repeated requests from Members of the Opposition and the Montreal East survival committee, the Government has just announced the creation of a six-Minister Cabinet committee to provide assistance to the Montreal region, mainly to Montreal East which is now experiencing a situation likely to result in the loss of 5,000 jobs.
For openers, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House and one of the people responsible for the survival committee, I would like to serve immediate notice on those Ministers that the workers will simply not stand still while this third committee runs around in circles. I would also advise the committee and its chairman, the President of the Treasury Board, that one more study is not going to help Montreal East. First, the Government must give Montreal East a Zone-IV designation to make all industries and workers eligible for the best grant programs. Second, the Government must cancel the Gulf sale to Ultramar and let Gaz metropolitain buy the refinery and protect jobs. Third, the Government must immediately award contracts to Montreal East's Canadian Vickers under the TRUMP or Multi-Ship programs. Fourth, the Government must immediately convene CN, VIA Rail and CP representatives so that they may award contracts to Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel and La Forge. Mr. Speaker, on Monday-


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


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce intends "to split its shares and increase its dividends as signs of a turnabout become more apparent". This bank can afford to raise the dividends on shares but refuses to deal with its employees in a fair and equitable manner. The Commerce is well known for maintaining a ghetto of low-paid employees, the majority of whom are women, and of practising tactics of intimidation toward pro-union workers and favouritism toward others.
On a number of occasions the CIBC has been found guilty of unfair labour practices. I have written the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) asking him to improve labour relations within banks through stronger legislation. This week the Minister responded to me by indicating his unwillingness to take such a step. I again urge the Government to set up an inquiry into the labour practices of all banks and to improve the Canada Labour Code by introducing meaningful first-contract legislation so that the banks will be forced to negotiate fairly with their employees.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is becoming a land of opportunity again. Since this Government was elected, 416,000 jobs have been added to the labour force, 83,000 of which were added in November alone. The unemployment rate has fallen from 11.6 per cent in September, 1984, to 10.2 per cent now. Youth unemployment has declined more than two full percentage points. The total of unemployed people has fallen by 148,000 persons. The job-creation rate since the last general election has been four times better than the job-creation rate in the entire 55 months of the previous regime.
Not only is this a trend across the country but, according to the Canada Employment Centre, in Canada's seventh largest city, of Scarborough, this national trend is evident locally. Since September, 1984, the number of Scarborough employers seeking help has increased by one-third over that of the previous 14 months.
This should not be written off as a world-wide trend with no Canadian component. According to current statistics, Canada is reducing unemployment faster than any other western industrial country except The Netherlands. This dramatically improved employment picture shows that we are fulfilling the commitment we made to the Canadian people-that we would renew the economy and that we would do it by making this a

December 6, 1985
country for doing business, for making investments, and for expanding opportunity.


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


INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, as 1985 draws to a close I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the youth of Canada for the outstanding contribution they have made during this International Youth Year. In addition, I would like to commend the Government of Canada and the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) for the positive programs put forward to assist the youth of Canada with their varied and imaginative projects.
Prior to my election to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I was actively involved as an educator for 31 years. During that time I had the privilege of working with thousands of young people in both academic and social surroundings. They are genuinely committed to Canada's future. More youth in Canada today are in school and are staying longer. Clearly today's Canadian youth represent the best educated and best trained generation our country has ever produced.
One day, many of the leaders of today's youth will be the leaders of our various levels of Government and industries, making the difficult yet necessary decisions which will affect the economic prosperity and social activity of our great country. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that not only our young people but youth throughout the world inherit a future which is filled with hope and a global security secured in peace and compassion.
It is in this spirit that I urge the Government to make representations at the United Nations to have 1986-1996 declared "International Decade for Youth". It would be a fitting tribute to our youth-


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


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Hustler magazine issue is a classic example of the hypocrisy of the Government. It claims it is concerned about the importation of pornography into Canada. It says it cares about the issue and calls it an issue of paramount urgency. Yet the Government has done absolutely nothing with respect to this
disgusting and revolting magazine, in particular the December issue of the magazine.
Last Friday the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) promised the House that a report would be forthcoming by Monday. Some five days later we still do not have that report. It would lead one to conclude that the Government simply does not care about this most important issue.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) suggests we should simply ignore the matter and it might go away. However, that is not the proper course of action as far as we are concerned. Definite action must be taken immediately. The magazine entered Canada because of the gross negligence of the Government. We now find that the Government is planning to cut back 1,152 jobs in the Department of Customs and Excise. While we need more Customs inspectors the Government is planning on cutting back.
The Conservative Government should hang its head in shame for not taking immediate steps to ensure that this magazine is taken off the shelves. Mr. Speaker-


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


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, the latest employment figures show that the Government is making every effort to meet its commitment to create jobs. Last November, 83,000 new jobs, most of them full time, were created thanks to Government policies.
Since September 1984, when Canadians voted for a new direction from a Conservative Government, we have helped 416,000 Canadians to find jobs, 416,000 Canadians who were previously unemployed and who would certainly not have found work if a Liberal Government had been in power.
Mr. Speaker, even the Opposition with its complaints and criticisms will admit that this is an unprecedented figure. The Government is living up to its slogan of jobs, jobs, jobs. Unemployment insurance benefits have gone down by 5 per cent since last August.
And it is not only in relation with job creation that this Government is putting Canada back on the map. I would like to point out that the federal deficit for the third quarter amounted to a seasonally adjusted figure of $25 billion, which is 19.4 per cent lower than during the previous quarter.
This Government is restoring the Canadian public's confidence in the economy, Mr. Speaker. We are doing our job!
December 6, 1985


DAY CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish all my colleagues a very happy St. Nicholas Day. The tradition of that fine old soul who cared so much for all children reflects the best of human nature. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his wife chose to name their newest son Nicholas.
Nicholas is a very fortunate little baby who gets to go to work with his mother. Mila is a very unusual working mother who, unlike most women, has the opportunity to bring her son into the workplace. We presume Nick's father is sharing the parenting during his frequent absences from the House. Mila feels she and Nicholas are advocates for child care which will magically take place on its own. Will every plant have an assembly line of cribs alongside the word processors?
The need for accessible, affordable day care is urgent. Women are working hard and carrying double burdens. Some 60 per cent of working women are married and one-half of their families would be poor if they were not in the workforce. Two income are necessary today just to survive.
Children must not be victims of poverty. We must provide quality child care now. If Mila Mulroney wishes to play an advocate role she should insist the federal Government move quickly to ensure universal, publicly-funded day care for all of Canada's children.
* *
*


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, following upon commitments made during the last election campaign, this Progressive Conservative Government has taken concrete steps to rationalize and enhance the role of Crown corporations in the Canadian community of 1985.
This party has always favoured the existence and operations of those corporations provided they agreed with our national interests. In the course of that review, we have reached the conclusion that some of those corporations were no longer serving the purposes intended or that their objectives had been reached and their participation in national life was therefore no longer required or desirable.
This is why we proceeded with the winding up of four inoperative Crown corporations; with the winding up of corporations that no longer answered the purposes of public policy; and also with the sale of Northern Transportations Company Limited, Canadian Arsenals and de Havilland as well as Canadian Government interests in the Canada Development Corporation.
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, in addition to bringing nearly half a billion dollars into the Federal treasury, those sales, sale proposals and winding ups will reduce by some $700 million this year the Canadian Government's financial needs. They will also help us reduce the deficit by another $350 million during the 1985-86 fiscal year.
Moreover, those moves show that we have no intention of maintaining an unnecessary presence in industries that do not require direct public sector involvement.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, it concerns the health of Canadians and the damage inflicted upon the agricultural industry by the neglect of the Minister of Agriculture. Can the Minister confirm that two Conservative Members of Parliament from Ontario, namely, the Hon. Member for Peterborough and the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, met with the Minister and made representations to him concerning the infected buffalo meat? Can he further confirm that those Members of Parliament were concerned as early as October 15 that TB infected meat was going to be permitted for sale, potentially jeopardizing the indusjtry and damaging the health of Canadians?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to respond. I apologize for not being in the House yesterday. However, I was in the marathon meetings with representatives of the Ontario Flue Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, as well as the companies, attempting to arrive at a settlement for the 1985 crop. Indeed, I am pleased to report progress.
1 do appreciate the response of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in taking notice of the questions, and I want to acknowledge as well the representations made to me on the dates to which the Hon. Member refers by my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North and the Hon. Member for Peterborough. In addition to that, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe representation was also made to me by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming.
Within seconds of notification of this information, I contacted my senior officials. I requested them to apply the letter of the Act with respect to this particular situation. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that we have one of the finest meat and food

December 6, 1985
Oral Questions
inspection services in this country. It is widely recognized throughout the entire industry and it is respected throughout the world.


RELEASE OF MEAT FOR SALE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister knew of the potential health hazard, and in view of the fact that the health test being done was not even completed as late as yesterday, my question is very simple. Why did the Minister allow the meat to be sold when he did not have full knowledge of what the health implications were? Could he also tell us if this is another case of the Government giving the benefit of the doubt to the corporate sector against the health of Canadians? Is this another case of the tuna affair repeated?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that is utter nonsense, as well as most of the observations made by the Hon. Member. He should know-but I can tell by some of his comments he doesn't know-that the Meat Inspection Act, which has been in effect for 75 years, and which was amended on May 8 of this year with the support of all Parties, does not extend ministerial authority to me to overrule my inspectors.
[ Translation]


MEAT QUALITY STANDARDS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Concerning again the tainted buffalo meat, the Minister was aware that this meat was not to be sold abroad. Exporting that meat would have been prohibited. Importing it would also have been prohibited. If it is not good enough for foreigners, why is it good enough for Canadians? Is the Minister using the same logic that his former colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans used in making his decision?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member was aware of the provisions in the Act and of the spirit of the international convention, he would not pose that question because for a good number of years that practice and procedure have been used. If a carcass goes through the inspection and requires additional inspection; i.e., a lesion is found in the carcass, then, of course, it is condemned. If a lesion is found within an organ the proper procedure is always followed, as it was in this case, and it is sent to a laboratory for testing.
The Hon. Member indicates that the tests have been completed. They have not. They were sent to a laboratory in Nepean where a series of tests is carried out. I am advised that the results of the final tests will not be known for four, five, or six weeks.


Mr. Tobin:: That's ridiculous.


John Wise: All of the tests that have been completed have come back negative. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that during the debate on that issue the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is reported at page 4536 of Hansard as saying that:
Liberal Members do in fact acknowledge that the meat inspection system in this country is indeed excellent.
Where does he stand? Is he for it or against it?


Don Boudria: It was, before you came along.


PROVISIONS OF MEAT INSPECTION ACT AND REGULATIONS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Government obviously does not learn from its mistakes. It is not satisfied with unloading tainted tuna on to the Canadian public. It is now questionable buffalo meat-surf and turf.
Is the Minister aware of Section 474 of the Meat Inspection Act and regulations which state that, if any lesions are found, total condemnation of the herd is required?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the Act and of the regulation.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Why not act?


John Wise: I say again that I have full and complete confidence in the meat inspection system in this country. Ministerial authority is not given to over-rule my inspectors. I simply ask them to apply the full letter of the law and, if they find anything questionable, to err on the side of health and public safety. This course of action has been followed for 75 years. It has served the industry, the Canadian public, and the international marketplace well. There is a great deal of respect for this system across the country and in the international marketplace, although it may not be shared by Members opposite.


CONDUCT OF TESTS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, lesions indicating the possible presence of tuberculosis were found in six of these animals. Yet the meat was released before the final tests were completed. If the Minister is satisfied to say that there was no tuberculosis present in these animals, why are the tests still on-going?


John Wise: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. The tests have nothing to do with the condemnation of the meat, but have everything to do with wiping out tuberculosis in the bovine herd across the country. That is the reason for the test of the organs. I think we should recognize and compliment the meat inspectors across the country because they contributed in a major way to the very rapid and significant decrease of bovine TB in humans.
December 6, 1985


DISCOVERY OF LESIONS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. When lesions are found in a carcass or on the vital organs of a carcass, is it not standard practice for the inspectors to set that carcass aside until the laboratory work on those lesions has been completed? Why was that not done in this case?


John Wise: To be perfectly honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the Hon. Member a definite answer to this.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That's ridiculous.


John Wise: As 1 have indicated, I was informed of this situation at the beginning. 1 have sought advice subsequent to that as late as yesterday and this morning. I am informed that the normal, traditional procedures were used in this case as they are used day in and day out. Thousands of livestock carcasses move through our slaughter plants on a daily or weekly basis.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In another New Brunswick case the Prime Minister said that it seemed "pretty damn obvious" to him that a certain parcel of product should not have been released before the laboratory tests were completed. This is also the case in this instance. Does the Prime Minister honestly believe that he can retain a Cabinet Minister who will allow Canadians to eat meat that may have been diseased, who released it for the use of Canadian consumers before the laboratory tests on a herd that was found to be tubercular were completed so that we knew whether or not these particular carcasses were affected?
[DOT] (U25)


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 always welcome the opportunity to answer questions, but 1 welcome this one with a little more enthusiasm.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I wasn't asked of you.


John Wise: Let me indicate that our record is the finest in the world.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Not to me it isn't.


John Wise: 1 said that we have had 75 years of this, and the normal accepted procedures in this case have been followed as they were in the last 75 years.
Hon. Members should be aware that there has not been one single documented case since the introduction of the Meat Inspection Act, the application of that Act and the application of those regulations by our federal meat inspection officers in the last 75 years-


Mr. McCurdy:: You could be the first.
Oral Questions


John Wise: -of bovine tuberculosis transmitted to humans from meat that has been inspected by our inspectors.
I think that is a tremendous record ando ne that should be acknowledged.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISPOSITION OF CARCASSES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister explain specifically why those five or six carcasses in which lesions were found in their vital organs were not set aside?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I told the Hon. Member that 1 could not give him a direct, honest answer, and I want to give him an honest answer. For all 1 know, at the moment, maybe what the Hon. Member is asking about was done. Give me an opportunity to find out. Give me 15 minutes after Question Period and 1 will give you the answer.


SALE OF MEAT TO CONSUMERS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, what an incredible admission of incompetence, for the Minister to stand in the House and say: "I don't know why but I am perfectly sure everything is fine with that meat".


An Hon. Member:: Ask a question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister's Pontius Pilate routine won't wash. The buck stops with him.
Why, in the face of representations from Members of Parliament, representations from the buffalo herders industry-


An Hon. Member:: It is Question Period, not debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why did the Minister allow that meat to go to market without having the results of those tests on six animals, tests, incidentally, which indicate from the animal that died in New Brunswick that TB was present in that herd? Why was that meat product allowed to go on the plates of Canadian consumers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if I had a choice between following the recommendations and the advice of my inspectors or that of the Hon. Member, it would be a very easy decision. I would choose and would rather err on the side of competence, and I would err on the side of a proven record.


INSPECTION PROCESS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard from the Minister is that when two Members of Parliament representing buffalo herders in their districts tell a cabinet Minister in the Government that

December 6, 1985
Oral Questions
their people say there is a problem, you don't listen. What you are saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the Hon. Member had a long question the first time. Could he now ask his question, please?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is the Minister of Agriculture telling the House that he is satisfied that the inspection process that allowed this buffalo meat to go to market, in the absence of complete tests, is the same process and involves the same standards that are applied to all red meat inspection in this country? Is that what he is telling the House?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, briefly, that is exactly what I am telling the House, and I say it with a great deal of satisfaction and confidence. If there is any question in the Hon. Member's mind, there isn't in mine. Just look at the record. There is no question that the record is fantastic.
The Canadian people have been well served by it, I think the Government has been well served by it, and I am sure that I, as Minister of Agriculture, will be well served by it too.

[DOT] (M30)


HERBICIDES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, first it was Tunagate, and yesterday it was TB dinners. Now we have to add to the regulatory mess this Government has produced the importation of the pesticide alachlor after a previous Government ban.
Just who is running the ship at Agriculture Canada when, in spite of a ban, unspecified amounts of a cancer-causing pesticide already contaminating our drinking water are allowed into the country?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am in control of Agriculture Canada. I make no apologies for that whatsoever.


BAN ON USE OF HERBICIDE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, let us see how accurate is the information which the Minister has available to him.
Will the Minister determine the whereabouts and the amount of alachlor presently in the country? Will he immediately place a complete embargo on its use and on the entry of any further supplies of it until the outcome of the Review Committee's activities is known?


John Wise: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is outdated. We have already done that. We took action, I believe, on February 25 this year.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHY BUFFALO MEAT NOT USED FOR DOG FOOD
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, as reported in the media this morning, Department of National Health and Welfare veterinarians are said to have declared that the meat should have been destroyed or used for other purposes: for making dog food.
Could the Minister tell the House how he had the nerve to allow this meat to reach the tables of Canada, after Government experts had said it should have been destroyed or used to make pet foods?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 am aware of some observations that have been made across the country from various sources. 1 watched a comment or two made by a veterinarian, I believe, in western Canada and I immediately drew that information to the attention of my senior officials. I was told that these observations are made from time to time by various people in the industry and various people in the profession.
I am advised that the individual whom I saw has admitted that he is not an expert in the area of meat inspection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Is anyone is control of the NDP?


John Wise: After years of public neglect and inaction, Mr. Speaker, we took action and appointed the Pesticide Management Advisory Board for the first time in our history. In addition to that, I appointed the Alachlor Review Board, another major step in the interests of public health and safety.
As far as the information that I have this morning, that to which the Hon. Member refers is inaccurate.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF POSITIONS OF TWO MINISTERS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had disregarded his own officials' recommendations for returning the tuna to the shelves, while the Minister of Agriculture dares not overrule his officials' recommendations in order to protect public health.
How is it that we have this difference between the two Departments?
December 6, 1985


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to explain the difference. The only fact is we have an excellent record. We have the finest system in the world. 1 do not have ministerial discretion under the Act. I think that should provide the answer.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is so much criticism contrary to what was said when we amended the Act on May 8. I have quoted the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I quote now the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre:
Members of Parliament, farmers, meat packers, processors and consumers are convinced that we have the makings of a very good meat inspection system.
And listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
If it is not the best in the world, it is certainly among the best in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: I have another quote. I can go on, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I find it very interesting and deeply disturbing. We now know the Minister knew about the situation in general on October 14. He has just stood in the House, and I want to verify this, to say that he did not know up until today, and still does not know, and is now telling the House of Commons and the people of Canada, that in spite of carcasses being found to be infected, what happened to those carcasses afterwards. Is that right?


John Wise: Partly right, Mr. Speaker, but partly wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: It is pretty serious stuff.


John Wise: What I have not clarified is whether the six carcasses having organs containing lesions were detained for a period of time. That is what I am saying. I have offered to supply the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre with that information.
Hon. Members mistakenly take for granted that simply because an animal entering a plant has a positive test it is infected with TB, but that is not the case. It may or may not be the case. As to the other inaccurate conclusions which Hon. Members are drawing that a trained qualified veterinarian can tell visually whether a lesion is active or is a TB lesion, that is not known until those organs are forwarded to a lab for tests. This is being done now.
Oral Questions
There are a series of tests, four or five to be exact, some of which take a long period of time. I understand there is one test for which the results are not yet in. Three or four tests on lesions from those animals have up to this point in time been negative.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, this is becoming too long. The Hon. Member for Oshawa has a supplementary question?


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on this important matter.
We now know the carcasses found to be contaminated were in fact sent to western Canada, sold in western Canada, and have now been eaten. We have an acknowledgement from the Minister that in the middle of October he was aware of the general circumstance. He has admitted now in the House that nothing was done to ensure the carcasses were destroyed, that he did not even pursue the matter to find out whether the meat was on the shelves, or what happened to it.
Does the Prime Minister accept this as responsible behaviour from a Minister? If he does not, will the Prime Minister take steps to change this Minister as he did with a previous Minister in the Tunagate affair?


Mr. Skelly:: It is pretty damned obvious that the meat should not have gone on the table.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, Parliament passed an Act of Parliament in 1907 which set out terms and conditions of the Act and set out its regulations. The law has worked perfectly over the ensuing 75 years. Earlier this year we took the initiative and amended the Act to legalize some of the practices and procedures which had been used over time by our meat inspectors, to give them legal authority to ensure greater public health and safety. I have difficulty with this, Mr. Speaker, but the Member must have respect for this Parliament and he must have respect for legislation passed by this Parliament, particularly if that legislation has worked so well over the years.
The Hon. Member must also accept the fact that that Act does not give me ministerial authority. I checked within seconds, less than a minute, but the only authority I have, which I utilized within seconds of being advised by three colleagues, was to call my senior officials. I was going to make them aware of the situation but they already knew about it. They already had these animals in detention and had known about the problem for a long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Sorry.

December 6, 1985
Oral Questions


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. 1 prevail upon her to help me with my mathematics this morning. In view of the 83,000 jobs which were created in the month of November, a figure of which 1 am sure the Minister can be justly proud, why was there not more than a .1 per cent decrease in unemployment?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is because 83,000 more Canadians had the confidence to enter the labour market as new participants this month.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The reason they did so-


Mr. Rodriguez:: That is what the Liberals used to say.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -is because they can see that the economy is growing, that the Gross National Product is up substantially this quarter, that housing starts are up, that retail sales are up, that inflation is down and that interest rates are down. All of that is having a very dramatic impact on the growth of jobs-some 416,000 since we took office, and 83,000 this month alone.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Those figures include women, young people and adult men, the whole spectrum-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The subject matter, as was evident in previous questions, is the tainted bufallo meat. The Prime Minister knows that the Minister had knowledge of tainted meat which may or may not have been exposed to tuberculosis, therefore causing grave dangers to the health of Canadians. He knows that the Minister refused to intervene, to stop it from going on the market. I suggest to the Prime Minister that this amounts to gross negligence, and 1 ask him to intervene and have this Minister removed from the Department of Agriculture.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, this meat is not tainted; this meat is not tainted.


Ian Deans: How do you know?


John Wise: The only thing that is tainted about this is-


Some Hon. Members:: How do you know that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: If I had a buffalo sandwich right now, would you eat it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If Hon. Members keep shouting, it will indicate that they do not want to ask questions. The Hon. Minister.


John Wise: I thought 1 had answered that, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated that this meat is not tainted. The only thing which is tainted is the comments of the Hon. Member opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF MEMORANDUM
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the microphones be fixed, please?


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the meat is not tainted, could he explain to the House why tests are presently going on? While he is on his feet, will he undertake to table in the House the memorandum or the letter which he received from his officials, saying that they believed that the meat was safe to put on the market? Would he do the honourable thing and table that?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my initial reaction would be that I would not have any hesitation in tabling the information which I received from my officials. I want to put a condition on it; I want to have the opportunity to check whether or not it is appropriate, whether or not it is proper. There would not be any hesitation on my part with respect to the actual handling of this case by my inspectors.


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF MATTER
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The first thing he should know is that the Minister of Agriculture knew in advance, before the product was sold and distributed to Canadians, that the carcasses and the entrails showed lesions. Does the Prime Minister not think that the Minister should have at least recommended that these carcasses be put aside? Further, does the Prime Minister not think that it is pretty
December 6, 1985

damn obvious that this stuff should not have gone on Canadian tables?


An Hon. Member:: Order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot hear him because the microphone is not working.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a technical sound problem, but I just want to respond to the Hon. Member by saying that I think he made some observation that I did not admit the effect, and I think that was part of the thrust of the questions of the Hon. Leader of the NDP. Nothing could be further from the truth. I took the first opportunity 1 had today, in response to the opening question, to acknowledge that fact. I complimented my three colleagues on the interest which they took in this subject. Within minutes-actually, it was within seconds-1 made a call to my senior officials and asked them to use the letter of the law to thenth degree to ensure that public health and safety were assured. Upon checking it from time to time, I am fully confident that indeed this was done.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he undertake an investigation, since the herd originated in New Brunswick, to ensure that there was no influence exerted by officials of the Government of New Brunswick on a decision not to recommend that the herd be held and quarantined?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP had better make up its mind. A couple of months ago it was criticizing the Minister of Fisheries for overruling his health inspection officials, and now it is criticizing the Minister of Agriculture for following, to the letter, the advice and judgment of his departmental officials.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You are a bunch of hypocrites. You are a bunch of hypocrites, trying to play both sides of the street. Make up your minds, because you are going to lose on both sides.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Minister is aware that the international grain market is extremely competitive and that the possible lack of market is of great concern to Canadian farmers. In view of those facts, would the Minister comment upon the recently
Oral Questions
announced Canadian-Soviet Union agreement which was concluded yesterday?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is precisely correct. There are some concerns over the lack of markets because of the international situation and the large stocks of grain which exist around the world. In spite of that, and because of our record of performance in the past and the good relationship which the Canadian Wheat Board has with the Soviet Union, and the export pace in particular, yesterday we were able to conclude a long-term grain sales agreement which will see us being able to sell grain to the Soviet Union at the same clip or the same rate as we have in the past five years.
The House should know that the Soviet Union is our major customer. Last year it bought a third of our grain. This stands very well in terms of supply. We are concerned about the price which is very low, but we should be able to sell our grain as we grow it. That, in turn, will help us in terms of jobs. What we do in agriculture filters throughout the whole economy. It is very good news not only for farmers but for the economy in general.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, my hon. friend from Papi-neau, acting on behalf of seven Liberal Members from the Montreal area, laid on the Table a request that your department investigate the Gulf-Ultramar deal. Is the Minister ready to inform the House today whether he has recommended the investigation of this transaction and if so, when is it to start?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Minister discussed this matter, but I would like to reply, partly because it also involves Montreal East and job creation.
Today, the Government of Canada was able to announce that 83,000 new jobs have been created in Canada, which means 416,000 new jobs since this Government was sworn in. It is important to emphasize, and I think the Hon. Member will agree, that 130 of those new jobs were created in Quebec, and that the previous Liberal Government created an average of 673 jobs per month in that province. We have created 9,002 per month, so that our average for Canada and Quebec is fourteen times what was achieved by the Liberal Party.

December 6, 1985
Oral Questions


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this kind of fooling around is just what is making the Prime Minister's popularity go down in the polls.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO SALE OF GULF REFINERY IN MONTREAL
Jean-Claude Malépart: My
supplementary is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, if the Prime Minister will give him a chance to reply. Is the Minister going to order an investigation into the purchase or transaction involving Gulf and Ultramar, considering that 450 jobs are at stake, yes or no?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I already answered that question yesterday. I also said that we did not wait for the Opposition Members to put pressure on us to order an investigation. Yesterday we asked our Director of Combines Investigations to conduct a study of this transaction. His conclusions will be available shortly, and we shall then decide accordingly.


AGRICULTURE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister has indicated that when he looked into the matter that was brought to his attention, he found that he did not have authority to stop the sale. Did he then go to the Prime Minister to seek such authority?


John Wise: No, Mr. Speaker, the thought never crossed my mind. Since the Hon. Member has brought that matter to my attention, I would think that it would be a very foolish thing to do.


CONDITION OF MEAT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given that the Minister has indicated that he did not have the authority to stop the sale, does the Prime Minister feel that meat that could not be exported in the condition it was in, and could not be imported in the condition that it was in, was fit for Canadians to eat?


Raymond John Skelly: Pretty damned obvious it shouldn't have been on the table.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question. There is a long-standing tradition
that, if a carcass is abnormal, it is required that it receives further, supplementary, or secondary inspection.


Mr. Gauthier:: After it's eaten?


John Wise: It requires supplementary or secondary inspection by well qualified inspectors. This practice has been in place and has served the industry extremely well over the years.


Ian Deans: Do you think meat that can't be exported or imported can be eaten?


John Wise: If that carcass requires supplementary or secondary inspection, we have an international agreement or understanding that that carcass is made available on the domestic market but it is not made available to the export market. That is in regard to a long-standing law in this country and a long-standing agreement in the international market-place.


Ian Deans: Well, change the law.


John Wise: What's wrong with it? It has worked well.


Charles Joseph Clark: Have some respect for the law.


Ian Deans: I have respect for the law. Why should Canadians eat rotten meat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and incidentally has nothing to do with meat inspection. Do the latest employment statistics show that, in general, the policies being pursued by the Government of Canada are on the right track?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought that you had stopped these hostile questions. In point of fact what it does indicate is that we sought election on a policy of job creation and we have created more jobs in 14 months than the previous Liberal Government did in 55 months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think it is important to point out that our job-creation rate-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 know the Bad News Bears don't like it. I know the Liberal Party does not like to hear good news, but our job-creation rate is 400 per cent better than that of the Liberals.
December 6, 1985


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday we witnessed a pitiful performance on TV when two Ministers of this Government appearing before the Estey Commission were unable to answer any of the specific questions put to them, as if ignorance were the golden rule of the Government to shirk its responsibilities. Since yesterday the Minister must have found time to look up the name of the company which managed to withdraw the $10 million, so I would ask her to tell the House the name of this financial institution or whatever which withdrew $10 million from the Canadian Commercial Bank after the liquidation process had been started, and what the Government plans to do to recover that money?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member gets his information from the wrong source. This was a misrepresentation of what actually happened. It was an institution that had a note mature after September 1, and there was no withdrawal.


INQUIRY CONCERNING MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE TO ENSURE RECOVERY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the questions put before the Estey Commission yesterday were very specific, yet the Minister is telling us this morning that the question of the judge was unfounded and that there was no $10 million withdrawal. Did 1 understand the meaning of her answer and, if indeed the $10 million withdrawal was nothing more than a maturing note, what steps does the Government intend to take to recover the money?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the Hon. Member that there was no misrepresentation by the judge or at the inquiry and that the information that was made public misunderstood the nature of the evidence and the difference between a note maturing and a note being withdrawn. It is perfectly straightforward, as I am sure even the Hon. Member must understand.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SALE OF BUFFALO MEAT FROM HERD EXPOSED TO TUBERCULOSIS-APPLICATION OF ANIMAL DISEASE AND PROTECTION ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Earlier he told the House that he did not have authority to quarantine the carcasses of the herd in question. That is true if the Minister was acting under the Meat Inspection Act. However, will he acknowledge to the House that there is other legislation, namely, the Animal Disease and Protection Act, within his Department that does give him the authority not only to quarantine a herd but also to quarantine the carcasses? Since he had that authority, why did he not use it?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I checked into that. Again, the information I have is that there is some question about whether or not-


Raymond John Skelly: Some question? Why didn't you exercise some judgment?


John Wise: -whether or not the ministerial discretion is extended under the Animal Disease and Protection Act. However, at that point, which 1 believe was October 11, a decision was made by the meat inspectors of the branch to place the herd under detention and subsequent quarantine, and to do that they used the authority of the Meat Inspection Act.


EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this is extremely serious so I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It is now clear that the Minister has finally admitted that he had authority to act under another Act-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He said the opposite.


John Edward Broadbent: He said that there was discretionary authority. Since there is, under an Act that was passed by Parliament, the authority for the Minister to use judgment to quarantine carcasses, does the Prime Minister accept having the Minister neglect his responsibility in such a serious matter? Will the Prime Minister answer that question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.


Raymond John Skelly: We know when you say something what it is.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have some real difficulty following the reasoning or lack of reasoning in the Hon. Member's question. I have indicated previously that there is indeed some real question as to whether or not there is ministerial authority under the Animal Disease and Protection Act. However, there is no question at all about ministerial authority existing under the Meat Inspection Act as it does not exist. Under that Act the decision was

December 6, 1985
Petitions
made which authorized the federal inspectors to move forward, in detention and in quarantine, to apply the thrust of that Act and the regulations which are in place all across the country, and which have been in place for a long time in all our packing plants. There was no exception in this case whatsoever, other than the fact that, without exception, the full thrust of the letter of the law is always applied by all inspectors at all times in all plants across the country. Look at the record; it is 100 per cent. What else do Hon. Members want?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of four presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, December 5, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton) by filing with the Clerk of the House also does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I apologize to the House. There have been microphone difficulties during Question Period, which has been part of my difficulty in hearing what is going on.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents who call upon the Government to change its philosophy and allow for continued indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility to present a petition from petitioners in Newfoundland concerning the Maritime Experimental Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, who are worried about the naval policy of the United States which neither denies on confirms the presence of nuclear weapons on
board U.S. vessels using the test range. They call for a full public inquiry before the present agreement is renegotiated.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege once again to present petitions on behalf of constituents of the federal ridings of Moncton and Westmorland-Kent who express their concern with regard to the future of the CN shops.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is also my honour to present a petition in the House of Commons today. 1 believe this is the tenth time I have risen in the House to present a petition with respect to the Government's plan to cut back and deindex family allowances. The people who have signed the petition on behalf of Canadians everywhere call upon the Government to protect the full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind some of the unfair tax increases which make this drastic cut necessary.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition. I think it is particularly appropriate on St. Nicholas Day that we be concerned about children and families. The petitioners who have signed this petition, mostly from my riding of Vancouver East, call upon the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider Bill C-70 and reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of residents in Spadina complaining against the Government's intention to reduce the family allowance which will work a great hardship on low-income families, especially at a time when this is seen to be completely unnecessary because of the Government's generous hand-outs to the oil companies and the banks. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.



TRANSPORT


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties and I think you will find a disposition to receive by unanimous consent and pass without debate the following motion:
That, notwithstanding the order of reference adopted by the House on Monday, October 7, 1985, the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to submit its final report on the document entitled "Freedom to Move" no later than Thursday, December 19, 1985.
December 6, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 475 will be answered today.


Mr. Skelly: Did the Government order an RCMP criminal investigation into allegations, by former employees of the Star-Kist Tuna packing plant, St. Andrews, New Brunwick, that management were involved in activities which were statutory offences contrary to the provisions of the Fisheries Inspection Act?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: No.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be read the third time and passed.
Representation Act, 1985
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly with a great deal of satisfaction that I address the House on the third reading stage of Bill C-74. I truly believe that parliamentary scrutiny has assisted the Government in ensuring that this particular Bill provides for fair and equitable representation of the people of Canada long into the future.
As I pointed out at the second reading stage of the Bill, one of the objects of this Bill is to ensure that the increases in the size of the House are not sudden and explosive but, rather, that they proceed at a measured pace while at the same time ensuring fair representation for all parts of the country.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has had an opportunity to make an in-depth study of all questions related to this Bill.
In June 1985 1 had the honour to table, on behalf of the Government, the White Paper on Redistribution which the committee had considered before the parliamentary recess.
After weighing the committee recommendations, the Government made a number of amendments to the Bill. The Government took advantage of the committee proceedings on this Bill to re-examine certain basic questions and fine-tune some of its provisions.

I think the process undertaken with respect to this Bill is a worth-while example to keep in mind as the House proceeds with parliamentary reform. Parliamentarians were involved at the beginning of the development of the policy, as well as during consideration of its implications in public hearings of the committee. 1 am well satisfied that the committee was able to give ample and serious consideration to the implications of the Bill, both before it was introduced in the House and after it was referred to it by the House.
1 would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their long and diligent efforts in ensuring that all parts of this country will, for the foreseeable future, have fair and equitable representation. I would particularly like to thank the Hon. Members for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), Algoma (Mr. Foster) and Churchill (Mr. Murphy), whose contributions were invaluable to the study of the Bill.
When the House was considering the report stage of the Bill it was my pleasure to be able to move two motions which I believe improve the Bill. One provides for faster growth of the size of the House of Commons after the first redistribution, but it has a negligible net result after the third redistribution for which we have population projections. In other words, we are fast tracking the increases.

As a result of this amendment to the basic formula, the seat distribution in the House will reflect more closely the national population ratio in each province.
Considering the many compromises which have been reached with respect to the principle of representation by

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
population, this measure is the only one under which the representation of each province is fair and equitable.
I want to assure all of my colleagues that the Government would not have agreed to such an amendment if it had in any way made the proportional representations of the provinces any worse, based on the current population projections. I can say with some confidence that the position of the provinces is improved after the redistribution, which will follow immediately upon the passage of this Act. And in subsequent redistributions, the proportion of representation of provinces is, in almost every case, enhanced over and above their current representation in the House.
Of course, the only estimate of the number of seats each province will be assigned, which is based on actual population figures, is that which is based on the 1981 census, and these estimates will only become a reality after the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commissions have done their work.
1 am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the other amendment to the Bill made at report stage, which concerned the duties of the electoral boundaries commissions, gives much stronger and clearer instructions in the implementation of their mandates. I was pleased to be able to move this amendment on behalf of the committee. The commissions will now be required to consider community of identity and community of interest as well as determining what a manageable geographical size would be for large, northern, rural and sparsely populated constituencies prior to making their decisions as to the distribution of seats within a province.
I believe this amendment, which the House has adopted, strikes the appropriate balance between the independence of the commissions, which is essential if we are to maintain a method of impartiality in the delineation of constituency boundaries, and the desire of all Hon. Members to ensure that the unique characteristics of communities within their constituencies are taken into consideration in deciding where constituency boundaries will be drawn in the future.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Hon. Members who participated in the report stage for their valuable contributions.
It is essential that Hon. Members understand the part which this legislation plays in the over-all package of reform of the House of Commons. As I said at the second reading stage of this Bill, the difference between this piece of legislation and the formula which is currently in place is that we provide for a significantly smaller number of Hon. Members.
At the same time, it is our hope that the role of Hon. Members who will be coming to Parliament in the future will become more meaningful as a result of the other reforms, some of which are already in place and others which I anticipate the House will adopt in the not too distant future. It is in this context that I urge Hon. Members on all sides of the House to give speedy passage to third reading of Bill C-74.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to announce that upon concluding my comments, I intend to move an amendment, and I am saying this so the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) will not be taken by surprise.
Typically, the debate on this subject, which is always an important one, also tends to be somewhat embarrassing when we are talking about redistribution, since often, provinces that should normally get more members get less, other provinces in the same position do not get the number to which they are entitled, and there are also provinces that should get fewer Members but get more because of certain provisions in the Constitution. We all know that under the Canadian Constitution, no province can have fewer Members than Senators. Thus, and I think this is a sign of healthy federalism, the Province of Prince Edward Island cannot have fewer than four Members because the Constitution clearly says it must have four Senators.
It is also true that these provisions in the Constitution Act may eventually protect the position of New Brunswick which has ten Senators and which from now on should never have fewer than ten Members. The same applies to Nova Scotia which now has eleven Members and ten Senators, and thus can never have fewer than ten Members, and Newfoundland, which has seven Members and can never have fewer than six because there are six Senators from Newfoundland.
Furthermore, there are large areas, like the Yukon, that would normally have only one Member or no Members at all, and which are given one because that is the absolute minimum. And we all know the Hon. Member for Yukon. As I said recently, the Northwest Territories are represented by one of the Members I see here in the House, sitting on the Government side. Normally, because of their numbers, the Northwest Territories should have only one Member, but for all kinds of reasons which I heartily approve, we have at least two Members from the Northwest Territories, even if they do not have the population to warrant that number.
So there is constitutional protection for some provinces, a certain understanding for the particular situation in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and we must therefore conclude that what we have here is not the sacred principle of representation by population, since we already have quite a number of exceptions which l just mentioned. 1 repeat, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, for different reasons, and under the Constitution, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick in fact all the Maritime Provinces have safeguards, irrespective of their population.
If we had adopted the Bill tabled by the previous Government, we would have 310 Members after the next election. There was a lot of debate on this matter, because of the very quick progression from 310 to 343 or more in 1991 and 369 in the year 2001. And although the debate was quite heated
December 6, 1985

among Members of the various parties, it was not a partisan debate. There are a number of questions: Are we not progressing too quickly? Do we want a huge House where the Mari-times and francophone groups will be swallowed up completely? I will get back to the issue of Quebec francophones later on.
So we would have a House that would be far too big. But the previous Government had followed the legislation and was forced to have a number of Members under an older legislation which had been adopted when we had reached 282 seats in the House and which stipulated an increase to 310 and so on.
I was here at the time when there were 264 seats and there was a new distribution. 1 had tried to make a point at the time and failed . . . and we saw the House go from 264 seats to 282 and Quebec obtained one out of the 18 new seats. I felt at the time that the number of seats in the House should have been frozen forever at 264 and that through comprehensive constitutional amendments, we should have continued to protect the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, the Maritimes, while adding a new factor, that is recognizing the fact that Quebec is, for historical reasons, the national homeland of Quebecers and Francophones; however, I failed to convince the House at that time. Now, we should have been presented with a Bill which, if we did nothing, would increase the number of seats to 310 by the next election. The map is already drawn. All parties, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the socialists have discussed this issue and agreed that it was out of the question for the number of seats to increase immediately from 310 to 343, 369, etc.
So, at one point, and 1 would not want to put the blame on anybody, it was agreed that the sacred principle of proportional representation could be discarded for economic reasons and in order to protect the Maritimes, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and that we should adopt a new formula.
The Hon. President of Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) put forward a first proposal. He said: We will not increase the number of seats to 310, 342, 343, or 363. We are going to find a new formula and here is what I suggest. He then moved to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Election. We are not going to think in terms of 28 new seats, but only seven. At the time, we were considering six new seats: two for Ontario, two for Alberta, two for British Columbia which had experienced for a couple of years an enormous population increase. Until 1991, we will add a couple of new seats, but we will make a point of slowing down the increase in the number of seats, while still protecting the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and, for constitutional reasons, the Maritimes.
But, at the very last minute, this solution which had appeared reasonable to me and my colleagues from the different provinces was changed at the Committee on Privilege and Election, and the number of seats which was supposed to be six or seven, none for Quebec, but because we are reasonable people, we understand that 28 ... We would have had 4 more
Representation Act, 1985
if we had applied the old formula, but we must nevertheless understand that Western Canadians-
We have to understand that western Canadian citizens would have felt absolutely outraged not to be given some more seats. We in Quebec, being reasonable, understood that Quebec would have no seats and that we would move slowly and all the new seats would be given to western Canada and Ontario. A formula was found. There were to be two new seats for Ontario, two or three for Alberta, and two for British Columbia. We, being reasonable, said that if the Government did not want 310 seats, that was fine because, as I was saying earlier, 310 would lead to 343 and 369. Now, toward the very end of the debate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), an hon. gentleman, good leader, and good friend, made a new proposal at the last minute. He said that it would not be six or seven now but 13, and the 13 would be divided-
[ Translation]
Four seats for Ontario, five for Alberta, four for British Columbia, none for either the Northwest Territories or the Yukon, none for the provinces that are protected by the Constitution, the British North America Act, I mean Prince Edward Island and the other provinces which now have a sufficiently high level of population not to need protection under the Constitution. But zero for Quebec. Zero out of six or seven. 1 understand that the proportion will be the same, and I know that my colleagues are saying: Yes, the proportion is the same, so what difference does it make? However, I believe that we would be justified in thinking that there is more protection in a small assembly, where a single voice has more opportunities to be heard, than in a very large assembly with the same proportion of Members, where it is much more difficult to defend your point of view. If we reach nearly 310 seats instead of the 289 proposed initially and if the province of Quebec receives no additional seats ... 1 ask the Government at least to consider this point since we had agreed, and clearly agreed-I emphasize that this was unanimously agreed in the beginning-to have 310, 343 and 369 seats with four additional seats for Quebec each time. Quebec would have had 75, 79, 83 and 87 Members depending on whether the total number was 310, 343, 369 or 340.
We had decided to freeze the number of seats for the following regions: Prince Edward Island, because of the Constitution, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, represented partly by our Inuit colleague, Yukon, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The number of seats for all these regions was to be frozen, and with each increase in the total number of seats, the additional seats were to be proportionally distributed among Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
We had agreed to this formula as it was a reasonable figure. However, the Hon. President of the Privy Council is now
9254

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
changing the formula and saying: It will no longer be six and seven Members, but thirteen new Members, and 298 in 2001. I think that we are getting increasingly closer to the 28 formula since this will apply immediately, probably for a single election. We are now in 1985 and we are still talking about the census of 1981 and we shall be in 1986 in three weeks' time. This redistribution will take two years, which brings us to 1987-88, and will be based on the 1981 census. There will already have been considerable population changes when the Chief Electoral Officer announces to the House of Commons that he has a new electoral map which will be completely outdated already, as, admittedly, it has always been in the past. I have witnessed three redistributions and I am well aware that the 1971 redistribution applied to the elections in 1979. I have therefore no lesson to give to anybody. However this seems quite strange, and in any case, the process takes too long.
My point is that there were amendments proposed which were rejected and which seemed to support what 1 am trying to prove today. I spoke in English in support of the residents of Northern Ontario because I believe that this is the essence of Canada: You do not have everything you want, 1 do not have everything I want, but if we are reasonable and work together, we can have something worthwhile.

That is Canada for me. You are not totally happy and you do not have everything. I do not have everything and 1 am not totally happy. Let us talk about it and, reasonable as we are, see whether we cannot agree to come to a conclusion that will be totally acceptable to everyone.
I have to be careful because my dear colleagues across the way are listening attentively. It is thrilling, but it is also disturbing to my line of thought. You may have noticed that I have been talking for quite a while without using a note. The pure British parliamentary system demands that you speak only from copious notes. 1 must get back on the track or I will get lost. They are even telling me how to dress and comb my hair, but I was not elected to be an actor, I was elected to do a job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: 1 am quoting a colleague of mine who said that before.
I will get back on the track because, as the first speaker, 1 have unlimited time. That is under Standing Order 36 (1) in the rules of the House.
Having said that, I willingly give my support. I stated this earlier in French, and since some people do not follow the translation all the time, and I do not want the people of Quebec to think that I use double talk, 1 repeat that I have given my support for an amendment to protect northern Ontario because I believe that that is what Canada is all about. We are concerned about protection for certain reasons;
protection because the Province of Prince Edward Island is too small, protection for the Inuit in the North, and while it takes much heart for me to say this, protection for the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He will have his seat forever, even though his riding has a small population. That is what Canada is all about. Having given my full support to and understanding for the people of northern Ontario, perhaps they can attempt to understand and support my efforts. That is what life is all about, not necessarily making a trade, but supporting each other.
Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. However, the President of the Privy Council introduced an amendment that I personally did not dislike, whereby the commissioner who will draw the boundaries will have to remember that it is the wish of the House of Commons and of parliamentarians, duly elected, that not only the facts, figures and lines be taken into consideration but that history and culture also be considered. As I stated earlier, 1 am somewhat concerned about what this means. Does it mean that there will be a rich district in Toronto and a poor one; a totally Greek district, an American district and a Lebanese district? 1 represent all these groups in Montreal. Surely that is not the correct meaning, unless I misunderstood the President of the Privy Council. I hope I did not misunderstand him and that that was not his intention.

In Quebec for instance, it has often happened that it made sense geographically to say that a certain town would belong to a certain constituency, although culturally, traditionally, all the influences would link that town with another area.
This is why I would like the commissioners to understand the wishes of the House, and because the poor fellows will have to read our debates in order to understand the intention of Parliament, well, I hope they will understand the intentions of the Hon. President of the Privy Council when he puts forward his motion which has been accepted or apparently is most acceptable.
I therefore regret that the motion, in order to protect Northern Ontario . . . but since it has been debated, we hope the commissioners will understand also that if they do not do so, this will have to come back before the House for debate, ultimately, before making official what they will want us to make official.
What I would like to do with the amendment I will be introducing at the end of my remarks, in a spirit of broad understanding-

I will say it in English. 1 want people, especially those who may not receive as many seats as they had expected, to understand that the amendment 1 will put forward is presented in good spirit.
In my career I have spoken to more than 200 groups in western Canada and I can say that 1 have great affinity for western Canada. The full caucus of the Official Opposition visited British Columbia very recently. We had a very success-
December 6, 1985

ful visit with our Leader in Vancouver Quadra for a long weekend. The press was magnificent, the reception was magnificent, and l think no one will say I am out of order when I use this occasion to encourage all Canadians to visit Expo '86. Our caucus intends to return to British Columbia to see that great achievement of British Columbians.
British Columbia is so far away that sometimes Ottawa means nothing to many British Columbians. When they talk about the people in eastern Canada I know that they are referring to Ontario, not Quebec. When they refer to these "dominating" eastern Canadians 1 know they refer to Toronto and do not have French Canadians in mind. Sometimes they believe that we want to shove French down their throats, but now they understand that this is not the case. As long as one is bilingual inside one does not need to speak both languages. I say to western Canadians that as long as the meaning of bilingualism is understood we do not expect people to speak both languages. Many people do not accept that principle of bilingualism, including some Members of the House. I will not mention their names but there are some who are reluctant to accept that principle.
I say to British Columbia that they should have all the seats that would be made available and none of them should go to Quebec, as long as everyone else remains the same. Every time seats are added they should go to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. I think it is only fair that British Columbia and Alberta receive a good percentage of any new seats that are added because they have the population.
However, there should be other criteria than population. If we consider population as the only criterion, everyone will want to return to representation by population. If this principle were applied, it would mean there would be only one seat for Prince Edward Island. No one would care what people in Prince Edward Island thought because it had only one seat. That is why there are four seats for Prince Edward Island. No one would care about the Maritime provinces because they would have only 25 seats according to their population. That is why I believe we should protect these areas.
That is why also I believe we should make an effort to protect northern Ontario. I say this in English because I hope and have faith that English Canada will understand that we who believe we are part of the growth of this country also feel we should not be lost. British Columbians feel lost because of geographical reasons. People from the Yukon and Northwest Territories feel lost because they are distant and only have three seats. The people of the Maritimes feel lost because of their small representation. The people of northern Ontario, with their immense geography, feel lost because they only have 11 seats. It is my understanding that northern Ontarians do not feel they are taken into consideration when decisions are made in southern Ontario. I believe that all Canadians must be reasonable and understand that there should be give and take when it comes to representation. I am prepared to repeat that in French.
Representation Act, 1985
[ Translation]
It is my view that each and every time there is a redistribution, we should give all the new seats to those Provinces which need it most for geographical reasons, even if it is only partly for that, namely British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario- although I am not contradictory-provided that this is not a huge number of new seats.
So this is why we believe that the first proposal put forward by the Hon. President of the Privy Council made tremendous sense. This is why we accepted it, this is why we discussed it in committee. I know of Government Members who were on that committee and who accepted it, because that was reasonable in the Canadian sense of the term that we really appreciate. Canadian common sense.

It is funny, the kind of notes one receives sometimes. A dear colleague of mine says to talk until December 20. I do not need to be encouraged. I may try, but I do not think I will succeed. The House has been kind in listening so far, so listen some more.
I believe that the first proposal of the President of the Privy Council was reasonable. It was to add six seats first, then seven seats. No one disagreed. There was nothing for Quebec. The Hon. Member over there should get up and protect northern Ontario. My ears hear him. I will not mention his name because I do not want to split our friendship, but he is an Hon. Member of the majority. I recognize voices now. Within three years, I will recognize faces because I like to know who is who. The Member should not provoke me because 1 speak in my own style.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: I am getting in good shape to remind the Member of his obligation as a northern Ontarian. He should stand up and protect northern Ontario. 1 am not from Ontario. I am from Montreal. I stood up in this House to protect the rights and the privileges of northern Ontario. I do not want it to be badly treated by the new law. Hon. Members should not push their luck too far.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Member for-


Marcel Prud'homme: No, I do not mention names. That is not my style. It might be yours. If you like to, you can stand up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Members of the same Party should not be interrupting one another.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: I hope the President of the Privy Council will understand that my amendment is made in good spirit. It

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
will not take a long time. All he has to do is to say yes. We do not even need to vote on it. But let us return, reconsider, come back right away and pass the law. I am making a proposal and I do not think any of my colleagues will disagree with me- hopefully-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: The first proposal of the President of the Privy Council was highly acceptable and highly reasonable. I do not know what has happened. Nobody knows what has happened. There were few opposition members present when it was put forward. I have to admit publicly that one of our Members was temporarily absent travelling across western Canada with an agricultural committee. You cannot ask us to do more than to go and be on the spot to find out what is going on. The Member, who was also looking for this amendment to the Representation Act, was in western Canada. It was accepted, fine. But it is not in the spirit of the agreement made at the beginning.

The view that prevailed in this House and led the President of the Privy Council to say we would not go to 310, 343, 369 seats, was to reduce, without being unfair to the large, growing Provinces, to reduce the number of Members in this House, to exercise restraint, to say that we will freeze all Provinces, including Quebec, the Maritime Provinces and the North West Territories, Yukon, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and every time there are additions, and new seats are added, they will be given to those Provinces which actually have a larger population. After all, Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized that Ontario has more than 8,500,000 inhabitants, and Quebec 6,300,000 or 6,400,000. I think that from now on, with the new Government which has just been elected and which I welcome, Quebec will no longer lose its population. In my view, this will put an end to instability in Quebec and that loss of population experienced for reasons you all understand- [English]
For reasons everybody understands, Quebec has had a decreasing population over the last 10 years. I do not want to debate that point although I would love to. I believe now that Quebec will not go on suffering from a decreasing population. Many people who left for political, economic or linguistic reasons will come back as long as they understand it is a new Quebec. I say that in English. It is a new Quebec, sure of itself. People are welcome to come back.
Let me repeat, I do not understand what has happened. A fine agreement was suddently changed at the very end.
A good friend of mine from Alberta and another good friend from British Columbia have just come into the House. I am very happy that Alberta and British Columbia are getting the seats to which they are entitled, or a part thereof. I say part of the seats to which they are entitled because we are to receive nothing in Quebec. If we increased the number of seats to 310, Quebec would receive four. At the moment, the new proposal of the President of the Privy Council says that instead of an
increase of 28 seats, there will be only 13. That is almost half. Out of the 13, nine are going to British Columbia and Alberta, none, however, to Quebec. It is not unfair, but it is surprising that at the last minute a good agreement which was giving two and three seats to Alberta and British Columbia is now giving five and four.
I would hope-

-Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Privy Council will look into this matter during the weekend. Of course, if we could continue the debate until 4 o'clock ... in any case, 1 hope Members from the other provinces will understand that we are rather surprised, we who come from Quebec. Yes, we are surprised. I am not naming names, I said that I would just make a general reference. What do you think? I know my Quebec colleagues will have to go back to their ridings and explain this new legislation that first gave us four Members out of 28 and now gives us 0 out of 13. I realize that mathematically, this can be explained differently, but 28 = 4; 13 = 0. There is something there I have trouble understanding, and my Government colleagues may wish to help me in this respect.
Furthermore, and I almost forgot to mention this, Mr. Speaker, the change is for twenty years. We know now that in the next twenty years, there will be two seats more next time and 298 seats in the year 2001, but what we do not know is whether there might not be an increase in Quebec's population, as I explained-

As I was explaining earlier, there is a new era. Thousands and thousands and thousands, tens of thousands, left Quebec for Ontario. Most likely now some want to come back.
The Minister from British Columbia just came into the House. I would like him to know that I have said very nice things about his province and about Expo 86. 1 invite every Canadian to go to see that. Our caucus went to British Columbia. We were well received. We will return, not for politicking but to see a achievement in British Columbia.
I look at my hon. colleague. I prefer to call people by name and to say Madam Margaret Mitchell, but the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) knows we went to Vancouver. The people are nice and it is a nice city. The exhibition will be great and I want Canadians to see it.
As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services I say that we have allowed Members to use the householders to announce Expo 86. This is an exception. I want the Minister from British Columbia to listen and to know that we are sensitive to the wishes of Members. We have allowed Members to use their householders to announce Expo 86. We believe it is a Canadian show, a Canadian institution and a Canadian achievement and that people should know about it.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: The show is over now.
December 6, 1985


Marcel Prud'homme: No, if my colleague calls that a show, I may become partisan now. He knows me well enough to know that. I have tried to keep the debate non-partisan so we can reflect together.

We must reflect together, because my hon. friend, and 1 could name names, is going to have to field a number of questions in his riding: Why, when we used to be entitled to four out of 28, do we now get zero out of thirteen? I won't name your riding today. It is Friday and let's be nice. But I can certainly make sure some of your constituents are going to ask: What is going on? I wish someone would explain this legislation because it is the most obscure legal jargon. You will never be able to figure out the number of seats, just by reading Bill C-74. You have to multiply, substract, figure out the percentage, and the average voter, the average Canadian like me who reads this Bill is going to say: But what does it mean? He will have to get out his calculator, work with percentages, divide, multiply and substract. It is drafted in pure legalese. But what is not immediately apparent is the fact that there will be thirteen new Members-not one of them from Quebec.
Well, I am a little concerned, for as good Canadians and in a spirit of understanding we had agreed to six, then to seven, and now we are going from seven to thirteen seats and, on top of that, it will be for twenty years, not only ten.
So naturally I am asking myself: Well now, what happened?


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: My colleague is using a colourful language and I think I would endorse what he has just said. Indeed, I will move away from the camera field . . . here he is and he supports my claims, as do my other colleagues.
I therefore think we ought to be very prudent, very understanding. The people of western Canada are now quite pleased.
I am looking at them, they got what they were asking for, or most of it. It is true because 310 seats were proposed in the Bill, including 27 in British Columbia, and they will end up with 26.
The Bill provided for 310 seats. I did not read the documents, 1 might be wrong, but I do not think so because my intuition tells me that British Columbia was to have 33 seats, and it will now have 32. 1 can understand why they are satisfied and pleased. They must have made representations to the right people and they won their point.
That is what politics is all about. It is a refined and polite game but also a game of power play where you tell somebody: Come sit over here, I have something to say to you. Well, if they were able to talk loudly enough to get practically everything they wanted . . . The Province of Ontario was to have 105 seats. Their voice did not carry that far, because the will
Representation Act, 1985
only have 99. Quebec, yes, thank you for reminding me, none-
I can easily see that Westerners agree with the Bill. As far as I am concerned, I became involved in this debate at the very last minute because it is not my responsibility as critic for CIDA, or as Chairman of a legislative committee where Your Honour was kind enough to appoint me, to study the legislation on equity. Anyway!
Speaking of equity, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should not have started with that, since I am Chairman of the legislative committee on the legislation on equity in employment, employment for women, visible minorities, the disabled, the handicapped and native people. Well, as Chairman of the comm-titee, thanks to Mr. Speaker who was kind enough to appoint me because after all I am in Opposition, I owe it to refer to equity. 1 should have proceeded in an orderly fashion, but I was asked at 11.45 a.m. to speak on the matter. So I went about compiling my notes, but 1 should have dealt first with equity.
Therefore, do you feel it is fair-

I will say it in English because 1 have learned a lot from English Canada. Fairness or fair play is very British, very English. I only ask: Is it fair that Quebec, which was supposed to get 4 out of 310 seats, will now get zero out of 13?
I am not quarrelling with my very esteemed colleague from Alberta. I am not upset they got almost what they wanted. However, in turn, I want them to understand that I have double the reason to be careful. First, I believe in fairness. Second, I am what is called in English a French Canadian. I do not want anyone to become excited. I am not responsible for the English translation. In English it is French Canadian, but in French, I am a Canadien franfais. I did not do the translation. It should be: a Canadian of French language. I have visited western Canada during the last 22 years where people say: "Here comes the Frenchie" and all that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Frogs.


Marcel Prud'homme: No, they are nice out there, because we could call them "plum puddings" and all that. However, I will say that I think it is not fair.

It is not fair. And 1 am questioning the fairness of this Bill, and I wonder whether a few extra days of reflection ... I am not sure whether the Bill should not be sent back to the Standing Committee which went over it, so that Clause 2 only could be looked at, and returned with a report. I think we would then be responding to the wishes of the Government and the people who want a new redistribution legislation. Otherwise, we will go on speaking of equity, and at some point, we will be speaking again and saying it is not fair. There is something 1 do not understand. Well, I will tell you. We agreed that it was fair to have six or seven seats redistributed

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
to people who really, honestly ... 1 am speaking French, I am speaking to my Quebec people to whom 1 belong, I am a Quebecer. So I say: There are Members here who represent a much larger population. Nevertheless, if we want Canada to be a viable country, there should not be parts of the country with the feeling of being completely absent from the House of Commons.
So, from the standpoint of equity, I must say that I am very much surprised that we should find ourselves at the last moment, with a small change which has raised doubts in my mind and because of which I am now speaking in this House to ask whether it would not be fair to dwell on it a little longer. [English]
Would it not be fair equitable to ask the committee to look into one clause again and to reassess the true intention, which was to diminish as much as possible the greater number and, second, to consider that western Canada indeed had a good cause? To be part of Canada, one has to show an understanding of feelings which exist so far away. Consideration has to be given to western Canada, consideration has to be given to northern Ontario and so on. However, je rep'ete as a French Canadian.

We have the same fears as people in northern Ontario, except that theirs are based on geographical reasons, and ours on nationalistic grounds. We tell ourselves: In the end, there will be only a few of us in this Parliament. The presence in this place of French-speaking Members whose ancestors founded this country, along with our English-speaking friends naturally, is an aspect of the Canadian experience which it is very important to understand.
French-speaking Members have to feel comfortable in this House. They must not feel, even though this might not be the fault of their English-speaking colleagues, that they are an endangered species in this country.
We want to make people in Prince Edward Island happy by telling them: Even though you are entitled to only one Member, we are going to give you four because you are protected by the Constitution, which states that a province cannot have fewer Members of Parliament than senators.
As for me, I am going to suggest something-

To show my good spirit, I will say it in English. I would like to propose an amendment, seconded by either the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) or the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) or the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) or the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) or the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). You can choose whomever you want, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and by substituting the following therefor:-

My colleagues will see that this is quite reasonable.

It continues:
-Bill C-74 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for reconsideration of Clause 2 thereof.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The amendment is as
follows:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis), seconded by Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity), moved the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and by substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for reconsideration of Clause 2 thereof.
Is that correct? The debate will continue on the amendment.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When 1 left the Chair at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) had just introduced an amendment. The debate is on the amendment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on the third reading debate on Bill C-74, an Act which will affect redistribution for the next number of elections. Before I speak about the Act itself, I would like to spend a fair bit of time on the amendment before us. In introducing the amendment, the Liberal Member who spoke on behalf of his caucus said that the Government had changed the rules at the last moment and that for some reason the Liberal Party was unaware of the amendments and felt now at third reading that it was necessary to introduce a motion to send this matter back to the committee.
Let me explain some of the history of this particular piece of legislation. This legislation was introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for pre-study last May and the committee had a chance to study it in June. It was brought back to the House this fall, at which time we had one-day's debate and sent the matter to committee for further study. It was the request of the NDP and Liberal caucuses
December 6, 1985

that a number of witnesses should appear before us to talk particularly about fairness within this legislation.
Quite a few speakers from all parts of Canada and from most provinces including the Province of Quebec, came before us to discuss the proposal. The one thing that the vast majority of witnesses who came before us said was that the legislation was unfair to the provinces that have growing populations. Not only had a cap been put on the size to which the House can grow but those provinces with growing populations like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia would, once the national quota had been decided, only be given one-half of the increase to which they would have been entitled. In other words, if the Province of Ontario were to receive 10 more seats because of its growth in population, it would only be given five more seats. If the Province of Alberta were to be entitled to two seats, it would receive only one. If the Province of British Columbia found itself in a situation in which it should receive four seats, it would receive only two. Almost every witness who came before the committee made that very point, and for very good reason. We were guaranteeing Prince Edward Island four seats. We were guaranteeing Quebec a certain number of seats and that that number would never decrease. We were guaranteeing Manitoba and Saskatchewan that they would keep the number of seats which they presently have regardless of what happens to the population of their provinces. Proportionately, if the Province of Quebec decreased in size in terms of Canada's population, when compared with the rest of the country, it would maintain its 75 seats, which is what it has at the present time. However, the large provinces, the ones which are growing, would be doubly penalized. First of all, they have no guarantees that they should increase at the rate by which they should increase according to strict representation by population, this was being denied because we were guaranteeing Quebec and almost all the other provinces that they would never lose seats. That was one penalty which was imposed by the legislation in its original form.
The second penalty is one I mentioned earlier. That is to say if British Columbia, as a result of this Government's devised formula, was entitled to four more seats, as a result of a clause in the original legislation, it would only be given two more. In other words, not only would those provinces not receive the six or eight seats which they should receive if we were going strictly by representation by population, but after the new formula came in, which guaranteed the non-growing provinces a certain number of seats they would lose, they would receive half of the seats to which they would be entitled.
We brought witnesses before the committee who made the same point. They said that something had to be done in order to protect the small provinces. They said that we had to accept the senatorial floor and that it seemed reasonable to accept the new grandfathering clause. This clause brought in other provinces in order that their present representation in the House of Commons would be protected, and the minimum number of seats which they had would always remain at that number.
Representation Act, 1985
This would be the case regardless of what happened to the population of that province.
Through my encouragement and that of the Liberal Party in committee the Government brought forward an amendment which at the present time the Liberal caucus is opposing. I ask Members of that caucus not to pretend to be ignorant. Members of the Liberal Party should not pretend. For the most part they had members in the committee who were making the argument which is now being argued against by them at this time. At the report stage of the Bill which is before us, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who was the lead spokesman for the Liberal caucus as far as this legislation is concerned, said:
Many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee indicated that Rule 3 was unacceptable and would face many court challenges.
That rule would put a cap on the number of seats for provinces like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia and would only entitle them to half the additional Members to which they would be entitled pursuant to straight representation by population.
He went on to say:
I commend the Minister's decision to remove Rule 3 in Clause 2 of the Bill-
The remarks which I have just read are found at page 8801 of Hansard for November 26, 1985. Just two weeks ago the spokesman for the Liberal Party got up in the House at the very beginning of the debate at report stage and commended the Government for this amendment, an amendment of which I certainly spoke in favour. I had a similar amendment on the books.
Let us go somewhat further. Let us take a look at the amendment put forward by that Liberal Member at that time. He proposed an amendment which was essentially the same as the amendment against which the Liberals are now speaking.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Shame.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I think the Liberal Party owes the House an
apology.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We are sorry.


Marcel Prud'homme: Make your speech, I will answer you.


Rodney Edward Murphy: 1 listened to the great eloquence of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who spoke before lunch. He talked about fairness to Quebec. I understand that sentiment because I also come from a province which has some concerns about the amount of representation it will have in the House of Commons in the future. I also undertand the historic situation, just as I understand the historic arguments which have taken place in the country with regard to the relative strength of the population of Quebec as compared to that of the rest of the country. So I have an understanding of the Member's concern.
It is a legitimate concern. It is a legitimate argument which he makes. Unfortunately, he is making it at the wrong time. We had a committee which met not only last June to look at the Bill but which heard witnesses in October. A clause-byclause study of the Bill was conducted in November, and the

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
President of the Privy Council, a gentleman whom 1 do not often defend in the House, on the first day of that study indicated he was willing to move with respect to this basic unfairness in which Alberta, B.C. and Ontario would be penalized since they would receive only half the number of seats to which they would be entitled under the quotient formula which was being devised. This was announced by the President of the Privy Council on the first day on which the committee commenced its clause-by-clause study. That was not the last day of the committee hearings. 1 was the only member of the Opposition who showed up for each and every hearing. One Member of the Liberal Party showed up for a mere five minutes.
At the committee hearings we went on further to discuss other concerns which members of the Conservative Party and Members such as myself from the New Democratic Party had with the legislation. It was not a surprise. It was not a last-minute announcement. For that matter, 1 have in front of me a photocopy of an article from the Ottawa Citizen concerning this meeting. 1 am sure Liberal Members in the House, at least those who have their glasses on, can see that it is not a small article. It is entitled: "Three Provinces to Get More MPs under New Plan".


Brian Vincent Tobin: Scandalous.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is a Canadian Press story. It was published in the newspaper and members of the Liberal caucus should have been aware of it. If they cannot attend committee hearings, they should at least be able to read the newspapers.
Let them not pretend that there was not an opportunity to make this motion at some other time. Let them not pretend that they did not know that the Government had made this move almost three weeks ago. Let them not pretend that their own critic when he rose in the House on November 26, 1985 did not propose a similar amendment, one which they are now arguing against. Let them not pretend, for whatever political reasons they have that that same Member, the Hon. Member for Algoma, did not actually commend the Minister for his amendment.
The amendment which is before us at third reading stage of this Bill, a time when we are normally closing down debate, may be legitimate in terms of some of the emotional concerns of the people of Quebec. I tend to think there is some legitimacy in that argument. However, I am concerned that by shirking their duty for the last three weeks, members of the Liberal caucus really have no right to insult the House by moving the amendment which was brought forward at this time.
I would like to comment on some other matters. I believe I have made my point in terms of where the Liberal caucus failed to perform the duty for which they are elected and paid and for which they now do not show a great deal of concern. This legislation is not perfect. We did have the advantage of pre-study. All three Parties made representations. Witnesses came. We have the opportunity to study the legislation in October and November when it came back in legislative form.
I must congratulate the Minister on accepting two amendments which I suggested and putting them forward; first, the amendment which would take away the penalty from provinces with growing populations and, second, the amendment which states that the commissions which are set up to determine the boundaries in each of the 10 provinces and the Territories, "shall" consider certain things such as community of identity and of interest, history and culture, as well as the manageable geographical size. The previous legislation, and this legislation as it was originally presented to us, only stated that the commissions "may" consider those very important aspects. We heard from Members of both the Conservative and Liberal Parties, as well as myself indicate that in some cases those commissions which determine boundaries did not take into consideration any of those factors.
After hearing from witnesses and having discussed our concerns, the Minister rose in this House and accepted the amendment that the commissions "shall" consider these items and not "may". Hopefully that directive to the commissions will be taken very seriously. It is very important to the people of northern Ontario that they have ridings which are of a reasonable geographical size, that there is some understanding of the French and English mix in those areas and of the tribal council formations so that, for instances, all the Cree are not split into two or three different ridings even though they may be of the same tribal formation. In Manitoba, the French, German and Ukrainian minorities should have some feeling that they are not going to be split up among 7 or 8 different ridings. Those things are now to be considered, which is something the previous legislation did not insist upon.
Those are very important concerns and I am glad that after the committee process the Government was willing to accept some of the reasonable amendments made by opposition Members and by witnesses who came before us.
I still have some concerns about the legislation, and I have expressed those concerns in the past. 1 believe the legislation is very fair in terms of what it does, based on the 1981 census. In other words, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, as well as the other provinces, will be treated quite fairly under these rules, based on the 1981 census.
I do have some concerns in terms of what will happen in the long run as far as it affects the provinces with growing populations. We have an artificial quotient in this operation which does not allow for the fact that populations may grow very quickly in some provinces, and we should, perhaps, be increasing the size of the House much faster than the Government now anticipates. That is one concern.
My other concern, although it is not directly related to the legislation, certainly relates to what the Government said in introducing this legislation. The President of the Privy Council and other Members of the Government who spoke on behalf of this legislation, talked about making the House of Commons work better. They said we do not need a House with a 100 new Members over the next 20 years. That is quite a reasonable
December 6, 1985

thought. Obviously, the larger this House gets, the more difficult becomes the role of an individual Member of Parliament. That is understandable.
The second point made was that it was necessary that we spend the money not to increase the number of Members of Parliament but to make sure the Members of Parliament who are here at the present time, or who will be here as a result of this legislation, have more money to do the work they should be doing. We want Parliament to do a better job as we adapt the rules of the House of Commons. The Government to date has encouraged changes to make the role of the back-bencher on all sides of the House a more effective one, not only in looking at Government expenditures, but in looking at legislation itself. Those are very fine words, but in the area of actually providing extra resources for Members of Parliament, the Government has yet to act. I know that the Board of Internal Economy is looking at the staff salaries of Members of Parliament and considering their travelling privileges. It is looking at how the new legislative committees will work in terms of the resources those committees will have. But the Government has been in power for over a year now, and little has happened. As one Member of Parliament I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am on twice as many committees as I was previously but I have the same resources to work with. One of the rationales of this legislation is to restrict the growth of this House of Commons to 13 Members, after the next commissions have finished their work. If we believe we are doing that to make Parliament work better, then there should be pressure put on the Government to "cough up", to provide the resources which are necessary so that we can do what the Auditor General said we should do, and do it more thoroughly. We need the resources to look at the expenditures of Government and to make sure that tax expenditures are reviewed by Parliament. We must be able to take a technical piece of legislation, understand what it means, and make the appropriate amendments before that legislation passes. If that is what we in this House are to do-and I think that certainly makes a great deal of sense-then we must have the tools to do that job.
We are not talking about plush offices or cheaper meals in the Parliamentary Restaurant. We are talking about adequate staff, adequate space for them, and salaries which will enable us to hire experts in certain fields. We will then be able to do the work that everyone says we should be doing, including the Auditor General, the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, and, I am sure, the vast majority of citizens of this country.
I want to say that in general I do accept this legislation, as far as it affects the census of 1981 and the next redistribution. I have expressed on a number of occasions some of my concerns with regard to how the legislation will affect the future of Canada. I think there are still a few flaws which could be dealt with later. 1 would urge that we move quickly on this legislation. I would like to express some very deep regret that the Liberal caucus is now aware of problems it sees with
Representation Act, 1985
the legislation which, 1 suspect because of its own lack of work, it did not see at the appropriate time.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a brief comment. I sat here today agreeing with everything I was hearing from the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). That is the second time this week I have agreed with a speech of an Opposition Member.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I may have to retract.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I hope that my own colleagues do not get too nervous about that.
In the last Parliament I was one of those Hon. Members who were involved in both committee and in the Chamber with respect to the previous arrangements which had been put in place in 1968. For the 1981 census they had created what we viewed, at that time, to be an enormous problem of lack of fairness in the system. It is a real pleasure to see the Bill as it now is at third reading stage. The lack of fairness as a result of the 1968 changes in the law have been recognized by the House Leader, the witnesses, the committee and members of all three Parties. As the Member for Churchill says, it may well be that what we are doing here today may have some unintended consequences related to fairness or the lack of fairness for the census in 1991 or in 2001. I have faith that Parliaments of the future will take steps similar to this one to put a fair system in place. I urge Members to let this Bill pass quickly so that the commissioners can get on with the job and can restore the basic sense of fairness.
In closing, I would like to ask the Member a short question. It is his view that the testimony was quite consistent and clear that the present arrangement protects the rights of smaller population centres like the Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island. Is it a fair over-all conclusion that the Member believes that for centres of greater size from Quebec right through to Saskatchewan this is a fair proposition for at least the next decade?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly what I meant to say in my speech and I think that message got across. As I said in my conclusion, my concern is not with what will happen as a result of the 1981 census, but with what might happen 10 or 20 years in the future. I have expressed that concern on a number of occasions. However, I do believe that the legislation before us, in its amended form, is certainly a lot better for the protection of provinces with reduced populations and gives some protection to the provinces with growing populations. Because of that I have not engaged in any particular fillibuster to keep this debate going. 1 recognize from the history of what has happened that the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is quite correct. The House has dealt with legislation with regard to redistribution every 10 years over the last while. I suspect that, if we do find some unique features in the census of 1991, we will have new legislation in the House to deal with it at the appropriate time.

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am very prompt to answer the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and to make comments. He is in total and full contradiction. The other night his own colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouel-let), the President of the Privy Council and others participated in a debate on reform of the House of Commons. Now that fine gentleman is blaming the Member for Saint-Denis who is using third reading debate to try to make a good law much better. Why do we have third reading? Why do we have the Senate, the Chamber of sober second thought? We have them in order to make laws better and better. The Hon. Member has understood nothing of the process. I am deeply shocked. Now the Member will understand why his Party will never make inroads in Quebec. He dares to come here and say that the people of Manitoba have great feeling for the minorities, the French, the Ukrainians and the Germans.

I am going to repeat this for Quebecers because these are not the feelings of your Frenchspeaking colleagues on the other side. They do not say: You, the minorities, French, Ukrainian and German. There are two groups in this country, my honourable colleague, which are called the two founding peoples, and they believe that they are entitled to some protection, one more than the other because we live in North America, and a small handful of them believe that this should be taken into account in the House of Commons. We take this under consideration, and generously so, in the case of the Northwest Territories, and we do the same for the Yukon, because we understand.

We have deep feelings for Prince Edward Island. We believe in that kind of protection. I see him dare to get up and ask the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) if he thinks this is fair for Quebec. The Member for Calgary West is very well served, thank you, and he is asking the Member for Churchill whether he thinks Quebec is well served. I think you should allow us to say if we are well served or not. Of course, Mr. Speaker, some of them are very happy. I will be a little bit more partisan in the weeks to come.
In the actual Chamber Alberta is receiving 21 seats. I think it is unfair to give it less than what it wanted, but under the first and second formulas proposed by the President of the Privy Council it was to receive 23. Under the proposal of the past Government it was to receive 27 seats, and now it will receive 26. That is almost 100 per cent. At the moment British Columbia has 28 seats. The Member said I did not do my duty. He quoted all kinds of incorrect figures. He did not do his duty. I did mine.
I am not speaking for all Liberals. This is the right of every Member. Members are fighting like hell for new rules in the House. They want reform of the House and more individual rights for Members, and yet the Hon. Member attacks me saying that I did not read newspapers and that I was not present at committees. As the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker
said, the real Chamber is the House of Commons, not the committees. I learned from John Diefenbaker that third and final reading in the House of Commons is the final court. The Member had better learn about the practice of the House of Commons.
At the moment the Province of British Columbia has 28 Members. Under a formula of the President of the Privy Council it was to receive 31, and under the proposal of the past Liberal Government it was to receive 33 seats. Now, with the new and final proposal it will receive 32 seats. That is almost 100 per cent. The Member said that British Columbia will receive only half of what it was supposed to receive. If he reads his own "blues" he will see what he said. At the moment Ontario is to receive 95 seats. Under the first proposal, which we would have accepted with pleasure, because of fairness- and the gentleman is not going to teach me any lessons on fairness, I can assure you of that. I have been in the House of Commons practising Canadianism every day of my life. Under the first proposal, the Province of Ontario was supposed to receive 97 seats, and under the proposal of the past Government, it was to have received 105 seats. Now it will receive 95, plus 4, making a total of 99, which is less than what it is entitled to.
I would like the Member for Churchill and others to understand that we were in full agreement to give more respect to western Canada. Lest he allow them to believe otherwise, I will repeat clearly and strictly in English to British Columbians and Albertans that I want a fair deal for them. That is why I said that any new seats to be added to the House of Commons should be given to British Columbia and Alberta and that there should be nothing for Quebec. I hope this will be clearly understood.
However, this is a package deal for 20 years. We do not know what will happen in the Province of Quebec after the census of 1991. I think we should let the law take its course as usual and every 10 years there should be a new distribution. There is now a new Government in Quebec. Many people left the Province of Quebec for reasons that I do not want to debate now. We are of the feeling that now we will have a stable, federalist Government in the Province of Quebec. That will help to add to our population. People will return and the economy will improve.
The Member wants a package deal. 1 think he should defend the rights of the Province of Manitoba. That is fine, I agree. Under the Liberal regime, which the Member decries so much, Manitoba was to receive 15 seats instead of 14.
Mir. Murphy: Fourteen.


Marcel Prud'homme: It was 15. You do not even do your homework.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You're wrong.


Marcel Prud'homme: Manitoba was to go from 14 seats to 15 and now it will be stuck with 14. I will not take any lessons from the Member from Churchill, I assure you.
December 6, 1985


Rodney Edward Murphy: Do your homework.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I listened very carefully to my hon. friend from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) this morning and to his comments this afternoon on what was said by the New Democratic Party Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and I would like to raise some of the points that are relevant to this debate on third reading, and especially the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Saint-Denis, and I intend to do so in more or less the same spirit my hon. friend did this morning, before another speaker injected a dose of partisanship in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, the legislative process includes tabling a Bill for first reading, a debate on the principle of the Bill at the second reading stage, then in committee, and finally, we have consideration of the third reading stage in the House. Whether or not there was debate or discussion in committee, if there is a reason for debate at the third reading stage, it does not matter what went on before. If we perceive certain injustices and want to correct them, we have to do so at this stage, because if we keep silent now, it will be too late, and neither public opinion nor the attention of our colleagues will have been drawn to this important matter.
I would like to elaborate on the basic arguments and point out that the Bill to proceed with a revision of the electoral boundaries readjustment process was examined by the previous Parliament, that is, Parliament as it was constituted before September 4, 1984. At that time, the Bill proposed that the total number of Members in the House would be 310, meaning that Ontario would have 105 Members instead of 95, Quebec 79 instead of 75, Nova Scotia one more which would make twelve, New Brunswick would still have ten, Manitoba would have one more, bringing the total number of Members from fourteen to fifteen, British Columbia would go up from 28 to 33, Prince Edward Island would still have four, Saskatchewan fourteen, Alberta would go from 21 to 27, and Newfoundland from seven to eight, while the Northwest Territories and Yukon would have two seats and one seat, respectively. It goes to show that the Liberal Party in this House does not really have to listen to NDP Members lecturing on fairness, particularly the Hon. Member for Churchill. Under the proposal then made by the Liberals it was indeed acknowledged that, owing to the increase in population in the western provinces, they were entitled to have additional seats, proportionally more than Quebec, for instance, so the number of seats in Alberta would go from 21 to 27, whereas Quebec would gain only four and go from 75 to 79.
The new Government was elected and, after reflection I would imagine, it was anxious to leave its own imprint so it decided that 310 seats was too much. They did not want to have so many Members sitting in the House. It was a moot
Representation Act, 1985
point. Apparently, they wanted to keep the number of Members at a more reasonable level and freeze it for a while. I take it for granted that they drew their inspiration from lofty sentiments devoid of pettiness, and simply wanted to proceed with the reform in a new context, even though the Tories had earlier given their support to the Bill providing for 310 seats. In that same line of thought we might ask the Hon. Member for Churchill this question: Since the Bill had been widely accepted, why bring in a new one? As it happened, first they proposed six more seats, going from 282 to 288, then later on 289. Considering that the increase in the number of seats was rather minimal, our Members on the committee reported to our caucus and, in a spirit of fairness, we agreed that certain provinces would not have more, that Quebec would have no more than 75 because only six or seven seats were to be added to the representation in the House of Commons. There were other priorities as a result of population changes, particularly in Alberta and British Columbia.
We may have missed a few committee hearings. That's possible, Mr. Speaker, in view of the large number of committees sitting; we may have missed part of the debate, but who would blame us today at the third reading stage of the Bill to draw our colleagues' attention to an issue, nonetheless major, since there will be a membership increase from 285 or 286 to 295? So we are beginning to get significantly closer to the figure initially proposed, and according to this new redistribution where 13 instead of just 6 new seats are added, the Province of Quebec would get none, and furthermore the number of seats allocated to each province would be frozen up till the year 2001.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we the Liberals in the previous Parliament had shown concern for equity by proposing an increase in the number of seats for Ontario from 95 to 105, for Alberta from 21 to 27, and, as you will recall, a very large Quebec caucus in the previous Parliament had agreed to these proposals. But now we are reaching 295. Some will argue in terms of proportion or percentage, but there is much more than percentage involved here: it is a matter of whether 75 out of 295 is as good as 77 out of 313.
In my opinion, this is not the way to look at the problem, especially since the legislation will freeze the whole redistribution of seats for a very long period, that is up to the 2001 census, and inview of the time frame, it might take us to an election held in 2005 or 2006; as a Quebec Member sitting in this House in two, three, four or five years down the road, I would not want my fellow Quebecers to ask me: "What did you do? You did not do your job, you did not point that out to Parliament, you let that happen and now we are penalized", because what we want to bring out here is the matter of equity.
Speaking of fairness, there is another point in this Bill which bothers me, and it is the fact that from now on, if it were

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
adopted as is, the report could be dealt with only in Committee, and we know that it is much more difficult to bring something to the attention of the public at large by a debate in Committee than by a debate here, in the House, which is supreme in our legislative process. Because, in a Committee which is always made up of a majority of members representing the Government, there may be abuses, and the only way to bring the reality of a debate to the attention of public opinion is to hold it right here. A different political party may some day be in a minority position in the House and wish to bring its views to the attention of the public and perhaps emphasize some inequities . .. You know that, in the House, Hon. Members do not always sit on the same side. Sometimes, following election accidents, they move from one side of the House to the other, and I think it is essentially a matter of justice because, in a democratic system, there is nothing more basic than the way citizens are represented.
We agree that there must be a connection between the evolution of the population and the change in the number of seats; we agree that the smallest provinces must be guaranteed a definite number of seats. If, following the evolution of population throughout this country, the number of seats in a province such as Prince Edward Island came down to one seat, the elected representative for that province would have a hard time representing it. Therefore there is more than representation by population to be considered in this debate. There is a matter of fairness, of justice and the need to maintain open options for major groups. I think that Quebec as such, which understands and recognizes that other provinces must have more seats, would not want to be deceived. It would not want its number of seats to be frozen for the next 20 years or more and have to live with it.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if we had maintained the original proposal allowing for six or seven new seats, we would not be debating this issue now, at least not because of us. But I feel that because the number of seats was increased from six to thirteen, from seven to thirteen, and that the number of Quebec seats was frozen until 2001, this is an important matter which does not reflect the fairness and balance that should characterize such a bill.
I said, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again because the interpretation given a while ago by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) is an indication of the way our remarks could be used, but I emphasize again that we agree that British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario should have more seats. When we look at the present situation, we realize that the number of Alberta seats would increase from 21 to 26, which is pretty close to the 27 seats which the Liberals had proposed. When we Liberals were proposing that the number of seats be increased to 310, Alberta would have gone from 21 to 27 seats. In this Conservative legislation which proposes
that the number of seats be increased to 295, Alberta goes from 21 to 26 seats. We fully agree with this change. However, we do disagree about the fact that, when it was proposed that the number of seats be increased to 310, Quebec would have had 79 seats, while now that there are to be 295 seats, Quebec will have a zero increase for the upcoming 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make these comments not to start a war between regions but to show how important it is for legislation to be, and to appear to be, fair and equitable. If not only this equity, but also this appearance of equity is lacking, it is very hard for a piece of legislation passed by the majority to be accepted by the public.
I want to repeat that we are definitely opposed to Bill C-74 as it now stands and that we strongly support the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that this Bill not be read for the third time now, but that it be referred back to committee so that the question raised by this Hon. Member and myself may be reexamined to ensure that the equity factor is respected and that everyone in this House, on both sides . .. Indeed, this issue extends beyond party lines because, whether we are Conservatives, Liberals or whatever, we all represent the interests of our respective Provinces. This is a fundamental issue which goes beyond party politics. I wish and hope that the majority and my colleagues from Quebec, to whatever party they belong, will be willing to give us a second chance to amend Clause 2 of the Bill, so that, if and when Bill C-74 is approved, it will have the support not only of the majority, but of all Members of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cadieux):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, since you are also Chairman of the Quebec Conservative caucus and a distinguished Member of this House, I am happy to see you in the Chair this afternoon because your presence will lighten the atmosphere in the Chamber and abate the restiveness I felt a while ago.
Whenever a Member of the New Democratic Party makes this sort of speech, I cannot help but rise to remind him and his colleagues that as long as they hold such views, they will never make any inroads in Quebec, and the Conservatives may be assured that the fight in Quebec the next time will be between them and us. If there is this same attitude about the francophone minority in the Hon. Member's Province, I can imagine what must be the feelings in Quebec.
But how placid, how serene it is to hear the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) say yes, with a blunt, almost unkind frankness to some of us who may have let something slip by at some point. He tells us composedly: Listen, that is the parliamentary process. We have a third reading. When I brought forth the Bill, clearly I considered it as something perfect, otherwise I would not have put it before the House.
December 6, 1985

Then the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnaty-shyn)-

The President of the Privy Council who is always calm, saw that there may be an agreement not to go to 310 seats, as my colleague said, and very rightly so. Very calmly he went around and we said: "Oh, maybe six. We will not fight". Then he said six. As the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said, six does not seem to be fair for British Columbia and Alberta. I repeat again and again, we were very fair. I look at the Member for Alberta. Alberta would have had 27 Members under the old formula. British Columbia would have had 33 Members. That was fair. But the President of the Privy Council said that we will have a resolution for six or seven. The idea behind that, which seems to have escaped the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides pointed out, was to have a manageable House of Commons. Therefore, the idea came of seven Members given to three provinces, that is, priority to western Canada.
After deliberation and listening to witnesses-as the Member of Churchill rightfully said, those of us who were not in committee listened-the President of the Privy Council came up with another idea of 13. At that time it is possible that a Liberal was absent. It is quite possible. I said so myself. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), together with the Member from Laval-des-Rapides, were travelling for two weeks in western Canada as the special caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada on agriculture. They were there to learn from westerners what was going on. From that they were to report to the Leader of the Party and to the House of Commons. I admit that the Member was not here. Thirteen was the number agreed to in committee. Now we are at third reading. As the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides said, and 1 wish to echo him, we are here to make comments on his speech. [Translation]
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides suggested: We thought that over, and suddenly we realized it was no longer the idea of having a smaller Chamber which had prompted us to agree, but a question of adding on and on and on. At that point we started asking questions. But that is the reason for having a debate. John Diefenbaker himself always said so. I learned that from him.

As I was saying in French, John Diefenbaker taught me a lot. The Member comes from his province. He should be proud that I will quote the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: He said: "This is the place to debate". My colleague from Laval-des-Rapides was telling me that with this new reform, the House almost does not count any more. It is committees after subcommittees, after legislative committees, after permanent committees, after House of Commons and Senate committees and after travelling committees. Noth-
Representation Act, 1985
ing is going on in the House. We have a golden opportunity to show that the House of Commons still counts, that the House of Commons is the last place and it counts. It is food for thought for the weekend.
Here is another Member coming into the Chamber. I congratulate him because he is the new Minister from British Columbia. I am sure he would have agreed with me had he heard me this morning because I was reasonable and humble.
1 am ready to admit to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and his colleague from British Columbia that we may have been temporarily not at the right place. I admit that. Canadians like people who can show some humility. 1 know it is very difficult for an NDP Member to admit that he may have been absent. An NDP Member is never wrong!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is right.


Marcel Prud'homme: That is why they will never win any in Quebec-

-they are perfect. What should I tell you? But on this side, we thought that the further we go with the debate, the more we realize this could be improved. Mr. Speaker, this is what we are trying to do. This is why we are making comments. This is the reason why my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), took part in the debate, and I share his view. I think he is a sensible man and we should listen to his comments and act in a non-partisan way as I tried to do this morning, to be completely non-partisan, like the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Because of him, the debate will go on much longer.

I suggest that if the President of the Privy Council wants this Bill, he had better talk to the Hon. Member for Churchill. We can talk and talk and talk on this Bill. The longer we talk, the more Hon. Members on both sides will say: "Maybe we are going too fast". I repeat again that that is why it takes three readings. Otherwise, we would have one reading or two readings of a Bill. The reason for three readings, plus the Senate and the Royal Assent is to ensure that we are not making a mistake. We are being asked for a blank cheque for 20 years. Perhaps we thought it was all right yesterday, but we have been reflecting upon it. I see the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) smiling. He was an understanding person when it came to the aspirations of Quebec. 1 am sure he may have some sentiments in his heart today which suggest that I may not be that wrong. He is a fine gentleman who understood the aspirations of Quebec.

And not only aspirations but concerns. I know there are concerns in Quebec, and when there is reference to representation, suddenly people wake up, and say: "Wait a minute". Great politicians did understand that. The Hon. Robert Stan-

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
field also could well understand that, about Quebec's aspirations and concerns, and I can say that you are being told about Quebec's concerns without any lies or reservations, since 1 am echoing them in all fairness to our friends and colleagues and to the people of British Columbia and Alberta.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, certainly it was not my intention to speak again on the Bill.


Marcel Prud'homme: Oh, you will.


Rodney Edward Murphy: However, the Hon. Member who just spoke made a comment at the end of my speech which I was unable to rebut.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) also made comments toward the end of this speech to which I should like to refer. In both cases, he made personal references which suggested that if that was the way I felt about minorities in my province, we would never get elected in Quebec. I take those comments as a personal affront. He was in the House, as were many other Hon. Members, when we unanimously passed motions on the French language services issue in Manitoba.


Marcel Prud'homme: I was just commenting upon what you said.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Prime Minister at that time, Pierre Trudeau, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speaking on behalf of the Conservatives and I spoke about the fact that we had to recognize the rights of the French minority in the Province of Manitoba and that we should be giving encouragement to that province to pass that constitutional amendment.


Marcel Prud'homme: Congratulations.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I tell the Hon. Member who just spoke that that took one hell of a lot of more political courage than many Members show in the House from time to time. I do not want to hear from him, in his belated defence of the Province of Quebec-


Marcel Prud'homme: You will.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -a suggestion that 1 have not had the courage to fight for the minority French population in my province.


Marcel Prud'homme: I did not say that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: He inferred that.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or a question of privilege.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order, I believe.


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes. I would like to state more clearly that never in my life have I accused the Hon. Member. I only made a comment on what he said, as he will see from the blues.

I never said anything like that. I respect the Hon. Member for his courage.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Order, please! 1 believe the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis knows very well this is debate, so I will ask the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy)-

1 ask the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) to conclude his comments.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much more to say. However, I want to indicate to those representatives of the Liberal caucus who are now speaking out that this is not a matter which was dealt with in committee when their Members were not in attendance. The amendment to which they are now objecting was not passed then. That did not happen in committee. There was an announcement made in committee that an amendment would be brought before the House, but the amendment itself was passed in the House without opposition.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of speaking once before on the Bill, at which time I spoke about the inequality or injustice it would create for representation in western Canada. The more one reflects upon the Bill, the more one sees that it is really bad, not just for one part of the country, but for the country as a whole.
The first reason the Bill is bad is that it goes against the very principle of representation by population. We all know what that means. We all know that the current legislation would provide for a large increase in the number of Members in the House of Commons, would provide for equitable representation throughout the country and would, with increases in the population, keep the numbers of people in constituencies at fairly manageable levels. We would not end up with wide disparities, where some constituencies have a population of 60,000 or 70,000 people and others would have a population of 120,000 or more. It is quite clear that a Member of Parliament with some 50,000 to 70,000 constituents can get around to see them fairly often, certainly more often than a Member of Parliament who represents twice that many constituents. The basic principle of representation by population is designed to ensure that each citizen has a Member of Parliament with whom he can get in touch, someone who can stand up for him in the House of Commons and represent his interest.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: And she.


David Berger: Pardon me?
December 6, 1985


Rodney Edward Murphy: He or she.


David Berger: He or she. When the numbers of Members of Parliament do not keep pace with the increase in the population, the result is unfair and unjust to many constituents across the country. That is the basic principle which the Bill violates.
In addition, as I mentioned the last time I spoke on the Bill, the legislation which is presently in force would see the numbers of Members of Parliament increase from 282 to 310 and there would be increases in the representation of many provinces. The example that I gave last time which I would like to repeat today is that Alberta would have had 20 seats in the next election if we went with the increase to 310 Members of the House. If this Bill which the Tories have presented is passed, rather than increasing its representation to 27 Members, Alberta's representation will only go to 25 Members.
I have been to Alberta on several occasions in the past year.
1 went to the fine Cities of Edmonton and Calgary and I spoke to a number of people who told me that with the legislation that had been passed by the Liberals, they would have had more seats in Calgary and Edmonton than they receive under the Bill before us today. The same applies to British Columbia. British Columbia would have had 33 seats if the Liberal legislation remained, but if we let the Tory Bill go through, British Columbia will only have 31 seats so it will have two seats less.
How can we figure this out? This is the Party that told us it wanted to give an increased voice to western Canadians. Now it is depriving western Canadians of representation in the House of Commons. Does that make sense to anyone? We can think of all of the arguments that were made over the past number of years about western alienation and about the fact that the prairie provinces and British Columbia did not have an adequate voice in the councils of this nation and more particularly in the federal Government. What was the reason for that? Naturally, westerners felt that the previous Liberal Government-


Charles Joseph Clark: It didn't care.


David Berger: The Liberal Party did not have much representation from western Canada. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) says that we did not care. I beg to differ. I think that in our own way, we tried to do justice to the whole of the country and to all regions. Perhaps we were not understood but that is another matter.
As I was saying, the political reality was that the Liberal Government did not have much representation from western Canada. As 1 recall, we held two seats in Manitoba, the only seats we held west of the Ontario border. There was a feeling, right or wrong, that when it came to making the decisions of the federal Government, the only provinces that counted were Quebec and Ontario.
What happened as a result of the election of September 1984? The Conservative Party had great representation from
Representation Act, 1985
out West and expected to form the Government. All the western MPs figured that they would now have a chance to form a Government which truly represented the interests of western Canada. However, they made a slight miscalculation. They did not realize that Quebec would go along with them. Quebec likes to be on the side of power. Quebec journalists constantly say that Quebec-

Quebec voters are very sophisticated. When the Liberals are in power in Quebec City, we vote for the Tories in Ottawa. If the Conservative Party rules Quebec, we want the Liberals in Ottawa. When a Conservative wave seemed to be sweeping the country, Quebecers wanted to be on the Government side. So what did they do? In their wisdom, Quebec voters elected 56-


Richard Grisé: Fifty-eight.


David Berger: Fifty-eight Tory Members. I thank the Hon. Member from Chambly. Quebec elected 58 Members because it wanted to be on the right side.

So members of the Tory Party woke up on September 5 and saw that they would form a Government which represented not only Ontario and western Canada but Quebec as well. I must say that this is healthy for our country. If it had to be that way, it was best that it turned out that way for a few years anyway. However, the western MPs, editorialists and western Canadians wondered what would happen now that there is another Government which is largely made up of representatives from Quebec and Ontario. The people from western Canada again, in the new Conservative Government, are in the minority.
I have not had the privilege yet in my parliamentary career of being a member of a Cabinet but 1 have spoken to some of my former colleagues from Nova Scotia who told me- [Translation]
-I remember talking to Mr. Lessard recently, the ex-Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who came from ... 1 stand to be corrected but l think the riding of Marcel Lessard was Lac-Saint-Jean. Marcel told us that when decisions were being made in Cabinet and a Minister from Nova Scotia or a Minister from eastern Quebec made personal representations, he was up against six or seven of his colleagues from Montreal or Toronto, so you can easily guess what came out of such meetings.

It has ended up that regional interests do not have an adequate voice in the federal Cabinet or in Parliament
If the Government would allow the Liberal legislation to go ahead, more seats for Alberta and British Columbia would be provided. What will we end up with? The Tories are now proposing a Bill which would provide for only 25 seats for Alberta as opposed to 27 and 31 seats for British Columbia as proposed to 33. Because this Bill violates the principle of representation by population, it is a bad Bill. As well, it is a

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
bad Bill because it deprives the region and in particular western Canada from increased representation in the House.
We have also seen that it is a bad Bill for the people from my home Province of Quebec.

As the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) pointed out this morning, as a result of the existing Liberal legislation there would be 28 additional seats in the House of Commons, 28 seats which would be added to the 282 we now have so that the number of seats in the House of Commons would increase from 282 to 310. Quebec would have four more seats, which represents 14 per cent of the 28-seat increase. Out of the 13 seats which would be added to the House of Commons under the Bill proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, not one would go to Quebec.
So where is the fairness in that? Under the Liberal Bill Quebec would get 14 per cent of the new seats, but under the Bill of the Progressive Conservative Party Quebec does not even stand to gain a single seat.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we get from a Government whose commitment during the last election campaign was to defend the interests of Quebec!
There is a third reason for this Bill being an unjust Bill. It is unfair to another region of the country in addition to being unfair to western Canada. It is unfair to Quebec.
There are a number of other reasons which I could mention with respect to the Bill being unfair. One of them is something which flies in the face of all of the undertakings and commitments made by the Conservative Party in the last election campaign. Members of that Party proposed to enhance the role of Parliament. They proposed to give Parliament greater weight in the decision-making process. In the recent past the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons has been greatly hailed. I have my doubts about how many of its proposals will actually reform this institution. In any event, we will be dealing with that legislation over the course of the next few weeks.
The Conservative Government was elected on a promise to enhance the role of parliamentarians by giving more importance to this institution. We must remember that under existing legislation the report of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission, once it goes through the process of studying the boundaries in the country, has to table its report in the House of Commons where all MPs have the right to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents and bring up objections which they may have to the proposed boundaries. I have lived through one of these commissions. I do not know whether many of the newly-elected MPs have had the same experience.
I lived through one several years ago. I would like to tell Hon. Members a bit about how these commissions work.
A Bill is passed in the House of Commons and an electoral boundaries commission is set up. Commissioners are appointed in each province. Before they hold hearings they consider the results of the last census. They take the Act of Parliament which requires them to increase representation in the House to accord with the increase in population as contained in the last census. They consider the existing boundaries of existing constituencies and go about their work. They sit in some office building some place and spend several months drafting the boundaries of the constituency according to Parliament's wishes and according to the changes in the population as represented by the last census. The results of their work are then published. The day on which one receives a new map of one's constituency is quite a day for a Member of Parliament. Sometimes half of one's constituency has been taken away, and other times it is even more than half. There have been cases where whole constituencies have been wiped out as a result of movements and changes in populations, not only in provinces but in cities. As an example, in my City of Montreal, the east end of that city has lost 100,000 people over the course of the last 10 years. These people have moved to the West Island, to the South Shore and to Laval. There have been tremendous shifts of population within the Island of Montreal.
The commissioners perform their work based upon these shifts in population. They then table the new riding boundaries at which time the public finds out in some cases that a constituency is no longer there or that it has been moved a couple of miles away.
I conclude by saying that when the work of the commission is done it is only fair that parliamentarians have an opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents and bring to the attention of the House their concerns with respect to the proposed changes. Under existing legislation an opportunity is provided for full debate on the changes proposed by electoral boundaries commissioners. Under the Bill which is before us the governing Party which upholds democracy and the parliamentary process removes the possibility of debate from the House of Commons. The Government now says that the report of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commissioners will be referred to a parliamentary committee and that this committee will have 30 days in which to study the report. After 30 days that is it, everything goes through. It does not matter if one has an objection. It does not matter if one is concerned about the work of the committee. It does not matter if as an MP you are concerned about the fact that your constituency has just disappeared. As an MP you have only 30 days to express your objections and then the law stands, as do the changes.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you regard this as a good example of the principle of democracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk).


Mr. Suluk:: I have only one question. It relates to what the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) said with respect to this bill not being a good Bill. He has said that it is a bad Bill
December 6, 1985

because it does not conform to the principle of representation by population.
My question relates to the fact that I represent only 20,000 people. I believe that the riding of Western Arctic does not have many more people than my riding. 1 suppose it does not matter that my riding covers three time zones and extends from James Bay to the North Pole and from the southern part of Baffin Island to the Beaufort Sea. I suppose if we are to follow the principle of representation by population to the letter we should eliminate the federal ridings of Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq and tack them on to the Yukon. Then, we would have fair representation.
Since the Hon. Member says that Bill C-74 is a bad Bill, because it does not conform to the concept of representation by population, I would like to ask him whether or not he feels that Yukon and the Northwest Territories have too much representation. Could we not say, therefore, that since the southern parts of Canada are the most heavily-populated areas of the country that all sparsely-populated areas of the country, which would include northern Quebec, northern Labrador, parts of Newfoundland and perhaps some parts of northern B.C., do not deserve any real representation by any Party? In light of what the Hon. Member has said, could the Hon. Member please enlighten me in this respect? If he does not think that the present representation by population is the right way, what does he think would be a more fair way?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) for his question. I agree wholeheartedly with what I believe he was getting at in his comment. Representation by population is a cardinal principle in any democratic system of Government. In my comments I was obviously referring to the heavily-populated areas of the country in which some urban areas and some urban constituencies have from 150,000 to 170,000 people living within one constituency. 1 was saying that when it comes to constituencies of that nature, the principle of representation by population has to be respected. It is the foremost principle which has to be respected when it comes to urban constituencies. I see that this Bill is a deviation from that principle.
When it comes to the remote areas of the country, there are other principles which one must take into consideration in a country like Canada. I certainly do not think that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories-to answer the Hon. Member's question directly-have too much representation. On the contrary, I would probably say that they do not have enough. The Hon. Member would probably say that and I would agree with him. Coming from a remote area such as the Hon. Member comes from, he probably feels very lonely in this House and probably would not object to having another one or two Members of Parliament to represent his part of the country. In a country like Canada, we have to make accommodations of that nature. I would ask the Hon. Member whether Bill C-74 helps him in that respect. Does it provide for increased representation in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?
Representation Act, 1985


Thomas Suluk: We're doing okay.


David Berger: The Hon. Member says he is doing okay. If that is the way he wants it, that is fine, but 1 would say that it probably would make sense to deviate from these principles in order to provide for extra representation in the remote areas and to give the Yukon and the Northwest Territories a greater voice in the House of Commons.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) and a lot of what he said had been gone over earlier in the second reading debate and in committee. I do not think there is any disagreement that rep by pop is the basic principle. However, because of the history of the development of this country, there have been certain shifts away from that. We have made allowances for Prince Edward Island, for the Arctic and for the Northwest Territories as the previous speaker indicated. We have made allowances for the Yukon and we have made allowances with the Senatorial floor. Therefore, we recognize that rep by pop is the base and there have been certain historical and constitutional requirements which have made it necessary for us to deviate from rep by pop.
To my way of thinking, the Hon. Member's argument against the Bill at this stage comes down to one argument, which is that it is unfair to the population of Quebec. Has the Hon. Member had a chance to compare the figures in terms of what has happened to the representation of the province of Quebec under the amalgam method passed by the previous Liberal Government, and the legislation as it is before us at the present time with all the amendments? Has the Hon. Member considered what percentage of House seats Quebec would have had under the previous Liberal legislation as compared to this legislation in 1981, 1991 and 2001? If the Hon. Member and his Party had been in committee and had picked up the charts which were available, they would have found out that by using the same population numbers, under the Liberal legislaiton which was passed in 1974, Quebec would have had 25.5 per cent of the seats. It would have had almost the same percentage under this present legislation. In 1991, under the Liberal legislation, it would have had 24.1 per cent of the seats. Yet under this new legislation, it will maintain 25.3 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Further to that, if the population figures are correct as far as the year 2001 is concerned, under the Liberal legislation, the percentage of seats held by the province of Quebec would have decreased to 23.5 per cent. Yet under this legislation, Quebec will be ensured 25.2 per cent of the total seats in the House of Commons.
What I am saying is that under this legislation-and this is the point I was making-populations with a smaller percentage of the total, which includes Manitoba and Quebec, will have a higher percentage of the total number of seats in the House of Commons. Therefore, I wonder why, at this particular date, the Hon. Member and others are all of a sudden concerned that Quebec is being treated unfairly. If anything,

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
under this legislation, it has a larger percentage of the total number of seats in this House of Commons.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to this very late date. As far as I am aware, this Bill is still before the House and we still have the right to speak on it. I did not think there was any rule or law of the House that one has to get up at a certain time or at a certain stage of a Bill in order to speak on it.
As far as my basic concerns about this Bill, the last time I spoke on it, and I spoke at that time very briefly, I spoke about the problem which I saw with respect to Alberta and British Columbia. I mentioned that again today. I would simply ask the Hon. Member to accept in good faith the fact that when on several occasions I was in western Canada in the past year, people expressed concern to me saying that in Calgary they would have had more seats than they are going to get with this Bill which has been proposed by the Conservative Government.
When I rose today to speak, I was expressing these concerns. 1 also see problems, yes, in relation to Quebec. I look at-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.

Debate. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote).


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak in this debate and would have preferred a chance to comment on various statements, especially the one by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). However, since that time was allotted to the other side, I will speak in the debate.
1 understand why the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) wanted to prolong this period, until December 20 if possible, as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) exclaimed at the beginning of the debate before lunch.
Hon. colleagues, I have a suggestion. You should have asked your research staff to do some work for the Hon. Member for Laurier, because to the rest of the House, it looked like he was going to use his 20 minutes to try and put us to sleep.
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals and the New Democrats say their speeches or comments are devoid of partisanship, don't believe it, because it will be a very frosty Friday when that happens.
I heard them talking about Quebec, defending motherhood issues. Defending is a cinch the way they do it.
Historically, our Liberal colleagues were able to stay in power thanks to the Quebec vote-which they had the misfortune to lose, to their great chagrin-and partly with votes from Ontario.
So that is why we hear this "as Quebecers" over and over again. Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, a Canadian representing a Quebec riding, and working within a Government elected by all Canadians, I also realize that the new proposal works out to zero. As for of equity, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was talking about equity. As he said earlier, when we were working together in committee, we accepted and recognized, in terms of equity and also in terms of the economics of the question, that this Bill. . . that there would be six, seven or eight Members. We all agreed. And we spoke as Canadians. And as Canadians, including the Members from the Province of Quebec, we agreed to pass ... at that point there was no question of partisanship. 1 agree there was no partisanship at all. But I heard them just now, reminding us that with the Liberal Party's Bill . . . and so forth and so on, the same old song. They cannot hide their partisanship.
The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) said earlier that Manitoba had only two seats. Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure only the Liberal Party could put up with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) in Manitoba. On this side of the House, we can do without.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to abuse the time of the House, but I must say I am quite disappointed that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was not able to accept our recommendations to increase the number of seats in the House by six or seven, because I want the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis to know that we had done so for the sake of fairness and not partisan purposes.


Marcel Prud'homme: That is what we want!


Clément M. Côté: If we could return to this debate-I challenge members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to show evidence of their fairness.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, 1 gladly accept this challenge. 1 am sure that I could convince also my party colleagues. We should like to return to the main proposal. If I may, and if our Standing Orders allow it, I would like to return to the Bill and examine again and amend clause 2 to allow for an increase of six or seven seats. That is exactly ... I am sorry. I listened carefully to what the Hon. Member had to say, because this is one of his first speeches. I must admit that I do not know where he is going with his representation. I have not understood anything of what he was saying, because if he claimed that we are against six or seven, it is exactly the contrary. That is what we would like the Committee to return as a proposal to the House, because the six or seven new seats on which we had all agreed without partisan consideration, have been changed. Now, it is 13. It is to these 13 new seats that we object.
December 6, 1985



My colleague, the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) was right when he said that if the formula of 310, 343 and 369 had been applied, Quebec should have refused. That is why I am so much in favour of putting it aside. The more we debate, the better you will understand why 1 am so energetically in favour of another revision. The 310 led to 343 which led to 369 while the number of Members from Quebec was being reduced all the time. I was not in favour in the 1970s of in favour of enlarging the House of Commons from 264 seats to 282. I would not have minded if Quebec had lost one or two seats out of 264.
[ Translation]
I would not mind if Quebec was to lose. At the time, I had lost the debate. But when the number of seats in the House increased from 264 to 282, there had been a debate. I remember quite well that it was Mr. Ovide Laflamme, my Quebec colleague who has become a judge-I must trust my memory, because this happened 15 years ago-who, together with Mr. MacEachen, now a Senator, had found this 282 formula which would bring the number of seats to 310 and 343. At the time, 1 could see that Quebec was losing ground each time. But it is on the 25 per cent that I should like to bring the attention of my colleagues, but 1 will not, because he would like me to lose my temper. But for the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), 25 per cent of 400 seats and 25 per cent of 262 seats, it is not the same thing. Do you understand? It is still 25 per cent and it seems fair, but I say that in a parliamentary sense, the bigger the House gets, even though our percentage remains at 24, 23, 25 or 25.1, psychologically, the reduction is not in the interest of our nation, one of the two founding peoples. The other founding people know very well how to defend themselves, and I am not here to defend both people equally, but the way I see it, there is a reduction and we had an opportunity of making an intelligent move which was at the same time equitable for Westerners and did not put us, from Quebec, in such a minority position that we would have been lost in the great number of members of the House. That is why I jumped in at the first opportunity. I had several private conversations with the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I am a gentleman. He could rise and say it is not true. I saw him several times and said: Listen, I will do what 1 can to help you about the six and seven issue. I am not against it because there is the matter of maintaining a balance between equity and our identity as Quebecers. We feel we are different, and we are, and we think the more redistributions there are, the weaker our group gets. So let us not weaken its spirits by having a large House and making us only 25 per cent of a great number. We should keep the total number as close as possible to 289. If my colleague, who is a gentleman, could rise and take perhaps only a minute to say that I am acting in good faith and that I tried ... I am not pleased when I hear him say I am being partisan. That is enough to make me partisan and then he would see the difference. I am only trying
Representation Act, 1985
to see-late in the day perhaps, but that is precisely why we have a third reading stage-how we could reset our sights. I would appreciate an answer on that. Basically, I agree with him. I do not see why he is saying that we disagree, this is exactly what I want, that we come back to the 6 or 7 spirit and that the number of seats increase very gradually. I do not want any decrease. Even if, comparatively speaking, we are a little less numerous than we were, I do not want a reduction in the number of Quebec Members, of French-speaking Members in this House. It seems to me that Quebecers should understand that. Should I be more explicit? If such is the case we will have to start another debate, and you know what that means.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote).
He said, a little earlier, that it was with some sadness that he learned that the President of the Privy Council was not following the original project which would have increased the number of seats by 7. I would like him to explain to us-in substance, because I, too, would like to get away from any partisanship-what he meant and why he felt some disappointment.


Clément M. Côté: The fact is that the 6 or 7 proposal was accepted in the beginning because we wanted, as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) said earlier-


Marcel Prud'homme: That is what I still want!


Clément M. Côté: -to keep the House to a reasonable size, and also a bit for economic reasons, as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) pointed out. It is in this context that I worked with the Committee in the beginning and that is how we all wanted this to be done. This is why I said earlier that I was sorry this proposal was not accepted and the increase is now going to be of 13 seats because it does not meet the criteria of equity, and to a lesser degree, of economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I wish to resume the debate at the very point where the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) left it when he replied to my question. In fact, this Bill has travelled a strange road. Originally, the purpose was to prevent the number of seats in the House of Commons from increasing too quickly because the hybrid formula now being considered provided an increase from the present number of 282 to 310. The original bill

December 6, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
proposed an increase to 289. In fact, I agree with the Hon. Member of Lac-Saint-Jean that an increase of seven seats is acceptable. This would reflect what happened in the Committee and it is therefore more acceptable for those of us who sat on the Committee.
However, what worries me the most about the new proposal which would increase the number of seats from 282 to 295, which means an increase of thirteen rather than seven, is where these six additional seats will go. British Columbia will have two, and so will Alberta and Ontario. I do not want to be a bad sport and to seem envious of these provinces which are to receive additional seats. Let them have their seats! What worries me is that, while six seats are being added, not a single one will be for my province. This is not what had been suggested originally by the Committee. We could have fought about this in committee but that is not how it happened. It is therefore not surprising that the Quebec Members should rise, and I am happy to see that there are also Members on the Government side who share our concerns. I am going to try and speak as calmly as possible without making any partisan comments.
As it is often pointed out, Quebec is not like other provinces. That Province is the centre of French culture in Canada, and as such, whenever there have been redistributions, debates centering on the redistribution of seats, that point always has came up. And it must do so once again.
I say without being chauvinistic, it is clear that Quebec has a special role in Canada. It is the anchor point of the Frenchspeaking community. Furthermore it is the critical mass of the French-speaking community in Canada. I say it is the anchor point because minorities outside Quebec expect the latter to remain strong, because if Quebec does not survive as an entity, that is the end of the French-speaking community in Canada.
Of course this is disquieting. An increase of only seven seats, from 282 to 289 already was not too generous for Quebec. But if six other seats are to be added to that without a single one going to Quebec, someone has to speak up. I represent a Quebec constituency, and I could not face my constituents without at least having risen in this House. I am not sure this will change the views of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Ever since September 4th, last year, I have been getting used to constantly losing votes in this House. This is something that will happen again. As I said, I would not like Quebecers to say: When that was going on, our elected representatives were asleep. We are not asleep, our eyes are wide open, and we are trying to bring this home to the Government.
I am happy to see that we have the support of certain Quebec Members who, although from the Government side, as the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, have the courage to rise and point to what is going on. I am not yet sure what kind of result this will have, but it shows that Quebec Members from all sides of the House are alerted to what is going on and are looking for improvements.
You see, when we started discussing the issue in this House, Mr. Speaker, on second reading and then in committee, everyone agreed that we should alter a course which we from the Liberal Party had brought in through the amalgam method proposed here by Minister MacEachen and which, as we now realized that things have changed, would have brought upon quite a rapid increase in the number of Members in this House. But above all the Government is concerned with the matter of costs, and we must also realize that financially things are not what they used to be. Money is getting scarce.
However, if we start playing around with the amalgam formula and changing it, we automatically get another set of problems, because there was a very good reason why, according to the formula, the number of Members would increase very rapidly, as well as related expenditures. This was because the formula was intended to closely observe the basic principle of representation by population. And I must say that as soon as we get away from this method, which has its shortcomings, we automatically start tinkering with the principle of representation by population.
For instance, when the Government decides to include in the Bill before the House a measure ensuring that no province will lose a seat, even if according to census figures the population of that province has increased at a slower rate than in other provinces or even decreased.
Make no mistake: it is a kind of political protection the Government is giving itself, because if a province were in danger of losing a seat, and this happened about ten years ago in the House, I was there, and I am referring to the Province of Saskatchewan, well, there would have been an uproar. It was the Hon. John Diefenbaker, that famous Member from Saskatchewan, who objected.
However, one cannot expect to win on all counts when in Government. Where decisions are made, the political price has to be paid occasionally. Therefore, when the Government wants to obtain political protection, that is, assuring some provinces that they will not lose any seats even when their population is decreasing, this automatically comes up against the first basic principle as stated by the President of the Privy Council, that is, the principle of representation by population.
Once they refuse to accept that a Province may lose seats, for political reasons, and I understand that, they are in effect tampering with a basic principle. This is one of the things in that Bill I do not like.
Moreover, there already were other things in the Act about which there is very little we can do. We could always do something, but it would be difficult. There is the question of the Senate minimum. Prince Edward Island, for instance, should have one constituency based on its population. It has four, since it has four seats in the Senate. And the Constitution provides there can be no fewer Members of Parliament than Senators.
December 6, 1985

There again, this is a reality about which we are already departing from the basic principle of representation by population. So I submit that right from the start there were realities of that kind that were hard to cope with, without the Government stepping in to protect Provinces likely to lose seats. And when 1 say this, I am not thinking of any Province in particular. Quite possibly, the population in my own Province might some day, five or ten years down the road, increase at a slower rate than other provinces for all kinds of reasons. Quebec would then be the one to lose a seat. But, that's life. If we accept the principle of representation by population, we have to accept the consequences.
However, I do rise to protect my province when the formula is suddenly amended after the proceedings in Committee, to add six additional seats, none of which will come to my province and when, because we are a minority in this House, we certainly do not have the power to have this changed.
I therefore ask as sincerely as possible to the President of the Privy Council to reconsider his proposal to add six seats more than originally planned. If he would be so kind, so generous and so wise as to come back to his original proposal, under which the number of seats would increase from 282 to 289, he would avoid an extended debate in this House. He would have a better chance of gaining the support of the opposition parties. This is indeed why-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Yes, you may conclude very quickly if you wish, but you have only a few seconds to do so.


Jacques Guilbault: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I have just made an appeal to the President of the Privy Council asking him not to add these six seats as I believe that it would penalize my province. I think that my message was clear and I shall let you do your job.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
PROVIDING DEFENCE OF THE ARCTIC ARCHIPELAGO Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of providing adequate defence of the Arctic Archipelago.
National Defence
He said: Mr. Speaker, the intention this afternoon is to focus debate in this Chamber on the special question dealing with the defence of the far northern reaches of Canada. It is not a motion that is likely to be voted on by the very fact it is so broadly worded.
Not that long ago, Sir, 1 had the good fortune to tour parts of the Arctic with General David Battye in connection with the construction of the north warning system. 1 must say we were very well received wherever we went. People were pleased with the attitude of the new Government especially in those areas dealing with the maximization of local employment opportunities and local entrepreneurial opportunities with the new north warning system. We know that it is going to be done in a much different manner than with the old DEW line. During conversations with people at that time, we met with some who lived in areas north of the DEW line. To them, the DEW line was quite a way south. They said to us: "Are we not deserving of some form of defence in the area that we live? Is it right that in a case of attack the first element of any strategy is to abandon us to the enemy with the first line of defence being along the DEW line, located at roughly 70 degrees north?" I think they have a very good point. They deserve to be protected just the same as those living in metropolitan areas to the south.
It is not my intention this afternoon to be too critical of the Government because 1 know the Government has made vast improvements to our northern defences in just a short time over and above those of the previous Government which allowed defences to become rusty. There is no doubt about that at all.
Northerners were very pleased with the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) not that long ago in the context of Canadian sovereignty. The announcements made at that time will go to alleviate some of the deficiencies to which I have referred to quite an extent. For example, increased surveillance flights; more military exercises to be held in the North and of course, the construction of a Class 8 ice-breaker now underway. That ought to have been done a long time ago but was neglected by previous Governments.
I am not unmindful of the expenses that defence establishment cost. There is an obvious need for Canada to share those expenses with the United States of America. A good example of this is with the north warning system that comes as a result of the memorandum of understanding signed in Quebec City between the leaders of Canada and the United States last March.
We also must take into account special Canadian requirements over and above those of our friends to the south. My suspicion with respect to the north warning system is that if it were not necessarily a joint venture and that if cost were not such an important consideration, the north warning system would not follow the 1950s DEW line along the seventieth parallel, but rather it would go along the extremities of Canadian territory. The line would stretch from Inuvik in the west northeastward up to Alert at the top of Ellesmere Island,
[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1985
National Defence
then possibly it would come down along the east coast of Ellesmere Island and Baffin Island, or it might even go around Greenland and come down the east coast of Greenland. There is valid criticism that can be made with respect to the north warning system, that we are superimposing 1980s technology on a 1950s geographical location. If we were able to do things in a way to maximize the Canadian interest, would it not be better, Mr. Speaker, to detect and engage enemy aircraft or enemy cruise missiles before they reach Canadian territory rather than to penetrate, in certain cases, many hundreds of miles into Canadian air space, over Canadian territory until being picked up by the DEW line? We could then launch successfully, I would hope, interceptor aircraft from locations even farther south than the DEW line and destroy the incoming threat. One of the difficulties is we would presumably be shooting down nuclear equipped missiles or bombers equipped with nuclear bombs over Canadian territory. Admittedly, it is not a densely populated area but the people who live there are of particular importance to me and my colleague because they are the people who vote for us. We feel if at all possible they should not be subjected to that type of threat.
The present detection system, the land-based radars that are necessarily used in the North are expensive, and we know that. Maybe we can improve our detection methods for the Arctic Archipelago by trying to improve the over the horizon back-scatter system that works in more southerly attitudes so that it can work in high latitudes. Presently it is affected by iones-pheric disturbances. If we could get over that problem, we would have a cheaper system for surveillance for detection in the very high Arctic. It is admitted the present north warning system is only an interim measure and that eventually the detection system will be satellite based, which will give us good coverage over the whole of Canada.
If we look at the existing military presence in the Arctic Archipelago we find there is very little there indeed. The only permanent military establishment is the communications research station at Alert. It can be noted, as an aside, that Alert is some 300 miles closer to Moscow than it is to Ottawa. There is not much else. There was another communications research base in Inuvik, not in the archipelago but close to it. That was closed or is in the process of closure right now.
Maybe we ought to think about the idea of having airports in the Arctic Archipelago from which F-18 aircraft could operate if the need arose. At the present time I can think of only one, the airport at Resolute Bay. There is one airstrip and no real alternate. Maybe some of the existing strips in the archipelago could be upgraded so that they could be used as forward operating locations.
There has been a continuing debate over whether or not you need a full-scale military base in the Arctic islands. I have never been able to determine whether or not that is necessary, but it is something about which military people have been talking for quite a number of years.
I should like to quote from an article which appeared in The Citizen of Ottawa in March, 1983. It was entitled "Canada needs military base in Arctic: ex-defence chief' and read:
Canada still needs the armed forces base in the far north that he promoted unsuccessfully in the early 1970s, General Jacques Dextraze, former chief of the defence staff, said Thursday.
Dextraze told the Senate subcommittee on national defence that "there is a great necessity to have a continuing presence up there."
The retired armed forces chief admitted that much of Canada's defence effort has to dovetail with planning by the United States for the defence of North America "but there are things that are purely national, things we must do as Canadians".
Dextraze said he selected Devon Island, on the Northwest Passage in the High Arctic, for the site of the proposed base-
The whole debate over what we need for the defence of the Arctic Archipelago has gone on for some time. It is not a new issue. I understand that Doctor Harriet Critchley has been an advocate of better defence of this area.
I have some quotations going back to October, 1981 from Le Droit to which I should like to refer.
[ Translation]
The Great North, a dent in Canada's armour.
-Brigadier-General Clay Beattie, DND Director General of Planning, said that if we were to neglect the north in might become the Maginot Line of the Atlantic Alliance.
And he goes on to say:
Colonel James Cameron, a retired officer who served in northern Canada, does not mince words. "I think it is absolutely shameful that we do not have more control over that region", said the former officer in a Toronto interview. Colonel Cameron is now on the board of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies-
[Stage Direction]
They are examples of where in years past this matter has been under debate by people who have given it a lot of thought.
The Arctic Islands are becoming increasingly important as a repository of strategic resources. There are vast oil and gas reserves which are in the process of being delineated in the Sverdrup Basin. There are billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. There were large hydrocarbon deposits in the Beaufort Sea, to the south of the area about which we are talking today. There were also mineral deposits in that area. In my opinion these assets are well worth protecting. There are also important shipping lanes in the area. The Northwest Passage is becoming a throughway, through the middle of the Arctic Archipelago.
It seems to me that military thinking in Canada has always been focused on Europe. We do not really give too much attention to the polar areas. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to accompany the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a trip to the Soviet Union. Of course, they are very concerned with Europe over there, but at the same time they are giving a great deal of attention to polar matters. A lot of research is going on, some of which is presumably to increase the total of human knowledge, but not without military signifi-
December 6, 1985
[Stage Direction]
cance at the same time. There is a lot of research into meteorology and there have been hydrographic surveys in the polar region. When we talk to senior Russian officials on the subject of possible conflict between the two superpowers, they immediately think in terms of action over polar areas. It is a state of mind which is very apparent over there, whereas in Canada it is something we tend to neglect and think in terms of traditional roles in Europe.
In case there was ever a conflict in polar areas, we have to try to think about what that might entail. Obviously, the first is the use of aircraft, missiles, in particular cruise missiles and bomber aircraft. We can neglect intercontinental missiles because they go away over the top. There are also some other things which might happen. There is the possibility of the occupation of the archipelago. At the present time it is not defended. It would be fairly easy to do that. What might happen is that if there was an altercation in Europe, a diversionary tactic such as the occupation of one or two communities in the archipelago could take place. The result of that would likely be that Canada would withdraw its troops from Europe in the face of public opinion and utilize them for the defence of the Canadian North. We have to take into consideration the possibility of using an attack on the Arctic as a diversionary measure. I would not like to see Arctic communities in that area being held hostage under those types of circumstances.
There is the idea of the archipelago surrounding seas being used as a submarine operating area. I refer to a May, 1983 article in The Citizen entitled "New attack subs planned to hunt Soviets in Arctic". The story is datelined Washington, and reads:
The U.S. Navy is designing a new attack submarine to hunt missile-carrying Soviet subs that operate extensively under the Arctic ice pack and use it as a sanctuary, the top navy commander said Wednesday.
Admiral James Watkins, chief of naval operations, said nuclear-powered 688-class Los Angeles attack submarines have put increased emphasis on patrolling under the ice to deny the Soviets a safe haven from which they could threaten America with nuclear attack.
Watkins described the ice pack as "a beautiful place to hide" for Soviet submarines equipped with intercontinental range nuclear-tipped missiles that could be used as a second or third-strike reserve force in the event of a nuclear war with the United States.
We have to think of the archipelago in all these terms. Unfortunately, the situation exists now with respect to naval warfare. At any rate, if there ever was a naval confrontation in the Canadian Arctic between the two superpowers, about all we could do as Canadians would be to sit on an ice floe and keep score.
I hope I have brought into context or focused attention this afternoon on the defence requirements of a very important part of Canada, a part of Canada which is becoming more important from day to day, a part of Canada of great strategic importance. In my opinion, today the Arctic Archipelago is an area which we should not and cannot neglect any longer from the point of view of defence of our nation.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
National Defence


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) on bringing this motion before the House this afternoon. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. It is a very important subject in the eyes of Canadians as well as in the international community.
The Hon. Member would have been interested in being in Washington this week with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The Northwest Passage and other items were brought into focus in what really amounted to an all-Party, united debate in the State Department in Washington. It is too bad that that meeting was not able to go on the record.
Having commended the Hon. Member for bringing the subject before the House, there are two things that my Party would want to put on the record regarding our concerns that this motion not be used in an unlimited fashion to justify something else down the road. Just because we agreed with this blanket motion that was brought before the House by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, we do not want to find ourselves in a situation of agreeing to other things.
Number one, of course, is the reaffirmation that we do not want to see this motion used to allow participation in the Strategic Defence Initiative involvement in the North. I think perhaps the Hon. Member who brought forth this motion may very well be in agreement with that as well. In conjunction with that, we would not want this motion used to allow Government-to-Government research in SDI. I believe that issue was very well put to rest in the middle of 1985.
Our second major concern over the motion would be that we would not want this motion used in any way to involve Canada in any form of anti-ballistic defence. The Hon. Member touched upon that issue and mentioned in particular the problem that would exist in the case of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
In all honesty, I think the Hon. Member would agreed that the present Government has not done wondrous things for the northern part of Canada. He gives the Government full credit for having brought in the north warning system. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic knows very well, as does every well informed Canadian, that 90 per cent of the north warning system was already planned when the new Government took office. The new Government added such things as the forward-operating locations and it dressed it up a bit but basically, the entire north warning system was the product of the former Government. Let this Government not take credit for everything.
Conservative Members went around during the last election campaign saying that they would commit to a 6 per cent real increase in defence spending and they sent that propaganda into every mailbox of every member of the Armed Forces. Where do they stand on that issue today? The real growth in defence spending has been 2.92 per cent.


Mr. Kiigour:: Where were the Liberals?

December 6, 1985
National Defence


Leonard Donald Hopkins: When the Liberals were defeated on September 4, 1984, the real growth in national defence spending was 4.1 per cent.


David Kilgour: And the year before?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Let us go back to 1979 when the NATO Ministers agreed to 3 per cent real growth in spending on national defence. That was a NATO agreement. Canada and the United States are the only two countries out of the 15 countries that were members at the time that lived up to that 3 per cent real growth in defence spending. The only thing that is going to save this Government from putting a blemish on that record is inflation dropping enough to push real spending up over the 3 per cent level.
Members of the Government Party talked much about that commitment during the last election campaign. Since the election, both in the House and out, they have been using all kinds of rhetoric to build up the perception that they are doing wondrous things for the defence of the country. They should be ashamed of themselves for building up in the minds of the people the thought that they are doing great things.
1 was quite interested in a comment 1 heard from some members of the Armed Forces in Europe. About a month or two following the election, a new shipment of goods arrived in Europe. One corporal who was on hand said that it did not take the new Government long to start operating because all this new stuff was coming in already. Of course, that new stuff had been ordered by the previous Liberal Government a year or two ago. Everyone in the House knows how long it takes to receive equipment. With all the red tape involved in purchasing defence equipment, it is a good thing that we are not in a war.
Let us go a little further than that. New trucks of all sizes have been delivered to military bases across Canada and Europe. Those 2,761 two-and-a-half-ton trucks alone were ordered by the previous Government and the last of them have come on stream in the last year and a half. As well, there are the new tanks that were purchased by the Liberal Government. The Liberal Government purchased 18 long-range patrol aircraft, the best equipped and best working aircraft for our surveillance system over the North Atlantic that could possibly exist. Representatives of other NATO countries have looked at these new aircraft, gone up in them and they really like that package.
We want to remain aloof from star wars and ballistic missile defence systems so that we as a Canadian nation can retain our individuality in matters dealing with external affairs. As soon as we lose the sense of independence we have in forming our own foreign policy, then we will no longer have any influence on the other Parliaments of the world.
Let us return to the time when the tanker, the Manhattan, went through the North escorted by a Canadian ship. In the summer of 1985, the Polar Sea went through the North. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the American Secretary of State met in Washington three months before that voyage took place. What good did their discussions
do? The Amercians went ahead and sent the Polar Sea through Canada anyway. They would not listen to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As a result of the Manhattan voyage, the Americans knew that they could not dictate to then Prime Minister Trudeau on foreign affairs. If there is one thing that the Americans know for sure today, it is that Ronald Reagan has the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) in his hip pocket.


David Kilgour: Horse feathers!


Mr. Towers:: Rubbish!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I know that that bothers Hon. Members opposite but it is time that they recognized the facts of life.
The reason we should be seen as independent in our foreign policy is that Canada must continue to work toward an arms control agreement. The moment we are seen to be a dishonest broker in the middle of those nations in the world today, we will no longer have that influence to work with them in a constructive way. 1 think that Canada is the nation which should be out there leading the middle powers and, indeed, working closely with the Third World countries, to put the heat on the two major powers in the world to come to an agreement and to come to grips with their SDI programs. I want to be honest and realistic about this. Let us not always talk about the American SDI system when we talk about SDI. Let us also recognize the fact that even though one does not hear about it because it is bad propaganda, the Russians have their own SDI system on which they are doing research. We cannot go around as naive individuals in external affairs today. We need aggressive people on board. We need to have our own national independent policy on external affairs. We must have credibility in the eyes of the people with whom we are working. That credibility means that we be seen as our own person and as our own nation. 1 think that is extremely important today.
I wish to place on the record an excerpt from an article which appeared in Maclean's because I think it is important. This is an article which appeared in the November 2, 1985 issue of Maclean's with respect to a leaked document to Cabinet. The article states in part:
-Maclean's has learned that the federal cabinet has been presented with a package of sweeping proposals that would greatly expand Canada's military presence in the Far North-both as a demonstration of sovereignty aimed at impressing the United States and because of concern over Soviet submarine activity in the Canadian Arctic.
The proposals, outlined in a secret external affairs memorandum to cabinet, suggested a $4-billion program over the next decade to improve Canada's capacity to detect and attack foreign ships that infiltrate the nation's arctic waters. Among the proposals: between $2 billion and $3 billion for the construction of four nuclear-powered submarines that could operate for unlimited periods under the ice.
The memorandum also recommended a range of initiatives to upgrade Canada's surveillance of the Far North. These included the launching of a $350-million satellite designed to provide year-round radio images of the Northwest Passage, as well as the installation of underwater listening devices to monitor key bodies of water in the arctic archipelago and provide "trip wire" warnings of submarines passing through Canadian waters.
December 6, 1985

That is a good program as outlined. The only trouble with it is that someone leaked it from Cabinet and it has turned out to be somewhat of an embarrassment because the program was written up on the understanding that the money would come from existing funds. If $4 billion is to be taken from existing funds by this Government from whom will it be cut? Where else can this money be taken from? Will bases be closed up in Canada in order to pay for this program? Any program which is put forward without having the dollars to back it up is not really a serious proposal at all.
Having put my Party's conditions on the record and having said that we in the Liberal Party are interested in continuing to upgrade defences, we support the North Warning System, of course, wholeheartedly. We do so because, as 1 stated in my opening remarks, some 90 per cent of it is our product anyway. We are very much in favour of continuing purchases in conventional defence since we have made many of those in the last number of years.
1 think that in the field of external affairs we will have to make sure in the years ahead that we are our own person and that we do speak for Canada and that we do have our own individual external affairs policies. We must ensure that we press for arms control and that we work with other countries in the world. We cannot work as an individual but as a unit with other countries in the world in order to impress upon the two major powers that the only sane way to go, the only way for a sane society to go, is to sit down and come to arms agreements over the next few years. I hope that our Canadian Government will take this seriously. I hope that it will come forward with more dollars with respect to the purchase of conventional defence items in the country and that it will place emphasis on our reserve units in Canada, something with which I am in wholehearted support.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) for assisting me to catch a plane because I have to leave a few minutes early. I promise to refrain from any hostilities today toward my Liberal colleagues. In fact, I intend this speech to be non-hostile all around. I wish to thank and commend the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for having brought this matter before the House for at least a short preliminary debate. His motion is very clear and to the point. I believe it has generated a very useful debate. The motion is simply:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing adequate defence of the Arctic Archipelago.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic has presented one version of the deterrent view and presented it quite well. Our Liberal colleague has presented another version of the same deterrent view. 1 wish to present the views of some people in Canada who are much concerned with that, because of where they live, who have still a different view.
I had the good fortune in September to go with the Standing Commitee on External Affairs and National Defence to Yellowknife to hear eight briefs of local residents there, beginning with the leader of the legislature and continuing through seven
National Defence
other briefs. I stayed in Yellowknife the second day rather than going up to Cambridge Bay and I forewent my per diem, as the rules require, because I wished to pursue also the question of housing in the Arctic. I was able to join with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic in a discussion of that a few weeks ago.
What I wish to present now is the gist of three of the briefs that the committee received that day: one from the Dene Nation and the Metis Association jointly; one from the Inuit; and one from the Committee for a Nuclear Free Western Arctic of the NDP.
1 think the most important of these is not, in fact, the brief from some Members of the New Democratic Party but, in fact, the brief of the Dene Nation and the Metis Association. 1 think Members may recognize that the recommendations they have put forward are not primarily involved in the dispute that we have here in what they call the "South". 1 understand that even Edmonton is way down south to the people in Yellowknife. So, of course, we are, I guess, close to the South Pole. But they do represent a people who have been here for many thousands of years, a people who have had a good deal of experience with war and with peace and with negotiation. Although they are a small group within Canada, the Dene, the Metis and the Inuit are, in fact, a majority of the population of the Northwest Territories, including the archipelago, about which the motion speaks.
I think the comments that they have made deserve to be heard by the Members of this House and by the Canadian public. Since the brief runs to several pages, I wish to give only the recommendations. Their first recommendation may seem rather trite at first. It is that the Canadian defence policy be reviewed in consultation with the Canadian public in an open forum. I say it may seem trite because the committee in which I am not able to participate most of the time is working very hard on doing just that consultation, or consultation covering a very important part of that. The reason the recommendation is not trite is because the open forum is not nearly so present as I believe the Dene and Metis people wish. That is one reason I wish to speak to it today.
The next three recommendations, I believe, give the heart of their point of view. The second recommendation states:
That those who wish Canada to pursue a policy of deterrence and co-operation through NORAD and NATO be invited to convince Canadians that that direction, or some variation of it, continues to be the correct one to take.
Hon. Members who have spoken have spoken on that assumption and with that view. The third recommendation states:
That those who support non-alignment and or neutrality be invited to convince Canadians that that direction or some variation of it, is the belter one to pursue.
The fourth recommendation states:
That the defence policy be reviewed and re-established before the next NORAD Agreement is signed.
1 believe that is a remarkadly useful statement in that it says clearly, in a few words, that we should debate the basic

December 6, 1985
National Defence
principles of our defence policy. I feel we should pay some attention to the Dene nation and the Metis Association. They gave consideration to the more specific aspects of the matter as well. They recommended that a soci-economic agreement on the north warning system be developed between Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. They agreed with the Government spokesman, with the Mayor of Inuvik, and with the Chamber of Commerce of Yellowknife, that people of the Northwest Territories should have a greater voice in what is done there. They go on to recommend:
The agreement should provide for a special advantage for northern workers and northern contractors to obtain jobs and business opportunities both during the construction stage and after completion. Training for the permanent jobs should begin immediately.
The sixth recommendation is:
That all aspects of the eight-year program of modernization of the DEW line be subjected to an environmental assessment and review process and provide information and assurances in the same way that is expected of industry.
Many others spoke to us that day about the same matter. They said that it is their land, they live there, and whatever defence policies are being carried out should take account of the people who live there. It is not a no-man's land.
They address the larger scene and recommend:
That Canada and all Canadians refuse to become involved in the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars).
Not only the Canadian Government, as was the declaration made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but all Canadians should refuse to become involved.
The eighth recommendation is as follows:
That the Prime Minister undertake a "peace mission" to attempt to convince both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to stop their research and activity aimed at the militarization of outer space.
The ninth recommendation is as follows:
That if a new NORAD agreement is negotiated that a clause be included which states that Canadian participation does not include a commitment to take part in any Strategic Defense Initiatives and further does not include any commitment towards basing anti-ballistic missiles in the north or in Canada at any time in the future.
That is, again, a very plain declaration in which many Canadians are interested. 1 hope Canadians will understand that one of the representative bodies of Canada's first people has taken a very clear stand on that matter. They conclude by recommending:
That if a new NORAD agreement is negotiated that a termination clause of 12 months or less be included as it is in the 1981 agreement.
They state the "1981" agreement, but 1 believe it was 1980.
I believe the Dene nation and the Metis Association should be heard. I want to comment also on the brief of the Inuit. They did not speak so specifically as the Dene nation and the Metis Association but they did make some general points which ought to be heard. They say that for the Canadian Inuit, the fundamental concern is real participation in the development and implementation of Canadian policy in the Arctic with respect to national defence. They say that in terms of national defence, the Inuit form the front line of Arctic sovereignty and security. They do not want to find themselves
in no-man's land. They do want a stronger role in determining the fate of the Arctic.
The Inuit people through their organization have commented, and will continue to comment, and I hope we will listen to them. If an Inuit representative in Parliament wishes to speak on their behalf, I will listen to him with great interest, as I am sure will other Hon. Members of the House. In the few minutes I have left, I want to quote also from a brief which was prepared by the Nuclear Free Western Arctic Committee of the New Democratic Party. It is concerned with indications from Canadian, and particularly American publications, that the role of NORAD may be changed in the circumstances of SDI. It raised a question-


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say quite simply that the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) wishes to speak. What the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is saying, I would submit, has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion before the House. My point of order is in respect to the relevance rule, in other words, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I understand.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern for relevance and I have chosen this material because it is relevant to the basic thrust of the motion with which we are dealing which concerns the type of military defence in the far north, specifically in the archipelago. That basic defence at present is proposed to be characterized primarily by NORAD, or by the north warning system, with what at present is an unclear and developing relationship to SDI. This concerns the archipelago as well as the whole of the Arctic. Therefore, the possibility that NORAD, the north warning system, and the archipelago will be involved not in protecting Canada against a first strike by the Soviet Union, but in responding to a second strike by the Soviet Union after a first strike by the United States, is very relevant to the people of the archipelago, as well as to the rest of the people of Canada. The point being made by this committee of residents in the Western Arctic is that the rule of NORAD in continental air defence must be re-examined in light of evidence which suggests that NORAD could play an integral part in provoking, not preventing, a nuclear war. This is of acute concern to people who are living in Mackenzie River Valley. I believe it is of equal concern to others who live in the Northwest Territories, including the archipelago. The committee went on to say:
In order to understand the role of NORAD in the 1980 and beyond it is necessary to consider American developments in nuclear weapons systems under the Reagan Administration. These include the MX land based missile, the Trident D-5 missile and the B-1B bomber. The NAVSTAR Global Positioning System, a satellite based navigation system soon to be in place, will ensure that these latest innovations arrive on target.
These technological developments, specifically the MX and Trident D-5 missiles, are particularly destabilizing in that their sophistication and accuracy give the Americans the confidence to strike at Soviet land based missiles and command posts with probable success.
What is under consideration there is a first strike. They go on to suggest that in that case the role of NORAD is not to
December 6, 1985

protect North America against a first strike whether it is based on the land perimeter of the Arctic or on the perimeter of the archipelago, but that the role of NORAD would then be only to defend Canada against a second strike by a Soviet missile or bomber force that would have been decimated, but not totally destroyed, by an American first strike. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they recommend that the review of Canadian participation in NORAD should ascertain the degree to which present arrangements contribute to the support of an American counterforce first strike and to strategic defence. Canada should end its involvement in any activity that furthers these aims.
Those briefs were presented to our committee and were available for public review. I would urge Members of the House and members of the public to consider the opinion of those people who are representative of quite a number of the people who live in our Arctic areas, including the archipelago.


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, with the short amount of time remaining I will only attempt to make a few comments, and not necessarily to use up the remaining time. I do wish to make a few brief comments in relation to the position of the Inuit because that has been mentioned quite a few times. After all, the subject matter of the motion of the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is concentrated in my riding.
There are two basic representations which are normally made. First, from the special interest point of view, presentations to any governmental agency are normally prepared by consultants. What the consultants say, and what the people actually wish to say, are usually two different things altogether. Unfortunately, in Canadian political circles we normally hear what the consultants and politicians have to say. I participated in a seven-community tour from Inuvik to Pelly Bay this fall and I visited some of the high Arctic communities this summer when the issue of the Polar Sea first came up.
What I will be saying may never have been said before by a politician. When 1 was in Pond Inlet and Arctic Bay this summer an old Inuit told me that during World War II when they were issued with old .303 rifles and some rounds of ammunition they were instructed that if they saw any suspicious looking people, presumably Germans or other enemies, they were to shoot them. They took those instructions very seriously.
Professional Canadians or writers may not think much of that. In fact, I read a comment in News of the North by some people who made a bit of fun about the old-time "rangers" as they are called and how they were referred to as the first line of defence and what the heck could they do with cruise missiles anyway.
The point which I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the Inuit in the central Arctic and high Arctic have said that they appreciate very much what the Canadian Government is doing for them because they know that they cannot defend them-
National Defence
selves with Russia being to the north of them. They appreciate Canadians spending millions of dollars to defend their area as well as Canadians in the south. Many of the older Inuit people are very nationalistic as far as the military is concerned. It is unfortunate that all we ever hear about are those on the negative side.
If I correctly understand comments of other politicians and Canadians in general, I believe they are saying that they want only to give the Armed Forces the ability to say: "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming", and not the ability to do anything about it. We call ourselves a nation and yet we do not even want to be able to defend ourselves. We only want to be able to tell our neighbours to the south that the Russians are coming or that their cruise missiles have been fired.
Is that all that we want to do as Canadians? I wish that those who have more of a say on this issue would understand this side of the argument. Every time there is any form of Canadian military activity there are demonstrations in the streets and on the parliament grounds. We must decide whether we wish to be able to defend our own country.
As I mentioned before, I do want to give some of my colleagues an opportunity to speak so I will conclude my remarks.


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I offer a few comments in this debate. I am sorry that the hour is so near to five o'clock. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), for bringing this very important matter before us. I also appreciated the remarks of the Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk).
I am sorry that the Liberal critic did not stay around after his few remarks as I had a few comments that I wanted to direct his way. He was busy taking credit for the north warning line. I am sure you need not be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that the country had 23 years of comment and very little action. In the Liberal Party's concern for defence there is a lot of talk and no action. We took office and we took action. The Liberal Member also spoke with pride about the fact that no one could tell his former Leader, Mr. Trudeau, anything. I agree. Had he stayed long enough, in 1984 the people would have told him something that he could not have ignored. However, he left his Party to reap its rewards.
The matter of defence in the Arctic is extremely important. Having spent 18 years in our Navy I can comment with some knowledge. It was always a matter of great concern to me and to my naval colleagues that our capacity to function in the Arctic was negligible. Our Air Force had a limited capacity, but the capacity of our Navy was nil. The Liberals, who pride themselves in restoring the service to a measure of capacity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.

December 6, 1985
National Defence
[Translation]	It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until
Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 9, 1985