1985-11-26

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke
Centre)), which	was agreed to on the following division:	
	(Division No. 135)
 YEAS Members	
Andre	Bouchard	CollinsAttewell	Bourgault	ComeauBeatty	Brightwell	CooperBernier	Brisco	CorbettBinns	Cadieux	CossittBissonnette	Carney	CoteBlackburn	Charest	(Lac-Saint-Jean)(Jonquiere)	Clark	CoteBlais	(Yellowhead)	(Langelier)Blais-Grenier	Clark	CroftonBlenkarn	(Brandon-Souris)	
Members
Crosbie	Joncas	Oberle(St. John's West)	Jourdenais	O'NeilCrouse	Kempling	PaproskiDarling	Kilgour	PennockDaubney	King	PetersonDella Noce	Landry	PietzDesjardins	Lanthier	PriceDomm	La Salle	RavisDorin	Layton	RedwayDuplessis	Lesick	ReidEdwards	Lewis	RicardEllis	MacDonald	SchellenbergElzinga	(Kingston and	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Epp	the Islands)	Scowen(Provencher)	MacDougall	ShieldsFennell	(Timiskaming)	SparrowFontaine	MacKay	SpeyerFraleigh	Mailly	StewartFretz	Malone	TardifFriesen	Mayer	(Charlesbourg)Gass	Mazankowski	ThackerGirard	McCain	TowersGormley	McCrossan	TremblayGottselig	McCuish	(Quebec- Est)Graham	McDermid	TupperGravel	McDougall	TurnerGreenaway	(St. Paul's)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Hamelin	Mclnnes	ValcourtHamilton	McKenzie	VincentHarvey	McKinnon	WeinerHawkes	McKnight	WenmanHees	Merrithew	WilsonHicks	Minaker	(Swift Current-Hnatyshyn	Mitges	Maple Creek)Hockin	Mulroney	WilsonHoltmann	Nicholson	(Etobicoke Centre)Horner	(Niagara Falls)	WinegardHudon	Nickerson	WiseJames Jelinek	Nielsen
NAYS Members	Witer-131.Allmand	Gray	McDonaldAlthouse	(Windsor West)	(Broadview-GreenBerger	Guilbault	MurphyBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	NicholsonBoudria	Heap	(Trinity)Caccia	Henderson	OrlikowCopps	Hovdebo	PennerDeans	Isabelle	Pepinde Corneille	Johnston	Prud'hommeDingwall	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	RiisEpp	Kaplan	Robichaud(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Keeper	RodriguezFinestone	Langdon	RossiFoster	MacLellan	SkellyFrith	Manly	TardifFulton	Marchi	(Richmond-Wolfe)Gagliano	McCurdy	Waddell-45.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, be read the first time and be printed.

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Murphy:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we consider Bill C-74 I would like to inform the House that I do not intend to move Motions Nos. 1 and 7 standing in my name since the Government has now introduced amendments fulfilling the needs which I expressed in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, there were seven motions, but there are now five at the report stage of Bill C-74 on the Order Paper. I have looked at them all and have found that some are out of order for various reasons. Motions Nos. 1 and 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) have now been withdrawn, therefore I need make no comment with regard to them. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are in order and will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) give the Chair some procedural difficulty in that they appear to go beyond the scope of the Bill. It is my intention, however, to hear procedural arguments as to their acceptability when they are called. Motion No. 6 is in order and will be debated and voted on separately. Accordingly, I now propose to go to Motion No. 2.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-74, be amended in Clause 2
(a)	by striking out lines 10 to 13 at page 2 and substituting the following
therefor:
"number assigned to that province on the date of coming into force of this subsection, there shall be".
(b)	by striking out lines 17 to 34 at page 2 and substituting the following
therefor:
"number of members as were assigned on that date."


Mr. Gauthier:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something. I take it that Motions Nos. 1 and 7 have been withdrawn by unanimous consent, or is it required?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He ruled them out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: In fact, the Hon. Member in whose name they stood on the Order Paper has indicated that he has no intention of moving them. There is then no way for them to come before the House because he has chosen not to move them. Does that deal with the point of order of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks with respect to this particular amendment. At the outset I would like to say that I appreciate very much the position taken by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). He is always vigilant and always prepared to pursue his particular point of view. I would just like to remind the House that at the outset of the clause-by-clause discussions I had, on the basis of the evidence that had been presented to the committee and on the basis of representations received from members of the committee, given my undertaking to make certain amendments to this legislation which I thought would respond to some of the concerns that had been expressed. Due to the fact that there was an element of expenditure involved, it was necessary to obtain a Royal recommendation which is the reason this is being dealt with at report stage as opposed to having been dealt with in committee.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I undertook to propose an amendment at report stage and told Members at that time that I would give serious consideration to adopting the wording proposed by the Hon. Member for Churchill. Motion No. 2 fulfills the undertaking which I gave to the committee. The motion, if adopted, would ensure that no province would lose any seats from its present representation in the House. At the same time it eliminates Rule 3 from Clause 2 which provided for growing provinces to receive only one-half of the increase in the number of seats to which they would otherwise have been entitled.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, you have dealt with Motion No. 3 in the name of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) which seeks to accomplish essentially the same goal as Motion No. 2. However, it leaves out an important safeguard which I think is essential if we are to ensure fair representation in the future. In view of the fact that there are transitory migration patterns within a province or between provinces, it seems only reasonable to ensure that, in removing the cap on the growth of representation, we allow a mechanism for such transitory shifts to have only a temporary effect on the representation. I do not anticipate that the provisions of Rule 2 will very often operate to reduce the number of seats given to any province, however, it seems to me to be an essential safeguard.
I may say, in closing, that the effect of deleting Rule 3 and the changes proposed in Clause 6 of the Bill will, in large measure, provide the commissions with the tools to carry out the intentions of the two motions previously ruled out of order by the Chair concerning the interests of northern Ontario constituencies. In Ontario the average population per riding in 1988 will be 87,122. The application of 25 per cent will allow
November 26, 1985

that number to decrease to 65,342. The average population of northern Ontario ridings in 1981 was 70,109.
Therefore, within this new framework the amendment that I am proposing will, in effect, accomplish the objectives that people in Ontario would want to have accomplished. That is to say, it will increase, to the full extent, the number of seats that Ontario will have according to population growth. There will be no limit on that. There is also a new provision which will mandate commissions to pay attention to the issue of manageable geographic size. There are two elements which will ensure, in remote northern areas, that there is a fair opportunity for constituencies of geographically manageable sized. Of course, this applies in northern Quebec, northern Ontario and the northern parts of the western provinces as well.
As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, during the committee's consideration of the Bill I undertook to obtain expert legislation drafting advice with respect to a motion which the committee endorsed but which I felt was defective as to form. I received such advice and Motion No. 6 is the result. I might add that this amendment imposes, for the first time, a duty upon the commissions to consider "community of interest or community of identity" as well as "the geographic size of large, rural or northern districts". I am indebted to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), who participated in the committee debates and supported the concept which is now included in this legislation. The commissions may not evade their responsibility to take such factors into account in redrawing the boundaries.
This is a new and powerful instrument by which Parliament is, in effect, saying that there are very important matters to consider in establishing new constituency boundaries other than those which relate strictly to representation by population within each of the provinces.
We will all watch with great interest, because we are all affected in one way or another, the way in which the commissions carry out their important new duty. I suggest to Hon. Members that, with the help of suggestions from Members on all sides of the House, we have taken a balanced and reasonable approach through which we will accomplish the objectives of limiting the extent of growth of the House of Commons to keep it within a reasonable size. Yet, through the provisions of this Bill we have allowed for full consideration to be given to provinces in which there is growth. For the first time we have addressed, in a very reasonable way, the question of obligating the commissions to consider "community of interest or community of identity". We also addressed the question of manageable geographic size for constituencies in our country, without departing in any substantial way from the currently understood concept of representation by population. This was one concern that was expressed and I believe we have been able to derive creative ways to deal with it, through amendments to this legislation, with the assistance of the committee.
Let me conclude by thanking the members of the committee for the way they conducted themselves in the hearings and for
Representation Act, 1985
the interest which they brought to this particular legislation. I should point out that in dealing with this Bill we used the mechanism for consulting Members of Parliament as much as possible on two different occasions. First, we presented the draft legislation to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections last June to allow the committee members in the preliminary opportunity to consider the legislation before the principle of the Bill was debated. 1 hope we will continue to use that mechanism with other legislation after we proceed with the amendments to our Standing Orders as a result of reform of the House of Commons.
I hope that device will be used more often to allow parliamentarians from all sides of the House to address the early stages of legislation rather than having to deal with the principle of completed legislation before going to the committee stage. In many cases it is not possible to have an initial study of legislation, but in this case I thought it was appropriate. It is the kind of legislation that certainly recommended itself to study before being brought in in its final form. Again, I thank Hon. Members for their assistance in this pursuit and commend the amendments standing in my name for unanimous acceptance by the House.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's statement today illustrated some of the problems with the original Bill. 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.
I commend the Minister's decision to remove Rule 3 in Clause 2 of the Bill since it would have been subject to court challenges. Essentially, Motion No. 3 standing in my name would have removed Rule 3.
Incidentally, the Speaker did not rule against Motion No. 5 standing in my name. He wanted to hear arguments about it, and unless the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) knows something that we do not, Motion No. 5 has not been ruled out of order by the Speaker.
The President of the Privy Council is aware that this procedure, which will require the establishment of new commissions, a total redistribution commission hearing, and advertising and reprocessing through the House, will cost the country some $5 million or $6 million. However, all that is required to complete the existing redistribution is a couple of hours of debate to hear the objections to the existing redistribution program.
Furthermore, we do not know the effective date of this Bill. It is like shooting an arrow into the air and wondering where it will fall. It is likely that this redistribution will come into effect in the summer of 1988. If an election is called for the spring of 1988, it will be held according to the existing boundaries. If it is called in the fall of 1988, it will take into account the new boundaries. How does the House Leader

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
propose to remedy this undesirable situation in which the boundaries could be changed during the summer months when people are on holidays? According to the timetable set out by the Chief Electoral Officer, this Bill, if it is approved by the House of Commons and the Senate, will result in a change of boundaries during the summer months of 1988. If the Government so dares, that is the most likely year for a general election.
Whereas there would have been an increase of 10 seats for the Province of Ontario according to the existing redistribution plan, if Motion No. 1 is carried there will be an increase of four seats. Of course, that has the effect of reducing the number of seats by six from the number in the existing redistribution law and will have a devastating impact on northern Ontario since it could well result in the loss of one or two seats.
In 1977 the Commission removed one seat from northern Ontario which covers 88 per cent of the land mass of the Province of Ontario. The Minister will recall that there was long litigation in which tens of thousands of dollars were spent by the municipalities in northwestern Ontario in an attempt to stop that redistribution and the loss of representation. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), on a recent visit to Elliott Lake, said that he wanted to see greater representation from northern Ontario. The impact of this Bill is that we will lose at least one seat and perhaps two seats, depending on how the commission makes its decision. That is why I introduced Motion No. 5. Basically, it describes the geographical area of northern Ontario and asks that it continue to be represented by 11 seats, which would come out of Ontario's allocation of the proposed 99 seats. That is a very fair and equitable arrangement because Ontario is a geographically distinct region representing 88 per cent of the land mass of Canada. Assigning 11 seats in the Ontario allocation does not harm other provinces and will give that distinct geographical location more adequate representation.
With regard to the principle that we are applying to Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland where we are providing a floor based on the amount of representation in the thirty-third Parliament, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon sees that as a fair and equitable arrangement for provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Thus, I am sure, in his sense of equity and fairness he will want to support Motion No. 5 when we get to that motion later this day.
I would like to question the President of the Privy Council. In Motion No. 2 he uses the words "coming into force of this subsection". Whether or not the Government will make a commitment that that subsection will be proclaimed simultaneously with the rest of the Bill because if that subsection were not to be proclaimed, as I understand the legislation, you would end up without the grandfather clause relating to minimum representation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry but I must interrupt the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the President of the Privy Council, the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for making the amendments he has. I made similar amendments both in committee and I was ready to make the same type of amendments at report stage, but he has gone along with the direction that I and the New Democratic Party caucus believe is necessary to improve the legislation. In his kind words, the Government House Leader said that I was diligent in my work. I am not sure other committee members would use that same word in describing my work, but I appreciate the kind words.
Despite the fact that we support the two amendments before us in the name of the President of the Privy Council, we still have some concerns for the Bill.
First, I want to talk about some of the things with which we do agree. I think there is some need to be concerned about the actual size of the House and the costs that will accrue to the House as a result. At the same time, in recognition of our Constitution we have at present and our history, a certain number of seats are guaranteed to some of the less populated provinces. The formula with which the Government originally came up put a very heavy penalty on growing provinces. The Government devised a formula according to which, after a quotient of the average seat population in the country was taken, the provinces with growing populations would be entitled to only half of the increase to which they would be entitled by dividing the population of that province by the quotient. This was blatantly unfair. It created a situation where Alberta, Ontario and B.C. would have larger and larger populations in each of their ridings with the passage of time, which would not be the case in other provinces. In other words, the brunt of the Government restraint action was falling on the three provinces with the fastest growing population.
By making the amendment before us at the present time in Motion No. 2, we go a long way toward solving that problem, especially with regard to the commissions and the new redistribution that will take place based on 1981 populations. For example, British Columbia, which would have received five new seats under the legislation passed in 1974, will now receive four seats. That provides adequate protection for people in B.C. as far as any new boundaries that come up as a result of the 1981 census are concerned.
In the long run, in terms of what might happen after the 1991 census, the 2001 census and the 2011 census, that same fairness will be diminished. That is a problem I see with the legislation. However, I do recognize what happens in this House. Almost every new Government has brought in a piece of legislation to change the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. We passed legislation in 1974 and we are passing legislation now to do that. If there are problems in the future, whichever Party forms the Government after 1988-89 will recognize them as being the result of the legislation before us presently.
November 26, 1985

I will not deal with Motion No. 6 now but will do so when we come to it, Mr. Speaker.
One of the main arguments the Government used in saying that we did not want to see the membership of the House increased to 310 seats in 1981, to 343 in 1991 and to 369 as a result of the census in 2001 was the need to control the costs of the House of Commons.
In making his presentation before committee, the Government House Leader indicated that it would be better if we looked at the McGrath committee's report, the committee which reported on the reform of the House of Commons. He said that a better utilization of the resources we had for the House which would have to be used to pay for the increased costs as a result of a larger House, would be to give it to the present as well as the new Members of the House who would be here as a result of redistribution. In other words, present Members of the House would be given better resources to do their jobs. This is in line with the recommendations of the McGrath committee, which I support, but I am not sure that that is what will happen.
The new Government has been sitting for over a year now and we are still waiting for some increase in our principal budgets. We are still waiting for some indication that the resources will be available to Members of Parliament to take on the ever-growing responsibilities that we are being given as we move into a system which I think is the system we want. Members of Parliament will be more responsible and will be in a situation to make amendments in committees which will be accepted by the Government. Members of Parliament will be more responsible in terms of dealing with government expenditures, something about which the Auditor General reminded us so effectively in the last few weeks.
I would like to see, along with the passage of this legislation, that we have some commitment from the Government that the resources for the House of Commons are not spent on increasing enormously the number of Members in the House. Those resources should be spent on existing Members to make it possible for us to do a better job in terms of research, looking at the statement of the Auditor General, looking at the expenses of Parliament, proposing legislation ourselves and investigating and amending government legislation. Those resources should actually come, not just be talked about in a general way.
In summary, the amendments of the Government have helped improve the legislation in many ways. Actually, it is much stronger than the legislation which was passed in 1974, in terms of looking after the problems of community of interest and of ridings of large geographic size. However, I cannot fully support it because in the long run, based on the 1991 census and following ones, we run the risk of not protecting the interests of provinces with fast growing populations.
Representation Act, 1985


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in a position to give a commitment whereby-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) goes any further, I should like to remind him that this is not a question and answer period. If the Hon. Member for Davenport has a question which he would like to put to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), perhaps he could mention it and the President of the Privy Council, if he wishes, could answer the question when he addresses another motion.


Mr. Caccia:: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and put it in the form of a concern, to which eventually the President of the Privy Council could respond at the right moment.
I should like to express some thoughts with regard to Clause 2. I fully subscribe to the principles which are being applied in northern Ontario and the importance of defending the democratic process, taking into account distances and sparsely populated areas. At the same time, when it comes to Metropolitan Toronto, we have the opposite situation where we have high densities in smaller areas. In addition, we have an ongoing dynamic of a population which includes people who are not citizens but are in the process of becoming Canadian citizens, therefore increasing the numbers of electors.
I express more than just the hope that the increase in seats in Ontario will mean an increase in Metro Toronto, so as to take into account the population, as well as the dynamic to which I have referred, as part of a feature which is typical of a large metropolitan area, as is the case in Metro Toronto. I suspect that the same would apply to Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
I am sure the President of the Privy Council is aware of these facts, but I wanted to ensure that they were on the record. I look forward to his comments at the appropriate moment.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I come from a region of the country where there are considerable distances between communities. My part of the country in northern Ontario is experiencing, at the moment, a declining population. I suggest to the Government that we do not need less representation from northern Ontario. Because of its many problems, we need to ensure that we maintain the present level of representation.
I know that the argument will be that Ontario's representation in the House is being increased by four Members. When they get through with the readjustment in Ontario, it may very well be that northern Ontario could lose up to two seats. In fact, not only would there be a loss of two seats, but the realignment of the remaining population would increase the geographic distances even more.
When the last Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission undertook a study, lo and behold, it came into the Sudbury basin and moved communities like Garson and

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
Wanapitei into the riding of Timiskaming, and yet the distance between the centre of the Timiskaming riding and Garson was over 150 miles.
I have no problem with southern Ontario getting more seats, but surely any Member from Toronto can stand on the tallest building there and literally see all his constituents. That cannot be done in northern Ontario. In just the same way as the Government is guaranteeing that provinces will not have fewer seats, I hope that it addresses the whole anomaly within regions which are clearly defined. Northern Ontario is clearly defined; it is all those parts of Ontario which are called "districts". The Government should ensure that those particular areas do not get any fewer seats than they already have.
The problems facing northern Ontario are very serious and grave ones. It is built upon a hinterland economy. It is in decline in mining and lumber. It does not need fewer voices in the House of Commons. It needs at least the same number to make arguments for the correction of its problems. God knows that electing more Tories in northern Ontario will not resolve the problem.


Mrs. McDougall:: Yes, it will.


John R. Rodriguez: No, it will not. It never has. It has never resolved any of the problems in the provinces, and it certainly will not resolve the problems in northern Ontario. I hope the Government and its House Leader will listen to the reasonable amendment in Motion No. 4, standing in my name. I hope it is allowed to go through and the Bill amended accordingly.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in the debate on the redistribution Bill. I speak, as did the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), ultimately on behalf of constituents, as well as the Members who will be representing those constituents in northern Ontario. I echo the earlier comments of the Hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who appreciated the work of the committee and the motions the Minister brought forward which provided some recognition of regional factors and of the necessity of thinking about more than just the absolute number of people who are resident in an area.
My seat in Thunder Bay-Nipigon is one of several in northwestern Ontario. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt speaks with close experience of the situation in northeastern Ontario. We in northwestern Ontario have our own experience of distance.
I should like to take a few moments to travel some of those roads with Hon. Members as a way of underscoring the importance of ensuring that it is possible for Hon. Members to be in touch with their constituents and, in an even more important way, for constituents to have ready access to their Members when the sizes of ridings grow. My riding includes small communities which can only be reached by road in any feasible or economic way. One could try flying into some of them, but if the Exchequer of the country had to pay for my chartered flights, all of us would be unhappy about the way in
which public funds were being spent. If, however, I make trips to small communities like Armstrong and Aroland by car, I have to spend hours on the road to do so. I will see very few people in relation to the amount of time I have spent on the road.
The people who are resident in these communities have the same difficulties with travelling and even greater difficulties in financing trips to have direct access to me as their Members of Parliament. That is an indication of the kinds of costs that can be imposed even with the existing system of representation. If we face loss of seats in northern Ontario, and I hesitate even to say that, we are going to find ourselves with longer distances to travel, greater costs to be borne and still more limited access to our constituents.
More and more Members will be facing the kinds of difficulties faced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). He represents an enormous riding that has to be reached in good part by air. Only by getting around in that way can he hope to see his constituents. For that matter, on the provincial scene, the Member of the provincial legislature for Lake Nipigon presently faces such a situation. The motion, which emphasizes the importance of recognizing community of interest, community of identity and a manageable geographic size, Motion No. 6 in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), is of enormous importance in helping us to deal with those situations and in empowering boundaries commissions to recognize these things.
My provincial colleague who represents Lake Nipigon has a great deal of difficulty in getting around his riding, a riding which stretches from 150 miles west of the City of Thunder Bay through the city to communities on highways west of the City of Thunder Bay and up the Trans-Canada Highway. His riding includes all kinds of communities to the north of the City of Thunder Bay and of course the heartland of the riding is centred around Lake Nipigon itself and to the north and northeast of Manitouwadge. When contemplating the time he spends on the road and the thousands of kilometres he puts on his automobile yearly in order to get around his riding, I must admire his pluck in having run for the position and his success in winning it. I wish him well. I trust that he will do as well in representing his riding as did Jim Stokes, once Speaker of the provincial House and the present Member's predecessor in that riding. However, the last thing I would ever want to have to undertake is the kind of travelling that Jim Pouliot now has as his lot as Member of the provincial legislature for Lake Nipigon.
That kind of situation really underscores the necessity of recognizing community of interest, community of identity and manageable geographic area. In geographic area, northern Ontario encompasses 88 per cent of the province. If we maintain 11 seats in a province that will be allotted 99 seats in the Canadian Parliament, more than four-fifths of the geographic area of the province will be represented by only
November 26, 1985

one-eleventh of the province's Members. It seems to me that that is a reasonable proportion, recognizing the geographical challenges that we face.
As my friend, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, said, a Member of Parliament representing a riding in Toronto may have a great many constituents, but that Member, if he or she could see through walls, would be able to see all of his or her constituents. Certainly such a Member could cast his or her eye about and see well beyond the boundaries of the constituency. It is easy to get about in those circumstances. One could surely walk across one's constituency without even having to take advantage of the Toronto public transit system. That offers opportunities for contact and a very limited loss of time in travelling from office to constituents. Those are factors which make the task of the urban Member of Parliament, even if his or her riding is growing rapidly, a more manageable challenge than the challenge we who represent this very large part of the Province of Ontario face.
I am very grateful for the efforts the committee has made. I appreciate the work of my friend, the Hon. Member for Churchill, on the committee. I appreciate the responsiveness of the committee membership and of the President of the Privy Council in bringing forward these motions. I look forward to the sensitivity and care with which the boundaries commission for Ontario will consider the question of how the people of northern Ontario may be properly represented in the Canadian Parliament.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by indicating that I am in the rather fortunate position of being the only Member of Parliament from northern Ontario who represents an urban riding. While I heard the very eloquent speeches made by my colleagues from northern Ontario who are members both of the NDP and of the Liberal Party, I must confess that I am fortunate in the sense that I do not have to deal with all the problems they do in order to represent my constituents properly. However, I will say that as a resident of northern Ontario, I feel very strongly about the intent of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). Frankly, neither Member would care to make debating points here on the floor of the House of Commons as long as the Government listens to the intent of both amendments; namely, to make sure that, when the electoral boundaries are changed and the number of seats in the House of Commons is increased, 11 seats remain for the geographic area known as northern Ontario.
The Hon. Member for Algoma, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) have indicated the difficulty they face in getting around their ridings in northern Ontario. I can speak from experience in that when I had the fortune to represent the regional municipality of Sudbury as the chairman of that larger centre, I often travelled to Toronto to indicate to the provincial Government the necessity of making sure that we retained the same number of MLAs. The Province of Ontario
Representation Act, 1985
has guaranteed that the numbers will remain, and I see no reason why the federal Government should not indicate its support for the basic principle that there is more than representation by population at stake in this issue.
I have often said that northern Ontario has 10 per cent of the population of the province but 80 per cent of the land mass. If a Member is to serve his constituents properly, the rule of thumb of representation by population must have some flexibility. Otherwise the Members who represent northern Ontario are not going to be effective in representing their constituents' interests.
I recall very well the debate which occurred during the previous Parliament. At that time, the Government wished to change some of the boundaries for the ridings in northern Ontario. One of the astounding proposals made by the commission was that the Town of Nickel Centre which sat in the middle of the riding of Nickel Belt was to be taken from that riding and given to the riding of Timiskaming. Everyone in the House knows that that would have meant that the Member of Parliament for Timiskaming would visit the Town of Nickel Centre, a town with a population of 10,000 or 11,000, perhaps only once every two years. The only ridings in this country which would be comparable in terms of area to those in northern Ontario would be those in northern Quebec and the Territories.
In addition, all of us, whether we are of Conservative, Liberal or NDP persuasion, have cried foul for many years about the way in which the national air carriers and railway services have been delivered into the northern parts of Ontario. Therefore, it is even more important, given the track record of Governments and their failures, to commit themselves to a reasonable standard of service with respect to transportation facilities in northern Ontario. It is more important for the Government to recognize the fundamental right to maintain 11 electoral districts in northern Ontario. If the Government does not maintain them then the people who will suffer under this type of change will be the people who live in the North.
I do not make my remarks to take away from some of the arguments which have been made in the House with respect to the need for additional representation in southern Ontario. That has abolutely nothing to do with the argument. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt said it well when he indicated that it is one thing for a Member of Parliament to fly from Ottawa in one hour, land at Pearson International Airport and in a very concentrated way service a riding such as Scarborough which has approximately 155,000 to 175,000 constituents. I do not take away from the workload of that Member of Parliament. However, it is a far cry from the physical necessity of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, or for the Hon. Member for Algoma to fly from Ottawa via Toronto, land in his home constituency of Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie and then start off in an automobile trek to cover up to several thousand square miles in order to service his constituents properly.
8806

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
I make this impassioned plea to the Government to listen well to the words of all three political Parties which represent northern Ontario to ensure that we are guaranteed these 11 seats. If that can be done, then I say with honesty that the people of northern Ontario will applaud the Government regardless of its political stripe.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments with respect to the question of representation in the context with which the amendments have been laid out. My comments are to reinforce the comments made with respect to the necessity of recognizing special cases for remote and northern areas. The coast of British Columbia, northern British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Atlantic Canada are all areas of the country in which it is extremely important for representation to have an impact on the Government of Canada. In this regard I ask Hon. Members to consider the question of fisheries. In Canada, the bulk of our fisheries is conducted in two areas of the country which a small number of Members of Parliament represent when compared with central Canada. It is something in the order of 20 Members of Parliament versus 210. In order for important issues in the country to make an impact, the question of protecting representation in rural and remote areas is extremely important.
The second point with which I would like to deal is the question of Schedule III ridings. I take my own riding as an example, but certainly I could use as an example the ridings of other Members of Parliament who are faced with this task. The riding of Comox-Powell River which I represent consists of 30,000 square miles of the coast of British Columbia. There are more than 120,000 people in the riding. My riding, compared with Prince Edward Island, is five times bigger with virtually the same population. While Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four Members of Parliament and ministerial representation in Cabinet, the Comox-Powell River area has one Member of Parliament. There are no government offices to speak of in my riding. They are in the major centres but, in my cases, they may be 300 miles away from the people who need them. Contact is impossible. If a constituent is dealing with a regional or district office it will be seen that they are located only in Vancouver or Victoria and are only accessible by long distance telephone calls. They are impossible for constituents to visit. The upshot of all this is that the Member of Parliament becomes the key point of contact for the federal Government. The task is extremely difficult.
The riding of Vancouver Quadra, which is represented by the Leader of the Official Opposition, is 30 square blocks of Vancouver in which one constituency assistant in one office can handle the bulk of the work. The difficulty facing those who represent large Schedule III ridings is that it is impossible to obtain government services in a reasonable manner for constituents. It is difficult for a single Member of Parliament to try to handle a large population and a difficult piece of geography. Again, there are no highways, no regular air service and no regular and effective marine transportation. The Government has to consider special measures in terms of
obtaining fair and effective representation for the people who live in those areas and the issues which affect their lives.
Another aspect of this complex problem is that if one takes the 30 square blocks of Vancouver Quadra one will see that there are not complex issues such as those dealing with search and rescue along 300 miles of the coast of British Columbia. That riding does not have a large number of native bands in remote areas which face extremely difficult problems. The fishing industry is not carried on in that particular area. Again, marine and air transportation are not major factors in the day-to-day lives of the people who live in Vancouver Quadra when compared with the lives of those who live in the ridings of Skeena, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or, for that matter, Comox-Powell River. It is extremely important for those people to have adequate representation. Again, I use the comparison of Comox-Powell River and Prince Edward Island where we are looking at a ratio of four to one with all the ancillary services which are provided to a Member of Parliament.
The last point I would like to make is with respect to my concern that aboriginal people are not guaranteed representation in the House of Commons. The area I represent, the riding of Skeena and many of the Schedule III ridings in the northern parts of our country, have large representations of aboriginal people. They are not guaranteed seats in the House of Commons. Their perspective of viewing the nation, its development and the major issues which face it are unique and extremely important. They are becoming more and more important each day. We may not have been faced with the crises of Lyell Island, Meares Island and those which continue in different geographic locations if we had been able to guarantee and at least address the problem. It is a problem. There has to be a guarantee with respect to representation of aboriginal people in the House of Commons.
With that final comment I will conclude my remarks. I hope that some of the suggestions made here and the problems outlined do not fall upon deaf ears.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a few comments on Bill C-74.
Not long ago, I represented a riding that came very close to disappearing from the electoral map, as a result of a decision to realign the boundaries of electoral districts.
I think that basically, in a debate like the one we are having today, we should ask ourselves exactly what kind of role a Member of Parliament is supposed to play. What are a Member's responsibilities?
A Member of Parliament is of course a legislator, but a Member is also a liaison officer and a communicator. I think we must not lose sight of this very fundamental role the Member is expected to play. I think that if we accept the premise that a Member's role lies in liaison and in communicating, legislating changes in electoral boundaries would
November 26, 1985

appear to be very unfair or at least create an imbalance which I find totally unacceptable.
Take my riding, for instance. I represent a district located between the urban areas of Drummondville, Sherbrooke, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines. Although the population density is very low, the surface area of this district is quite large. And there are the usual daily problems. People are having trouble with the system, with unemployment insurance, and they wonder which office is going to be able to solve their problem. In many cases, people are not quite sure whether they should go to the office in Thetford or Sherbrooke or Victoriaville.
Here, Mr. Speaker, the Member has a responsibility to provide information and act as a guide in order to show people how to access all the services offered by the Government, and heaven knows there are a lot.
The purpose of the legislation as such, and in fact any measures aimed at reducing expenditures, would appear to be both acceptable and praiseworthy, and I think that as the elected representatives of our constituents, we ought to support and encourage such measures.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the Government through its departments spends several hundred million dollars annually to get its message across to Canadians and to be as close to the people of this country as it possibly can. Unfortunately, every day we are forced to admit that this superhuman effort that is costing us millions and billions of dollars is missing the mark and failing to produce the expected results. Now, under our democratic system, the opportunity is there to use as liaison officers our Members of Parliament who have a genuine role to play in informing their constituents about the Government apparatus.
Mr. Speaker, 1 submit, with respect, that the Bill before the House today, or rather the amendments, appear to place constraints on this vital and fundamental role of the Member of Paliament, and it does so in the following way, and I will give an example. Technically speaking, in large cities with what could be called a homogeneous population, we could have
200,000,	250,000 or even 300,000 people represented by a single Member, who would be able to perform his duties as a Member to the satisfaction of all concerned because the problems of these constituents are comparable and similar, so that the information they need does not have to be extremely diverse, and so the Member would be able to perform his duties quite adequately. However, there are ridings where because of the vast territory involved and many different problems that may arise, depending where one lives in the riding, a very small constituency nevertherless requires that a Member work full time if he takes his responsibilities seriously.
Representation Act, 1985
Mr. Speaker, as a country reaches a certain stage and under a democratic system, I believe there is a cost we must be prepared to pay. I think that we cannot have a real democracy unless we are going to pay that cost, whatever it may be, and I think an exercise like this one should be considered not just in the light of economics but also in the light of the democratic system we have in this country, and our basic emphasis, our basic motivation should in this case be the fact that Canadian citizens deserve adequate representation instead of the consideration that this might cost us an astronomical sum of money.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that under a previous proposition the Province of Quebec would have been represented by 79 Members. Had things been left as they were Quebec would have elected 79 Members of Parliament. If the Bill under consideration were to be enforced as is, the end result would be that Quebec would only have 74 Members. Since existing rules provide that a province may not have fewer Members than it already has, the number of representatives looking after the interests of Quebecers would remain at 75. However acceptable it may be, the population will keep increasing and it would be better to have 79 Members, that is four more. With four more Members, Quebecers would have easier access to the Government process and would be able to contact more Members to obtain various information.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think we should lend a sympathetic ear to those who advocate savings. Still I want to reemphasize a significant aspect, namely the fact that every year the Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars to communicate with the Canadian public, yet we have right here an institution or a system which enables us to feel the pulse of Canadians through Hon. Members who were elected in full confidence and who are in a better position than anybody else to appreciate the problems facing their constituents. Not only should we enlarge the representation, but we should also make sure it is an ongoing process Mr. Speaker, consideration must be given to saving taxpayers' dollars and to improving communications through Members of Parliament. Given the choice, I would be in favour of electing more Members so that the lines of communication between Canadian men and women and their government would be more open than they are now.
To my mind, the kind of savings that might result from this measure are not really worthwhile because the various departments already spend a lot of money to achieve similar objectives.
That is the contribution I wanted to make in this debate. [English]


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to give my observations on what I have been listening to the better part of the debate this morning. What I think the speakers are simply saying is that their constituencies are unique. I would be the first to agree with

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
them that every constituency in Canada is unique in its size, population, travel route or whatever. I am not persuaded, however, by the last speaker who said that if he had more representation he would be able to give better representation to the province of Quebec. The Hon. Member for Churchil (Mr. Murphy) talked about northern Manitoba and northern Ontario, claiming that greater representation in numbers would lead to better representation. I would submit that a fundamental question is being lost in the debate. What Members of Parliament ought to be considering is not how many of us there are or whether or not we should grow every 10 years according to the census, but rather what is the appropriate size for the best decision making?
The course we have followed in the history of the Parliament of Canada is that after every census the size of the House of Commons becomes larger. I am one who believes that that route will ultimately destroy Parliament. It means that we will have more and more government by Cabinet and less and less government persuaded by parliamentarians who are private Members. By increasing the size of the House of Commons, we do not increase the length of the day or the week and, therefore, each Hon. Member's opportunity to participate in questions or in speeches is diminished. If we add more Members on the basis that more Members give better representation, I think we deceive ourselves and denude Parliament. Each Member has less opportunity, not more. What our regions, districts and constituencies need is effective, powerful Members who can come here and have a fair chance to do their work.
We have heard today about the difficulties involved in big constituencies. No one knows those difficulties more than I do. My riding is 220 miles by 180 miles and contains 113 individual communities. I run the wheels off a vehicle every two years. But I would not give up that constituency for one in the City of Toronto which is six blocks by 10 blocks. The reason is the stability of the population in a rural ranching riding. When a rancher and his wife retire, their sons and daughters take over. That is stability. As well, urban constituencies have to take ethnic considerations into account. I know of one constituency which has to have translation facilities in order to communicate with some 13 different ethnic groups. Therefore, the first principle we need to accept is that every riding is unique. To say that we need a larger House of Commons is the wrong way to go because I do not believe it leads to better representation. What we as Members of Parliament need is a budget which will allow us to serve us the ethnic needs, if that is the problem in the riding; transportation costs, when that is the problem in the riding; or translation services, if that is the problem, whatever the case might be.
I sat beside the Hon. Member from Mississauga one day when he was signing books and books of certificates for new Canadians. What amazed me was that he finished signing just one book of these certificates and I realized that that was the number I would do in my constituency in a year. This reflects the uniqueness of all the different constituencies. Therefore,
for someone to stand up and claim that our ridings are unique and therefore we need more Members is a claim that falls on deaf ears. What we need is to have a Member manage his budget in a way which will be most helpful in allowing him to represent effectively the people who elected him. He must be accountable for that money. The record of how the money is spent should be published three or four times a year so that constituents can determine whether or not their Member is spending public funds in a worth while and worthy manner.
In conclusion, I believe the House of Commons is probably already too large and the optimum size should be somewhat smaller. To anyone from the other side of the House wants to volunteer to give up his or her seat I would say that a smaller Parliament would lead to more effective debate, a stronger Parliament and less domination by Cabinet, because each of us would be more effective rather than less, as is the case, I believe very strongly, in Great Britain. There are some 600 Members there who pack the House of Commons so tightly that they all cannot sit in the House at the same time. They do not stand in their place for votes, they file by the Speaker as they leave the Chamber saying yea or nay. Bigger does not mean better. What we really want to do is to make each individual Member more effective. We cannot use the argument of individual uniqueness for increasing the representation in the House because every Member could make that case.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, there are many ironies in politics, many things which are very ironic about the actions of this Government, but this Bill has to represent one of the greatest ironies. In the last election the Conservative Party proposed to give a voice to western Canada. With this Bill it is taking away seats and taking away that voice from western Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Read the Bill, David. You might come to the opposite conclusion.


David Berger: Over the last four or five years, and even longer, we have heard about western alienation. We know that many western separatist movements were started. We know, of course, of the battles waged by the western Premiers to have their interests represented in national decisions. The basis of all these complaints is power. Even today with this Tory Government and its strong representation from western Canada, people in the West complain that decisions are made according to the interests of central Canada. One has just to look at the arthmetic. In the current Parliament there are 282 seats with some 75 seats in Quebec and 95 in Ontario for a total of 170. It does not take a genius to figure out that the Conservative Party at present has much greater representation in Ontario and Quebec and that it can make decisions in the interests of these two provinces and really ignore the rest of the country.
Under the current legislation, passed by a Liberal Government, Alberta would have some 27 seats in the next election. Under the Bill proposed today by the Conservative Party, moved by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), Alberta will only have 25 seats. British Columbia would
November 26, 1985

have had 33 seats and will now have only 31. That is fewer seats than there are in Calgary and Edmonton, thanks to the Conservative Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, when is the Government going to tell Canadians the truth about unemployment in Canada? It continues to boast smugly that jobs are being created, but it is not stating how many good jobs are being lost. It is not saying that full-time jobs with benefits are being replaced by part-time jobs without benefits. It is not saying that the number of Canadians who are unemployed for more than a year and are without the benefit of unemployment insurance is double the number who were in that situation in 1982, and four times the number in 1981.
The Government will not say that most of the provinces, the trade union movements and many national organizations have serious reservations about the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The Gallup poll published on September 23 indicated that 66 per cent of Canadians thought that unemployment should be the Government's top priority. This indicates that Canadians have no confidence that the Government's Budget and economic policy will do the job. That is why the Conservative Party has lost 18 per cent in the polls and why 52 per cent of Canadians are not satisfied with the Conservative Government's performance.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be attending a federal-provincial conference in Halifax later this week. That will be an opportunity for him to reconsider the Government's unemployment policies and finally do something meaningful about this most serious issue.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned and my concern is growing daily about the course the Government has charted and the confidence that Canadians have in the direction that has been set. During a recent visit to my constituency it became clear that my concern is shared by others, including many young Canadians.
A number of students in Miss Peschik's grade five class in Chase, British Columbia, were studying Canada and the Canadian Government. It was not clear to them just what direction the Government was taking on a number of issues so a number of the students, including young Richard Velestuk, sent requests for Government publications to Publications Canada located here in the nation's capital-or so they were led to believe. In each case the self-addressed request cards, printed and supplied by Publications Canada of the Government of Canada, were returned to the students with the ominous message: "Addressee moved, address unknown" stamped on the front.
I was pleased that Richard and his classmates saw fit to bring this matter to my attention but, frankly, I am worried about the kind of signal that the Government has sent to this class of young Canadians. What does this say to these young Canadians about the Government's ability to manage its responsibilities and obligations to the citizens of the country? Where is the Government going? This class of young Canadians might reasonably be expected to ask themselves where the country is going, or where it has gone. Should it not, at least, leave a forwarding address?



AIR TRANSPORT


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is a 9 per cent tax on airline tickets bought in Canada for travel within Canada. Effective September 1, 1985, the $30 ceiling on this Canadian air transportation tax was removed. This removal greatly affects western Canadians. By way of example, Toronto represents the largest point of origin or destination to and from my Province of Saskatchewan. The removal of the ceiling adds between $20 and $24 to each return ticket between Saskatchewan and Toronto. With the removal of the ceiling the basis for the tax becomes distance related-the longter the haul, the greater the tax.
The removal of the ceiling is inequitable because those Canadians living in more remote areas bear all of the increase, while commuters in the corridors between Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa are not in any way affected.
Deficit reduction is very necessary and this measure would generate some $55 million annually. I suggest, however, that those in the more remote areas ought not to bear the entire increase. The additional revenue can be gathered through a

November 26, 1985
global flat tax or by other means. Access to transportation is surely one of the great links in our chain of national unity.
With respect, the removal of the ceiling on the Canadian air transportation tax should be re-examined with a view to restoring regional equity, thus recognizing the historical and geographical travel requirements of all Canadians.

[ Translation]



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, Mr. Speaker, the residential real estate market in Canada improved considerably last month, chalking up the best figures ever recorded in any month of October.
The survey was based on operations through the multiple listing service, a collective marketing system used by most of the 112 real estate agencies in Canada.
Last month's house sales in 25 Canadian metropolitan areas exceeded by some 2,000 the number of units sold throughout Canada in October 1984.
More than 200,000 houses were bought through the MLS this year, and 1985 will prove to be the best year ever in terms of residential real estate transactions in Canada.
Sales during each month of 1985 were better than those in each corresponding month in 1984, including the month of October. MLS house sales in Canadian urban areas rose by 39.5 per cent over those of 1984.
CREA President David Hawkins has indicated that lower interest rates, stabilizing prices and favourable economic prospects have contributed to rising real estate transactions. Mr. Hawkins went on to say that "the real estate industry is not the only one to benefit from such buoyant market conditions because, when house sales are good, business improves as well for electrical appliances manufacturers, surveyors, decorators, moving companies and many other Canadians".



NATIONAL PARKS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in two days we will celebrate 100 years of national parks in Canada in an atmosphere of retreat. The Government has cut S30 million from the Parks Canada capital budget. It is sitting on a
marine park policy which was ready to go in the summer of 1984.
The Government has not built on what it found. Even Ellesmere Park, ready to go since September, 1984, is waiting for action. Nothing has been done about declaring the Bruce Peninsula a national park. Nothing has been done to give goals and scope to Canada's second century in parks.
Nothing has been done to establish a parks capital acquisition fund in order to ensure the continued growth of our national parks system. The Government has failed to provide leadership in resolving the issues surrounding the four mountain parks in the Rocky Mountains-where it all started.
The Government deserves little thanks for the way it has handled Canada's national parks in its celebration of the centennial thus far. There has been a lot of public relations but no substance.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS SIZE OF FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government plans to advance by one year its scheme to cut $400 million in federal transfer payments to the provinces. If this plan becomes a reality, it would fly in the face of the promise for full reinstatement of such money made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the election campaign.
I would like to read from page 98 of the Progressive Conservative campaign handbook. It says: "We would return to the 1977 funding formula ... for post-secondary education".
No doubt the Premiers are becoming increasingly concerned about the effect that these cuts will have on the provinces. The Quebec and Atlantic Premiers have joined Manitoba and are starting to let their true feelings be known, much to the chagrin of the Prime Minister.
The Premiers and their Finance Ministers, as well as other Canadians, are beginning to realize that the Government does not consult with anybody but a polling firm. In fact, amending this legislation before its expiry period in April, 1986, instead of April, 1987, is being done without provincial consensus. It is a major unilateral action by the Conservative Government.
May I remind the Prime Minister that his Government was elected on a promise of greater agreement and co-operation with the provinces? I call upon the Government, in its meeting with the Premiers in Halifax later this week, to live up to its promises to Canadian students, to live up to its promises to people who are concerned about medicare services, and withdraw the proposal to reduce funding from medicare and post-secondary education.

November 26, 1985



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it was stated by the Liberal Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) that a journey of remembrance by a group of veterans to visit Canadian war graves is "a pure unadulterated junket". I am truly sorry that 1 find it necessary to stand in the House to protest that statement most vehemently. How soon we forget.
The purpose of the journey is to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of the Hong Kong prisoner of war camps. Many Canadians were incarcerated there amid difficult conditions. Many gave five years of their lives so that those who came after might enjoy the freedoms which they purchased at a very high price.
Those young Canadians, mostly in their twenties, sacrificed their youth, their health, and in many cases their lives to purchase the freedoms we enjoy. Their graves are scattered throughout the Far East, in Hong Kong, in Burma, in Singapore, and in other Far East areas. Young soldiers, airmen, seamen from Canada and allied nations, lie in many foreign fields.
We are told by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques that a visit of remembrance to the gravesides by their fellow veterans is a junket, Mr. Speaker. How soon we forget. There may be trips that enter that category. This is not one of them. There is no apology needed for this fitting commemoration of our war dead.
It is true that there will be a bugler and a piper along, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the ways we honor our war dead buried in foreign lands.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Desjardins).

[Translation)



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Last weekend, Mr. Speaker, many of my fellow citizens told me they were indignant at the contemptuous behaviour of Quebec Liberal Members of Parliament concerning Hyundai's decision to build a plant in Bromont, Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, what a pitiful performance by federal MPs- led by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre)-who resorted to indecent and vulgar language to
criticize our Government's constructive approach in preparing and finalizing this project.
Mr. Speaker, what an commendable way to welcome a company that will create more than 1,200 permanent jobs for Canadians!
Such outrageous behaviour on the part of Members opposite obviously shows they are jealous and envious of our Government's achievements, for they were always advocating confrontation and never cared much about job creation.
So much political partisanship proves that Quebec Liberal MPs are doing their best to remain on the Opposition benches for quite some time.
Quebecers have had enough of those lesser politicians who turn this venerable institution into a huge circus with their sordid game of upmanship.
Henceforth Quebecers will know that they can rely on the dedication and talent of Quebec Conservative Members to serve their interests well.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO AMERICAN AMBASSADOR

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the recent remarks made by the American Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Thomas Niles, are certainly disturbing. What is more disturbing is the position of the Canadian Government.
In Halifax, Ambassador Niles told the media that the United States wants to talk about the commercial implications of regional development programs as part of the so-called free trade talks. It is becoming more obvious every day that this set of negotiations is viewed by the Government of the United States as an avenue to reshape Canada in a manner more to its liking. What is even more disconcerting is the fact that the more the Canadian Government declares certain topics to be off limits in these talks, the more the United States insists they are up for discussion. Perhaps this shows how little regard the American administration has for this supposed firmness of the position of the Canadian Government.
The Ambassador softened the blow somewhat by saying that the United States will restrict itself to discussing aspects of regional development only, which, in the minds of Americans, destroy trade patterns, keeping in mind that many in the United States believe that all trade patterns in North America should be north to south. Such a position is tantamount to demanding that Canada's regions in the east and west become virtual satellites of the United States.
I urge the Government to stand firm for all of Canada and not permit the less developed regions of the country to become

Oral Questions
pawns in what is turning out to be a very mismatched chess game.



ABORTION


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, again I am speaking out about the miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the Attorney General of Ontario in allowing Dr. Morgentaler and his associates to continue to murder helpless unborn children at their human slaughter house in Toronto.
The Attorney General has allowed this to happen even though he has appealed the acquittal on an earlier charge of performing abortions on demand.
Each day of delay in settling this matter means that more and more unborn babies have met and will meet a premature and agonizing death.
To compound the matter, the Attorney General of Ontario has issued instructions to the police forces not to interfere in any way to stop this slaughter.
Dr. Morgentaler and his associates are thumbing their noses at the Criminal Code of Canada, which specifically does not allow abortions to be performed on demand. The Attorney General of Ontario is ignoring the law by refusing to exercise his authority to stop any further abortions taking place during the appeal period, as he has the legal right to do.
It is time for the federal Government to intervene by whatever measures necessary to demand that the Attorney General of Ontario stop pussyfooting around, get off his but, show some leadership, uphold the law, and close down once and for all Dr. Morgentaler's wholesale murder factory.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, in the House, he said that he and the Prime Minister had been in touch with the family of the tragic victims of the Egyptian airliner hijacking to offer all co-operation of the Government of Canada. However today, according to the press, as of last night at least the Government was refusing to make a military plane available to bring the remains of the victims back to Canada. Will the Minister say now that such a plane will be sent to Malta immediately to
bring back the remains, consistent with what he said to the House yesterday on this important matter?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the reports cited by the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition are false. The Government and I have been in touch directly with both the Uffelman family and with Mr. Leonard. They have both expressed their appreciation of the full co-operation of the Department of External Affairs. We have indicated to them that we will bring the bodies of the two tragic victims home, naturally at the expense of the Government of Canada. We will do that in the most expeditious way. It looks at the moment as though the quickest way would be via commercial air connections, but we will remain in the closest possible consultation with the family. I must say that I particularly regret that their sense of tragedy was added to by these inaccurate and sensational reports in the press.


USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE AIRCRAFT REQUESTED
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain why a Department of National Defence plane could not be used, in view of the fact that there are planes of a transport nature going back and forth to Europe? Would that not be the simples and quickest way, under the circumstances?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely the case that under the circumstances it would not be the simplest or the quickest way.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT IN ONTARIO
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today there were reports of studies released by the Ontario Government showing that in that province alone some 281,000 jobs are endangered by a comprehensive trade agreement. We know that the Government has conducted its trade discussions under a cloak of secrecy and has refused to reveal any information. In light of these very disturbing facts, is the Government now prepared to release all information which it has on the economic impact of its proposed trade deal with the Americans, prior to the federal-provincial conference? Will the Prime Minister agree with Premier Peterson that a national data bank should be established to ensure that all regions have a full understanding of the particular problems associated with this agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to express the appreciation of the Government of Canada to the Government of Ontario for undertaking these kinds of studies. That is precisely the kind of extensive, detailed, data-oriented studies
November 26, 1985

which we have been carrying on. We are delighted to see that the Government of Ontario is also doing that. There will continue to be the fullest possible exchange of information between the Governments involved. There will be discussion on Thursday, during the First Ministers' Conference, of the steps we will be taking to continue to ensure the fullest possible participation of the provinces in any trade negotiations which might ensue with the United States.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL INVOLVEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the credit to the Ontario Government for not only doing the studies but for making them public, something the Government of Canada has refused to do with its studies. When will the Government provide Canadians with a proper and comprehensive assessment of what will be the job impact and the job losses in various sectors, so that there will be a basis for proper negotiation and that the provincial Governments, as well as all other Canadians, will not be held in the dark and hostage to the kinds of proposals being put forward by the Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there may be some danger, if anyone listens to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, that Canadians will be held hostage to nonsense. I think the facts speak for themselves about the degree to which this process has been accompanied by extensive consultation across the country and extensive involvement of the provinces to a degree that, indeed, has not before been paralleled in our country. That is the way we have started and that is the way we intend to continue to proceed.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sent a telegram yesterday to the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia. The Prime Minister will also probably know that as of the time of Question Period today, no reply was sent back by the Attorney General of British Columbia. Considering that the situation of the Haida people and the entire community of Lyell Island remains extremely serious, will the Prime Minister himself now take direct action by contacting the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to ask the Premier to join with all other participants, including the federal Government, in reaching a negotiated settlement of this very important matter?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend is a little late. I have already spoken with the Premier of British Columbia. We hope to find an appropriate time to meet in Halifax during the First Ministers' Conference. As I have indicated, I will raise not only my concerns and those expressed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but those of other Members of the House as well.


DISCUSSION AGENDA INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Prime Minister for taking that action. In his conversation with the Premier of British Columbia, did the Prime Minister raise the question of the subject matter of the discussions? Is it now the intention that the Government of British Columbia will put on the agenda for discussion the Haida claim as well as the specific and immediate circumstances of Lyell Island?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is aware of the complexity and the sensitivity of this issue. It is important, pursuant to what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been attempting to do, that I follow through with the Premier, which I have done. Hopefully we will have a discussion in Halifax which will be beneficial.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REPORT ON OUTCOME OF TALKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, could Members of the House also assume that after that conversation that takes place on this very basic matter, the Prime Minister will report back to the House on this matter as well as other matters on which he may wish to report to us following the First Ministers' Conference?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly let my hon. friend know about any relevant developments in this matter and others as well.


FINANCE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister inform the House whether he personally authorized Mr. Hartt, his own Deputy Minister, a non partisan senior official, to attend a private businessmen's dinner in Montreal in order to explain the Government's financial policy?

November 26, 1985
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing unusual about the dinner that Mr. Hartt attended. It was a-


Ms. Copps:: I'm organizing one right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: It was a matter of a dinner that was not partisan in nature at all. It is consistent with the attempt of the Government to discuss with some of the business leaders the policies of the Department of Finance, and to develop a greater degree of understanding of the policies of the Department of Finance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And its loopholes.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As well, it is consistent with a range of dinner meetings which Mr. Hartt has had, and proposes to continue to have that will move in this same direction.


POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES
Donald James Johnston: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The dinner in question was hosted by the Progressive Conservative Party's chief fund raiser.

Will the Minister or the Prime Minister agree to extend the same courtesy to the chief fund raiser of the New Democratic Party who might like to invite Mr. Hartt to a closed door dinner session to ask questions in order to obtain a better idea of government policy? Will the same courtesy be extended to the fund raiser for the Liberal Party? Will Mr. Hartt be asked if he might undertake to accept such invitations if they are forthcoming?


An Hon. Member:: If they aren't Senators!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hartt was brought up in a good Liberal household. His father was a Member of Parliament. He has helped the Leader of the Opposition from time to time in his capacity as a candidate. He is also doing great service to his country by serving a Progressive Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Hartt has demonstrated, over time, a very even-handed approach to the people with whom he wishes to meet. I am sure that if there are further requests, even from Liberal Senators, that Mr. Hartt would be pleased to respond.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree the Government needs all the help it can get.


PREPARATION OF BUDGET
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the other point I would like to raise in terms of this consultation is that we read, and perhaps the Minister can confirm, that he has commissioned a number of polls in order to get a few ideas for his forthcoming Budget. Will the Minister tell us whether or not this is true? Will he undertake to make public the results of these polls since they are being paid for by the people of Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there has been certain speculation on this matter. We have been very open with practically all of the information requests which have been received by the Department of Finance. Something in the order of 85 per cent of the requests have been approved by the Department of Finance under the access to information legislation. We will continue to be forthcoming in our approach, as I have been in the wide range of consultations with a broad range of Canadians on matters relating to the Budget.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT STUDIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In my hand I have a list of all 42 studies conducted by the federal Government on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Given that the Ontario Government has now released its studies indicating large job threats, will the Government release these studies and permit Canadians to carry forward this debate with the complete assurance that everything is being made open and up front to all Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for repeating the question of his soul-mate from Windsor which was raised and answered earlier today.


John Edward Broadbent: Howard McCurdy asked a question?


Lloyd Axworthy: Do you want to rearrange that a little bit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. These fellows all look and sound the same to me. I apologize for that.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are as confused on this as you are on the trade issue. Confusion reigns, obviously.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry speaks of confusion. His is contagious.
November 26, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: This is the way to conduct negotiations.


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is Tom when we need him?


Lloyd Axworthy: We are waiting for the answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tom's brother's confusion is contagious.
The Government of Canada has co-operated extensively with the provinces in terms of the exchange of information. As I said earlier, I welcome the decision of the Government of Ontario to undertake these types of studies. I hope other provincial Governments will also do that. There will be discussions on Thursday at the First Ministers' Conference with respect to the degree and the means by which the provinces can be fully involved in any negotiations which might ensue. That will naturally deal with the question of the degree of the exchange of information.


Steven W. Langdon: I think the Minister is perhaps at a loss for words because the details of his studies have finally leaked out.


AUTOPACT INQUIRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister confirm, despite promises to the contrary in this House of Commons, that one study which the federal Government has commissioned, by C.D. Arthur & Associates, is to "prepare an assessment of the issues involved in folding the Autopact into a new trade agreement"?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will put the answer in two tranches. First, I have replied with respect to the position of the Government regarding the Autopact earlier in the House, I believe in answer to a question put by the Hon. Member. Second, with regard to the Hon. Member's specific question about a particular study, I will have to see what is the subject matter of that particular study and I will, naturally, advise the Hon. Member of the subject matter.


NATIONAL TRAINING ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We know that several provinces are angry and feel deceived with the federal Government's decision to cut by 50 per cent its purchase of job training from the provinces and that the provinces intend to raise this at the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax later this week. Considering the rhetoric of the Prime Minister on many occasions that he supports job training, would he make a commitment today, before he
Oral Questions
goes to Halifax, to cancel those cuts in job training and maintain federal Government budgets and provincial participation at the same level as last year? Would the Prime Minister make that commitment before he goes to Halifax?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the House will be aware, the agreements under the National Training Act will expire on March 31 of next year. Negotiations are now under way with the provinces and I can advise the Hon. Member that there are a number of proposals on the table. My provincial counterparts and I will be meeting again in mid-December to continue these discussions.


Mr. Allmand:: As far as I know the conference in Halifax is a First Minister's Conference and the Prime Minister is responsible for the policy of the Government. It is that kind of evasion in answering which is the reason that 52 per cent of Canadians-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


William Warren Allmand: -disapprove of the Government's performance.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: And 77 per cent voted against you.


REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF PURCHASE LEVEL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): I am asking the Prime Minister if he will cancel the proposed cuts in the purchase of job training from the provinces and maintain those programs at the same level as last year, as many provinces want? Will he do that before he goes to Halifax?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the emphasis of the Canadian Jobs Strategy is on training.


William Warren Allmand: Nobody believes you.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And there will be more money spent on training by this Government than there has ever been in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Fifty per cent cut-backs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I just want the Hon. Member to be aware of the new opportunities which this offers for Canadians-


William Warren Allmand: Convince the provinces of that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and he should not always take a negative attitude toward such opportunities.
Oral Questions TRADE

November 26, 1985


LUMBER EXPORTS-THREAT FROM UNITED STATES PROTECTIONIST LEGISLATION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for External Affairs. It concerns lumber exports to the United States. Recently in Brockville the Minister stated publicly that U.S. protectionist legislation such as the Gibbons Bill could cost Canadians
60,000	jobs, at least 30,000 of which would be lost in British Columbia. I might add that these are figures his own staff suggested I avoid using.
Would the Minister explain to the House why he has steadfastly refused to put in place a more substantial lobbying effort in the United States to balance the protectionist views with those of U.S. consumers who have a stated preference for using Canadian SPF lumber?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): First, the Hon. Member will learn as he spends more time in the House that one shouldn't always accept the advice of staff.


John Edward Broadbent: Ask the Prime Minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: Especially on travel itineraries.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not many of us have had quite the size of staff to reject advice from as has the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member will know, because we have exchanged correspondence on the matter, that there has in fact been a very substantial program mounted by the Government of Canada, using our consulates and our embassies in the United States. There has been contact with a number of congressional groups and interest groups associated with consumers of lumber in the United States, and some 400 publications. That has resulted in considerable support in the United States for the Canadian position in any disagreements we might have with the United States on lumber questions.


James Ross Fulton: I won't comment on the Minister's staff, Mr. Speaker.


PROPOSED UNITED STATES RESTRICTIONS
James Ross Fulton: Senior U.S. Government officials continue to call for voluntary restrictions on softwood exports to the United States, export taxes, and taxes on reforestation. I am sure the Minister knows that these matters are before the U. S. Cabinet this afternoon.
Would the Minister advise the House on his position regarding such restrictions and tell us whether he is prepared in any way to consider U. S. protectionist proposals against our
largest free trading industry as a pre-condition to free trade talks with the U.S.?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in no way.


MEDICAL CARE
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax later this week. How can Canadians trust the Government's commitment to the standard of medicare when its own Minister of National Health and Welfare in a speech yesterday indicated that medical costs had to be curbed, and the Minister of Finance concurred with that feeling earlier this year when, in his Budget, he slashed $2 billion in transfer payments to provinces for the establishment and funding of medicare? Is this part of the Tories' hidden agenda to dismantle medicare?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first the Hon. Member is dead wrong. The increases which will be provided by this Government both to post-secondary education and medicare are, and will be, substantial during the five-year period about which we are talking. There is no suggestion of a cut. There will be substantial increases.
The Hon. Member should get that through his head because the rest of his question is totally false when he says that is his understanding.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians trust that statement by the Minister of Finance-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -when, in his own budget documents tabled on the night of May 23, he indicated to Canadians that there would be no cuts in transfer payments for post-secondary education and medicare and it took a leaked document by his own Department to show the truth to Canadians that he intends to cut not just $2 billion-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -but cumulatively $5 billion over the next four years?


An Hon. Member:: Deny that.


Geoff Wilson: Again, Mr. Speaker, the point the Hon. Member doesn't understand-and I don't think he will ever get it through his head-is the fact that there will be substantial increases in post-secondary education and health care. The increases will be faster than the
November 26, 1985

rate of inflation, faster than the rate of all other Government spending, and much much faster than the rate of Government program spending-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You won't be around to see it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -all of which are designed to ensure that we can continue to have a first rate health system and a frist rate post-secondary education system in this country.


An Hon. Member:: Another broken promise.


POSSIBLE USE OF DEPO-PROVERA AS CONTRACEPTIVE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the possibility of his Department giving approval to the use of Depo-Provera for use as a female contraceptive. In view of the fact that some 13 national organizations have come together, along with a host of community organizations, in opposition to the use of this contraceptive, will the Minister assure the House that there will be full public hearings held across the country with respect to the concerns of those organizations, and many other Canadians, about the possible dangers of this contraceptive so that those groups can have full public input into that decision?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member, and the House, that there is a regulatory process. I have heard much in this House that Ministers are to be very careful about interfering in the regulatory process. I say to the Hon. Member that I have not had, as Minister, a report from the appropriate committee, nor a recommendation from the appropriate committee, nor a recommended decision from the appropriate committee. But I have gone one step further. I have discussed the matter of whether or not we could have the input. I have said to the Hon. Member, and I have said to the public through the media yesterday, that if there are groups which would like to meet with officials as they go through the regulatory process, that could be arranged.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, that simply is not good enough. There is a place for the public to have input on decisions which will adversely affect a large number of Canadians. Will the Minister not reconsider that decision and agree that full public hearings are required where the public can examine a decision which can adversely affect the lives not only of mothers and children but future generations?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is good enough, because it is exactly what he
Oral Questions
asked us to do. It is good enough because if there is to be public input it can come through the regulatory process. I am going to keep the regulatory process sacrosanct, as I think he has generally asked me to do.
The second point is that no decision has been made and no recommendation received. The appropriate time for that kind of input is exactly the time I suggested to him.
The last point I want to make is that he should not, and I hope he does not, make the argument that this Minister or his Department has compromised on health and safety or that there will be any such compromise.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment. Yesterday she indicated to the House that special efforts would be made to ensure support for Harvey Hawkins, the Newfoundland man who is recovering in hospital after donating a kidney to his younger sister. Can the Minister provide any new information on the success of those efforts?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned yesterday that I had been in touch with the provincial Governments concerned. I can advise the House that yesterday Mr. Hawkins received assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan and provincial plans which is at least equal to the amount he would have received from unemployment insurance. As well, arrangements have been made for his family to be brought to Toronto to be with him. I am sure that we all agree on wishing Mr. Hawkins a speedy recovery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I remind him that on September 9 he said that the ultimate responsibility for the conflict of interest guidelines rested with him. A grant worth millions of dollars was awarded to Clearwater Lobster Ltd. last week, or John Risley, depending on whose press release one reads. The Minister of Supply and Services has been a director and the secretary of the company, as well as being the company's lawyer, has owned shares in the company, and his son is employed by the company. In view of that would the Prime Minister not agree that there is at least a possible breach of the principles of the conflict of interest guidelines?

November 26, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in detail last week. I am surprised that the Hon. Member persists in levelling those false allegations across the floor of the House after last week's explanation to him. I am as much surprised by that as I am by journalists who make that kind of accusation against a Minister and yet refuse to apologize when the facts they base their allegations on are proven to be utterly false.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BENEFITS RECEIVED BY COMPANY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Prime Minister does not want to answer. Could he tell us which of those things we have said today are false when they have all been admitted? Could he also tell us why it is this company has received benefits twice since this Government has been in office and at least once before under a previous Conservative Government-three times in the two short periods of time the Tories were in office? Is it only a coincidence that Tories are giving other Tories these kinds of grants?


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member almost made a mistake and used the word "Liberal" instead of "Tory" in the utter garbage which constitutes the preamble and the question. However, that is in keeping with the reputation he has in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The question has been answered and answered fully.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the discussions he had before he brought forward his proposals to deal with tax discounting was he made aware by officials of his Department of the tax discounter in Saskatoon who sought to borrow SI million from a bank, at 12 per cent interest, in order to relend the money at real interest rates of up to 180 per cent to people who wanted their tax refunds? If he was, what can he do to ensure that low-income Canadians can borrow at commercial interest rates using their income tax returns as collateral?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I think that last week we announced a policy that contains a number of provisions that should be encouraging for Canadians, and especially for Canadians on low incomes.


REQUEST THAT TAXPAYERS HAVE ACCESS TO BANK INTEREST RATE CHARGES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as far as I can tell, the only people who are made happy by the Minister's announcement are the tax discounters. Would he not agree that consumers would welcome a meaningful choice, which the Minister talks about so frequently, between paying a tax discounter a 100 per cent interest rate and getting a legitimate financial institution to lend them money at 12 per cent?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, with this policy we ensured that the discounting service would remain available to Canadians while at the same time introducing measures to discourage abuse, thereby protecting consumers, and again, consumers on low incomes who need this kind of service.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The entire community of Sarnia-Lambton would like to set the record straight. All municipalities, industries, and citizens totally support the ongoing scientific tests and evaluations of the St. Clair River bed. Can the Minister assure the citizens of Sarnia-Lambton that he will make every effort to ensure that the progress reports of these scientific evaluations will be communicated in a scientific manner, which will avoid the possibility that this information can be misconstrued or inaccurately reported by others?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, that is pretty well the policy my Department and I have adopted and followed. Indeed, on seven separate occasions we provided technical briefings to the media and through them to the public, and we released detailed information, both scientific and general. That is in addition to numerous informal efforts toward the end identified by the Hon. Member. The rest, of course, is up to the media and the public. However, I think in general there has been fairness and balance in the response by the public and the media to a very difficult and complex scientific issue.

November 26, 1985


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Workers in the shoe industry in Quebec were shocked at the statement made by the Minister for International Trade who made it clear they could leave the industry. Where does the Right Hon. Prime Minister want to send the 1,000 workers in the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, whose jobs can now be added to the
5,000	jobs lost in Montreal East?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to reply to the Hon. Member. At no time did I ever make such a statement, nor would this Government ever suggest that. I would remind the House that the tribunal found that in those areas where quotas were removed no further protection was required. In the event there was any minimal loss of jobs, the Government has set up an excellent safety net of measures to protect and assist workers in the event of any job loss.


INQUIRY WHY MINISTER DID NOT LISTEN TO CANADIANS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I would ask the Minister to read his own comments in the newspaper La Presse. Furthermore, I would like to know why he failed to listen to the eight out of ten Canadians who want quotas, in order to create 6,000 new jobs and at the same time safeguard 20,000 existing jobs. Are foreign interests going to prevail over jobs for Canadians?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Foreign interests over Canadian interests.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Sheila, your microphone is off.


James Francis Kelleher: am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I certainly had some trouble with the translation that I received of this question. I can certainly assure the Hon. Member that foreign interests are not taking over any aspects of our shoe industry. The tribunal found that our industry is quite competitive. I have the greatest faith that those industries and the people who work in them can compete with anybody in the world, given the chance.


John Edward Broadbent: All the people in the industries disagree with you.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On a couple of occasions already the Prime Minister made a commitment to a parliamentary review of order in council appointments. Is he aware that the press has indicated that a short list of candidates for president of Canada Post is now in his office? Would he take the opportunity to use this as a test case for parliamentary review of Order in Council appointments and refer the short list to the Committee on Transport?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Are you applying?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity which the question raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James gives me to remind the House that the Government, in its progressive way, is coming forward with something which previous Governments had not thought appropriate. That is, after the beginning of the new year we want to institute the recommendation of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which was chaired by the distinguished Member for St. John's East, which sets out the procedure which will be followed with respect to Order in Council appointments.


Don Boudria: That's enough.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Government is going further than the recommendations in that report. All Order in Council appointments will be made available for scrutiny by a House of Commons committee.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the problems within the Post Office have been very difficult for Governments to come to grips with, does the Prime Minister recognize that a parliamentary review might be of assistance in finding a competent president for Canada Post? Will he also resist the pressure to make a patronage appointment? Will he take action now by referring this Order in Council appointment to the parliamentary Committee on Transport rather than simply satisfying himself with platitudes and putting it off until the future?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, after what the NDP has just done in Manitoba on patronage it takes an awful lot of nerve for an NDPer to ask that question. "NDP Minister's Brother Heads Manitoba Agency". How do you like that for scandalous patronage? An NDP candidate should be ashamed of himself for even raising it.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


An Hon. Member:: Socialists are so pure.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: There's no room at the trough.

November 26, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We hear anti-patronage comments coming from the Grits, of all people. There ought to be a bolt of lightning to strike them all right on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Martin Brian Mulroney: They are giving a brand new meaning to "temerity". You can be sure that if we wanted to do a favour to a friend, we would not make him chairman of Canada Post.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Prud'homme:: You should appoint an NDP.


Mr. Deans:: Don't you dare appoint a New Democrat.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What's Howard Pawley doing after the next election?


Ian Deans: Running the Government of Manitoba.


Mr. de Jong:: That statement is going to haunt you.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister will know that it was reported in the press that the Member for Saint-Jacques said that the pilgrimage the Minister is leading to the Far East later this week is "a pure, unadulterated junket". Would the Minister be kind enough to advise the House of the real purpose of this visit?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this pilgrimage is to pay homage to the more than 1,000 Canadians who gave their lives for their country in the Far East during the Second World War. The delegation will travel to Hong Kong, Burma, Singapore, and Tokyo, and will attend remembrance ceremonies at the cemeteries where our war dead are buried.
It has been claimed that this pilgrimage is nothing more than a junket. That is an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives for their country, and to the widows and mothers who lost loved ones in this theatre of war.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He is, no doubt, aware of the theft by a Government employee of import certificates for cheese which, according to the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, has cost producers over $5.6 million in the past year. Is the Government prepared to reimburse these producers for this loss of income since it was caused by a government error?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question. I wonder whether this is the proper forum in which to raise it, but I am aware of the situation. I checked on the matter in the latter part of last week and can only say at this point that it is under investigation.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us why, when the Government makes a mistake as it did in the case of EEC imports of beef or, in this case, certificates for cheese imports, it always requires that the farmers pay the cost rather than the Government itself which made the error in the first place?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I should utilize this opportunity to set the record straight. The Hon. Member makes some suggestion that we made a mistake with regard to EEC imports. The fact of the matter is that it was his Government which made the mistake. We took the action, and he should check his facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR RELATIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and is with regard to a situation which is presently occurring in Saint John, New Brunswick. Will the Minister take steps now to inform the port authorities and the stevedoring companies in Saint John, New Brunswick, that it is illegal for the crews of foreign ships to do on-shore work in Canada without authorized work permits?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, because I always pay such very proper atttention to the representations which the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt makes, I will undertake to investigate that matter immediately.


Ms. Jewett:: What's going on here?
November 26, 1985


Nelson Andrew Riis: What have you been doing, John?


Lloyd Axworthy: That's the kiss of death.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this situation is occurring during lunch hours and breaks when Canadian workers should be doing the work, would the Minister send an instructive letter to individual ships in dock indicating that they are not to have the crews of foreign ships doing such on-shore work?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would do me the courtesy of giving me, in writing, all the details which he has just enunciated.


SHIPBUILDING
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He will realize that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is in perhaps its worst slump in 40 years. I understand there is a proposal before him at the present time which would allow CN Marine to purchase offshore two ships for the East Coast. Will the Minister indicate to the House if he will allow this to take place in view of the fact that thousands of Canadians in the shipbuilding yards across the country are unemployed? Will he assure us that Canadian workers will be given the preference rather than foreign shipbuilding companies?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that Transport Canada has in excess of 20 vessels being built in Canadian shipyards, which constitutes roughly 95 per cent of the shipyard building activity. There will be further work with respect to the refits.
I think the Hon. Member is also aware that I have a mandate to provide services at the lowest possible cost. These are the factors that will be taken into consideration in reaching a final decision with respect to the acquisition of the two vessels in question.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, November 25, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) and the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price), by filing with the Clerk of the House, also meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table the report on proposed legislative changes, supplementary to the 1984 Statutory Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.
May I remind Hon. Members that pursuant to Standing Order 47(4), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

[ Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I gave the Chair notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege in connection with the participation in debate in this Chamber yesterday by the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest). I intend to show, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke acted in a manner that is contrary to the usual behaviour of a Presiding Officer, who is expected to show complete impartiality. In my opinion, he failed to do so, by the very fact of taking part in debate in the House. Furthermore, I intend to show that his comments were partisan and therefore unworthy of an Acting Speaker of the House of Commons.
By his actions he breached the privilege of all Members of this House who, on the basis of the Standing Orders and parliamentary tradition, have every right to expect the Presiding Officer to observe absolutely strict impartiality.
First of all, if we consider his participation in debate, according to tradition a Presiding Officer may not take part in debate in the House. This is clearly established by parliamentary jurisprudence, and I want to quote from Beauchesne's, Citation 117, which deals with the Speaker as Presiding Officer of the House of Commons. Citation 117 of Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition, page 38, reads as follows, and I quote:

November 26, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.
Further on in the same paragraph it says, and I quote:
Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized. He takes no part in debate in the House. He votes only when the voices are equal-
I also would like to bring to the attention of-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member. When a matter is being raised that is not a point of order but a question of privilege, which is a very serious claim, I believe he knows that it is my practice to ask the Member to give, very early, the case of privilege that is being claimed.
I believe the Hon. Member knows full well that it is improper at this time to argue the case that one would like to argue if the matter were before the House. Presumably, at this time one is simply trying to put the matter which I must decide is a prima facie question of privilege, without comment about the behaviour or actions of any Member.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I indicated right at the beginning ... There is a lot of noise in the House. I admit it is difficult for you to hear me, but right at the beginning of my remarks I indicated the two points on which I rest my argument to the effect that, in his capacity as Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke has breached the privileges of Hon. Members.
I said he did so, first by taking part in a partisan debate on the floor of the House and, second, by making remarks-and I should want to quote them, otherwise Your Honour will find it hard to appreciate the crux of the problem-which were clearly partisan with respect to some Members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that he may not make any comment whatsoever about the behaviour or activity of any Member, save on a substantive charge.
I take it that the Hon. Member wishes to rise on a question of privilege to present a case to me with regard to the general capacity of a deputy Speaker to participate in debate.
If the Hon. Member is attempting to raise a question of privilege about what another Member said in the House, then he is beginning to comment about another Member. He knows that I would have to find him out of order when making any comment about a Member and I must ask him to stay with the generalities of his question.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, let me try it in another way and in the other language. I believe it is a basic principle of any Member of the House to make sure that an occupant of the Chair is impartial. If I am not able to
demonstrate that this principle has been breached, what am I trying to do here? The privilege of Members has been breached.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am trying to help the Hon. Member, not be difficult. The Hon. Member may have an opinion and wish to make a charge about what another Member has done. He may do that with any Member. However, I believe he knows our practice with regard to the route one takes for making that allegation.
I take it that he wishes to raise a question of privilege as to whether a Deputy Speaker may participate in any debate in any way. I understand that that is the only issue he would want to raise under a question of privilege in order to make a prima facie case that there may or may not be a question of privilege.
However, if his concern is with the content or behaviour of a particular Member and not with the general application, I suggest that he is verging on the area of comment about a Member that would make it more than a question of privilege.
I am prepared to hear his question of privilege but I believe he knows that I cannot hear it in the context of a personal comment on the behaviour of another Member.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I was remaining general by quoting parliamentary jurisprudence. That is where I was stopped, with all due respect. I was proposing, after quoting jurisprudence, to explain to the Chair how an Hon. Member has gone contrary to this jurisprudence.
I would then let Your Honour judge whether there was a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. If Your Honour were to agree, I have a motion which I would then like to move.
In my opinion, that appears to be the normal procedure for dealing with these cases. I would ask for the indulgence of the Chair because my comments will only take one or two minutes more. I believe I would be able to shed some light on what 1 am attempting to do.

Mr. Speaker, I was about to prove that, in light of parliamentary case-law, Acting Speakers who replace Your Honour in the Chair must also abide by the rules of impartiality.
For your information, I should like to quote Citation 133 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
Deputy Speakers have not taken a consistent position with respect to attendance at their political party's functions. During divisions they have voted but-
-and I draw your attention to this sentence-
-but have not attempted to participate otherwise in the debates of the House.
Now I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that we inherited this legacy from the mother of Parliament and that the same policy has been adhered to in England. For example, let me quote from Erskine May's Twentieth Edition, page 240. It refers to the Chairman of Ways and Means, which is the equivalent of
November 26, 1985

the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole in this Chamber. It reads:
The Chairman of Ways and Means during his occupation of that office follows the same tradition of abstention from Party controversy as the Speaker.

Now, if you want me to get down to the point, the fact is that there was flagrant abuse in taking part in the debate, in the sense that extremely partisan remarks were made, and it seems to me to be the thrust of my argument. I would like to draw Your Honour's attention to what the Hon. Member said in words and sentences in the course of his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I know the point the Hon. Member is trying to make.
[ Translation]
I think I understand fairly well the point he wants me to consider. But if he wants me to include in my... I think he has made an argument concerning our traditions, what he thinks are our traditions, respecting the appropriateness of an Acting Speaker taking part in debates.

If he goes further now into a comment about what the Member said, then the Member is entering into the area of comment about another Member-


An Hon. Member:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes he is, I suggest.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Impartiality.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me put to the Hon. Member that if he believes something was said yesterday which affects the impartiality of the Chair, in his view, and he is then saying that that would become a question of privilege, it would not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What would it be?


Mr. Speaker:: Any Member of this House may speak from his seat in the House in any way he or she chooses. I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member takes this matter seriously and I believe the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest), and other Members take these questions seriously, but if the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques is trying to base a question of privilege on the existence of an intervention, then I need to hear how he proposes I should consider that.


Jacques Guilbault: I have read the jurisprudence related to impartiality, Mr. Speaker. I think it has been established, and I think all Hon. Members recognize that as a start. Now I think I have to go into some detail to explain that one Hon. Member was not impartial. We are not talking about an ordinary Hon. Member; we are talking about an Hon. Member who is a presiding officer. That is the point. Otherwise debate is debate, and I understand that. We are talking about a presiding officer and that is my point. I think I have been clear from the beginning.
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)


Mr. Speaker:: Let me see if I can help the Hon. Member. What he is raising is not a question of privilege. He is making an objection to an intervention having been made. If he feels very strongly on that subject, he has other recourses that are open to him, notably some form of substantive motion, if that is his choice.
It is clear from the record, from our history, that the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke is by no means the first Deputy Speaker to rise in his place and speak in this House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What did he say though?


Mr. Speaker:: In fact, Deputy Speaker Lamoureux did speak once when he was Deputy Speaker. Clearly it cannot be the content of a Member's speech that gives rise, by its very existence, to a question of privilege from another Hon. Member.
Our history and traditions are very clear that if a Member wishes to make a comment in any way about what another Member has done, then that reference must be by substantive motion, not by raising a question of privilege. I think if the Hon. Member looks at the citations on that, he will find that that goes back to Speaker Michener, Speaker Lamoureux and Speaker Jerome. I want to be very clear about this. There is not, in my view, in our precedents a question of privilege here.
On the issue of the right of a deputy Speaker to speak as a Member, there is no question about our rules speaking strongly about what the Speaker may or may not do. But the rules are silent on what a deputy Speaker may do. Assistant deputy Speakers have spoken in the past, and this deputy Speaker also chose to speak. I am subject to some pretty severe constraints as the Hon. Member knows, and must be.
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that the House may wish to consider whether it wants in future to change the constraints or to create constraints that apply to deputy Speakers, then the House would be free to do that, but I can find no rule, that I know of, that would prevent a Member of the House, having been asked to be a deputy, deputy, deputy Speaker, from speaking. Whether one should or should not do so is a question of judgment that various deputy Speakers have exercised in various ways.
If the Hon. Member wants to pursue the matter, either the subject of the impartiality of the Chair or that of the conduct of another Member, either of those matters have to be pursued by a substantive motion. I think the Hon. Member knows that.
I am saying this because I think the Hon. Member knows from our practices that I need to hear some foundation for a question of privilege. I am trying to say that so far I have not heard it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Member who has been speaking has a motion to propose.


Mr. Speaker:: He only gets to propose the motion if I find there is a prima facie case of privilege.
I should not be doing this here, perhaps, but the Hon. Member has another route. If he has a motion he wishes to

November 26, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) move, he is presumably asking me to find a prima facie case of privilege, thus allowing him to put his motion now, ahead of other business. That is what is done when one seeks something through the Chair. I cannot find, on the argument that has been made, prima facie grounds of privilege that would warrant putting the matter to the House at this time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are saying that where there is a question of the impartiality of the occupant of the Chair, there is another route to be followed and, therefore, you are not saying that this route cannot be followed in the case of the deputy Speaker in question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to be as clear as I can be. Whenever the question that is being raised is the conduct of a Member of the House in his capacity as a Member or in any other capacity as a presiding officer, our traditions have been that privilege is not the route by which that motion can be put. Is that clear to Hon. Members? In other words, if the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques has a substantive charge he wishes to make about or against the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke, the only route that I know by which he can do that is through a substantive motion on notice. That is the only way that I know in which he can do it. It has been ruled many times not to be admissible through a question of privilege.
[ Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that, although I quoted the Standing Orders at length, Your Honour does not seem prepared to acknowledge that we are dealing with a prima facie case of privilege.
An Hon. Member on my left is telling me: Sit down, that's enough nonsense from you! That is an interesting comment, Mr. Speaker, particularly as we are talking about the basic principles of this institution and the privileges of Hon. Members. I consider that I was not given the opportunity to express everything I have to say, for I was upbraided a few times. Therefore I will not say anything more about the remarks of the Hon. Member, but I will stop right here and ask Your Honour to rule whether or not, in your Honour's opinion, there was a breach of privilege. Should Your Honour agree, I have a motion here which I am prepared to-


Mr. Speaker:: Let me be as clear as I can be: No, there is no question of privilege in my view. Perhaps there is a question of convention. There may be some question or some comment with regard to our practices and our conventions, but on the basis of what has been put to me, I can find neither a question of privilege nor a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the name of all Hon. Members of the House, we must address the Chair in the position it occupies. From now on, Hon. Members will address the Chair in the position it indeed occupies. If he happens to be the assistant deputy chairman of
committees, we will address him as such, not as president, chairman or "Mr. Speaker".


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member intends or means no disrepect by that comment. It can be our practice, as it is in Westminster, to refer to the occupant of the chair as the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or whatever office he or she holds in this chair. Maybe I am indulging myself a little when I say that I certainly think it would be helpful over time if the House were to consider some of these questions with regard to all occupants of the deputy Speaker positions. I frankly think they are put in a difficult position because there is no clarity in our rules with regard to what it is they are entitled to do. I am not one of them and have never been one of them, but I am quite properly bound by the rules not to speak. That is both a protection for the House and a protection for me.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I agree with that.


Mr. Speaker:: If the House wishes to do something further which would protect the deputy Speakers, both for their sake and for the House, that may be something the House would wish to do. However, until the House speaks on that matter, it seems to me that it would not be fair, if I may now go a little further, to say, without some comment from the House, that a Member of the House looses his or her right to be a Member of the House simply by agreeing to take on an office. Therefore, let me leave it at that, if I may.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention and to that of the House the Standing Order which says that when a Deputy Speaker or an assistant deputy Speaker is in the chair, that individual sits in the chair with all the powers and authority of the Speaker himself or herself. In fact, Hansard does not even identify exactly who is in the chair. Therefore, I think it follows that the Standing Orders, at least by implication, impose upon the occupant of the chair, even if that person is not the Speaker, the same standards of impartiality and, above all, the appearance of impartiality which is imposed upon yourself. It is our submission that the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest) has not lived up to that high standard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now the Hon. Member is seeking through a point of order to make an allegation. I repeat, if the Hon. Member wishes to pursue that, he knows his rights and responsibilities in doing that. Everybody who sits in this chair becomes imbued with the responsibilities and the rights of the Speaker and, therefore, certainly has the obligation to be impartial. Everybody who has occupied the chair in a deputy Speaker capacity, Liberal, Conservative, NDP or ordinary Member, has done a service to the House.
Let me say to the Hon. Member that it is only I myself who when he leaves this chair remains, outside the confines of this structure, the Speaker as referred to in the Standing Orders. I, therefore, remind the Hon. Member of what I said just a few minutes ago and suggest that he may want to consider something else.
November 26, 1985


INCOME TAX ACT AND RELATED ACTS
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the technical notes to the Bill amending the Income Tax Act and related statutes.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House this afternoon on the establishment of a parliamentary task force on child care. The necessary technical motions will be moved at the appropriate time by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
The Government formally announced its intention to establish such a parliamentary task force in the Speech from the Throne last November. Over past months, the Government has given very serious thought to the role of this task force and the complex questions which it will be asked to confront. I am pleased that we are now in a position to proceed with this inquiry into the issue of child care and the changing needs of Canadian families.
In general, the purpose of the parliamentary task force is to seek public input and to make recommendations on the issue of child care as it relates to families in Canada. This inquiry is a vital step in the development of directions for child care, because currently there is limited consensus on this issue among Canadians. It is generally recognized that the changing circumstances of many families, including the growing number of two-earner couples and the increased incidence of single mothers, has raised concerns about the issue of child care and the appropriate role of the federal Government in this area. However, there is no agreement among Canadians about what should be done to meet the changing needs of families and children with respect to child care. Accordingly, this parliamentary inquiry will offer an important opportunity to examine the issue of child care with a view to pursuing a national consensus.
As we will see from the terms of reference, we are asking the inquiry to look at the care of children in a broad context, which includes consideration of the child care requirements of all children, not just children with working parents. Thus, the members of the task force and other participants are encouraged to go beyond the narrow issues which are frequently associated with daycare services. Rather than focusing the inquiry on an analysis of existing child care or related programs, the terms of reference invite participants to undertake a fresh review of the questions associated with child care and to put forward innovative alternatives for reform.
Statements by Ministers
We are launching this task force in response to public concerns that the needs of families and children are changing. These concerns and the pressures for reform are frequently summarized under the three themes of affordability, quality and availability.
In addressing concerns with respect to affordability, I would hope the task force can highlight and resolve some of the basic questions about the costs of child care and how these costs should be shared, for example, among families, employers, Governments and other groups that have an interest and responsibility in respect of child care. Also, there is the important question of whether the future direction of child care is to be developed as an issue concerning the children of working women only, or whether it should also relate to the children of mothers who forgo employment earnings to provide full-time parental care for their young children.
The second theme, that of quality in child care, highlights concerns about the well-being and protection of children in non-parental arrangements. In particular, there is the difficult issue of what constitutes quality care in general and in the case of a particular child. Also, there is the question of whether or not it is appropriate or desirable for Government initiatives to encourage the use of one type of care over other types of arrangements.
Third, the theme of availability focuses attention on the factors affecting the ability of the supply of child care services to meet demand. To some, this theme highlights concerns about the situation of latchkey children and the special problems of families in rural locations. It also raises questions about the Government's role in expanding the supply of child care services directly, relative to other sources of supply, including employers and community groups.
In general, the consideration of these and other concerns and questions are central to the development of an agreement or a consensus on future directions and alternatives for a child care policy.
Clearly, the task force on child care is being asked to consider a very complex issue. Therefore, we have given careful consideration to the details contained in its terms of reference. As you may note, Mr. Speaker, the inquiry has been asked to develop its conclusions and recommendations within a broad framework with particular reference to a variety of factors such as the preferences of parents in providing care for their children and the economic implications of child care.
The task force has also been instructed to address the relationship between child care needs and the special needs and requirements of various families. These special circumstances include such factors as marital status, disability and the economic position of the family. However, the terms of reference are sufficienty flexible to enable the members of the task force to add other criteria which they determine to be relevant to the issue of child care.
In addition, the members of the task force are specifically instructed to take account of the shared interest and responsi-

November 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers
bility in this area among families, communities, the private sector and the public sector. Of particular relevance here is the role and views of provincial Governments. The provincial delivery of child care services is clearly an important consideration in the development of federal alternatives in the area of child care, a consideration which the task force will have to recognize and address. I have had discussions with my provincial counterparts and I feel that it is important that the point be stressed that the task force is looking forward to receiving ideas that will come from the public and from those members who will be charged with a difficult task keeping in mind as well the role the provinces play in this important field.
To enhance the efforts already undertaken in the child care debate, the parliamentary task force has also been requested to give consideration to the report and the studies of the ministerial task force chaired by Dr. Katie Cooke which should be reporting shortly to my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean). Although the Cooke task force was instructed to focus on the specific issues of child care services and parental leave, its analysis is expected to provide a useful input into the work of the parliamentary task force.
To ensure that the parliamentary task force is well informed, the inquiry will have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff. The members of the task force can draw upon existing studies and reports as well as initiate further research and analysis which will assist them in fulfilling their mandate. However, one of the most important functions of the parliamentary task force will involve its ability to undertake public hearings and consultations on the issue of child care. I sincerely hope that many Canadians will participate by considering this very important social issue and informing the task force of their views.
As you may note from the terms of reference, Mr. Speaker, the task force is being asked to report to Parliament within a year. Because of the scope and complexity of this issue, I believe that this length of time will be absolutely necessary to the achievement of a comprehensive and balanced study. I fully expect that the coming year will be a very busy time for each of the members of this inquiry.
In conclusion, I would like to urge all Members of the House to support this proposal to establish a parliamentary task force on child care. I am confident that with these terms of reference, this inquiry will be able to provide valuable conclusions and recommendations regarding the future of child care.
Finally, much has been said both in the House and in public regarding the appropriate responses in modern society to support for the role of the family. We know that in many cases, families have changed from their traditional roles and traditional make-ups. It will be important for the task force to analyse the role of the traditional family as well as the changes to the traditional family in modern society.
As the family is strengthened and as the role of the family is officially recognized by the Government not only in words but in reports to the House and the Minister, I think it is absolutely essential that we send to the public signals that this is happening. All of us who deal with social policy can recognize very clearly that the very best support system and the very best assurance that children will grow up to be full-fledged members of society is the maintenance of the cornerstone of society, the family. I welcome the comments of other Members of the House and hope that within a year's time, the House will benefit from their views and the future of Canada's families will be guaranteed.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that at last, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has announced the creation of a task force on child care. However, I may add it was high time the task force materialized for, as the Minister pointed out earlier, and rightly so, the task force was first announced in the Throne Speech in November 1984.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed high time, because on March 8 of this year, in answer to a query from my hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) about when the child care task force would be established, the Minister of State for Immigration and Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean) said that the order and terms of reference of the task force on child care would be announced in a matter of weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I think that from now on, when we hear it will take a matter of weeks, we can assume it will take quite some time. Today, the Progressive Conservative Government has announced the creation of a task force on child care, but I may point out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the various parties concerned in this area are very anxious to read Katie Cooke's recommendations on the same subject.
I think it is too bad the Minister did not send us the task force's order of reference along with his speech, which would have made it easier for me to comment on the Minister's statement. I therefore intend to speak to the principles set forth in the speech we have just heard.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare defined the terms of reference of the task force in very broad terms, and that is as it should be. It is time we considered child care as an issue that concerns society as a whole, and not just the women in society. I was also pleased to hear the Minister say that the role of the family and not just the traditional family would be examined, and I wish to congratulate the Minister on this departure from the usual approach.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare also noted ... I would like to point out to the Minister that he used sexist terms when talking about children who needed day care. He indicated that one of the issues was whether day care services would be open to children of women working outside the home, or to children of mothers working at home. Non-sexist language should have been used, Mr. Speaker! They should have
November 26, 1985

said: available to children of parents who work outside the home, or to children whose parents work at home.
In his statement the Minister implied that there is no consensus in Canada on the question of day care services. Well, I am not sure that there is no consensus on that question.
According to a poll made public last April most Canadians believe that day care services should be the shared responsibility of Governments and families, but others think that the Governments should not have anything to do with such services.
The same poll revealed that 50 per cent of the Progressive Conservative Members believe that the federal Government should not get involved in that field.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will be able to make them change their mind.
I am expected to state our position on matters of principle, Mr. Speaker, but since I am not familiar with the task force mandate I can say it is true that the needs of families have changed a lot. It is also true that the families themselves have changed lot.
Mr. Speaker, if indeed the task force will seek to determine the responsibilities of families, communities as well as those of the private and public sectors, may I simply point out that the responsibilities of companies will have to be wider than those they have been given by the Progressive Conservative Government in terms of employment equity.
The Progressive Conservative Government has emphasized the voluntary approach in matters of employment equity. However, I want to warn the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) that men and women who are concerned about the problem of child care will not be satisfied with a voluntary approach.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is fond of consultation, but it tends to listen to social groups only when their opinion coincides with the Government's.
We have seen what happened to de-indexation of family allowances and the prostitution Bill. Although the majority of the witnesses spoke out against the Bill, the Conservative Government had no hesitation in adopting it.
As for this public consultation, I can only hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will take the broad view and that the Government will really listen to what the parties concerned with this sector have to say. I would like the Government to launch an advertising campaign that would accurately reflect the Minister's desire to have many Canadians participate in this exercise. Without their participation, I believe we will just have a useless task force, lacking any real contact with families who have to deal with child care problems.
I also want to say I think it is too bad Katie Cooke's recommendations have yet to be released. It seems as though the Conservative Government is cleverly setting up a task force on
Statements by Ministers
child care because it does not want to implement the Cooke report's many recommendations.
We realize that a study, commission or task force is an excellent way to procrastinate and buy time, especially when, as in the present situation, the results of a task force like Katie Cooke's must be released and the last thing the Government wants to do is to act on its recommendations. So it just orders another study.
I would also like to draw the attention of the House to several recommendations made by the Subcommittee on Equality Rights. A number of the report's recommendations concern day care centres. So the question arises why another task force is being set up, since the recommendations are already there.
Mr. Speaker, this criticism should be understood in the context of the activities of the Conservative Government. Since September 1984, one can hardly say that issues concerning the status of women have been a priority.
I think this is obvious, considering that a year has elapsed between the announcement that a child care task force would be created and its actual creation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this kind of delay is no longer acceptable and that from now on, action will have to follow hard on the heels of a statement of intent.
Finally, I would like to know when the committee will take up its duties.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to clear up what may well be a misunderstanding. I thought I heard the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) indicate that she had not seen the terms of reference. 1 want to make clear, at least in my case, that the draft terms of reference were provided to us, and I thought to both Parties, about a week ago. It could well be that there has been a communications problem. I just do not want to leave the wrong impression in the presentation which is being made. However, I do want to say a word or two about the setting up of the task force.
I am sure that all Members of the House will recall that in August of 1984 the then Leaders of the three political Parties, being in somewhat different positions but nevertheless Leaders of the three political Parties, met in debate. This was a debate which was sponsored by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. In that debate they were asked the following question:
What steps would you take to ensure that quality universally-accessible child care is available in Canada?
My Leader responded as follows:
Day care is a social responsibility like medicare and education and should be available to all. There must be an increase in the number of day care spaces to

November 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers
ensure women have equal access to employment opportunities, training and
retraining.
The NDP endorsed the program of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, which is consistent with long-standing NDP policy, at a meeting with the Association's executive in Ottawa in May. We would appoint a Parliamentary Task Force to develop a comprehensive plan for implementing universal day care and introduce a Child Care Financing Program as a transitional measure. The Financing Program would include:
a)	a direct grant of $5.00 per day to each licensed day care space; and
b)	a child care resourses fund based on a formula of $25.00 per day for every child under 13. It is to be expended by the provinces and the territories for the creation of new public child care facilities and programs.
The Child Care Financing Program would cost $300 million. It is estimated that the program would create 50,000 new jobs and at the same time improve accessibility to quality care for our children.
That was the position in 1984 and, of course, it remains the position of my Party. Therefore, we are pleased that the Government has moved now to establish the task force, albeit somewhat later than we had anticipated and hoped. I might add that is in keeping with the commitment made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in response to the same question when he said:
I will establish a Parliamentary Task Force with a short but clear mandate to examine the provision of quality child care throughout Canada.
I might add it is consistent with the position taken by the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Official Opposition, when he said:
-I would push for an indepth study into the inadequacies of child care
services-
What we have before us is something with which the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament in 1984 and, I think, in 1985 agree. As I said, I add the caveat that there has been a time lag which I regret. I am sure the Minister would agree that he too regrets the time which has been taken in establishing this task force. Nevertheless, it is now here and the work which it has to do is vitally important work. It must be done quickly and with care. However, it is necessary to ensure that the end result brings about a policy from the Government which will in fact provide quality day care-and I stress the term quality because without that word what might well emerge could be totally unsatisfactory.
We are pleased that the task force is getting under way because the situation as it now exists is a serious one. In 1983 there were 956,000 children under the age of six and 1.3 million children between the ages of six and 12 with mothers in the labour force. Yet, in 1983 there were only 139,070 licensed group and family home care spaces in the entire country. One need not be a genius to see that the number of day care spaces available when measured against the number of children was woefully inadequate. The vast majority of Canadian women of child-bearing age participate in the paid workforce. In 1983 fully 69 per cent of all women between the ages of 20 and 44 worked outside the home. It is projected that by 1990 over 75 per cent of women aged 24 to 54 will be in the official workforce. The situation we will have in Canada, and I
do not think that anyone will dispute this, will be one in which both parents of children will be out in the workforce. There will be an absolute necessity for the provision of care for those children who, out of necessity, will be left otherwise to fend for themselves or will be put into inadequate facilities. By the end of this century women's labour force participation is expected to equal that of men's. Of all of the women who are now working, 60 per cent are married. I think it is fair to say, therefore, that if they were to lose their jobs-and one can never predict such things-one half of those families would fall below the poverty line. I want to suggest that we are pleased that the reference was made by the Minister that consideration must be given-I hope the word "must" is the appropriate operative word-to the report and studies of the Government task force which was so ably chaired by Dr. Katie Cooke. The recommendations of that task force could well form the basis for much of what could and should be done by Government.
I think the terms of reference, at least those from which I have been working, are broad enough to allow for the kind of comprehensive review we believe is necessary. I want to suggest to the committe that it not be restricted in its mandate by the exclusion of any reference to certain matters which are of importance in this vital area. For example, as I mentioned earlier, there is no mention of quality day care. 1 think the Minister would agree with me that that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about some inferior day care facility which does not begin to meet the need. There is no explicit recommendation or reference in the draft terms of reference which sets out the principle of federal Government leadership, but we hope the committee will in fact see the vital role of the federal Government in developing a child care policy which flows out of necessity from any review of the need of quality child care. In addition to that, we suggest the committee look at the whole question of direct federal funding.
We do not deny that it is desirable that the provinces participate and I expect they will. I think we all expect that. Nevertheless, that should not be an inhibitive in the review undertaken by the committee and the recommendations it makes with regard to adequate expenditures to meet the existing and long-term needs. Although this might be somewhat at odds with the view of the Government with respect to the development of child care, we must be cautious that we recognize that tax dollars are scarce and, therefore, should not be used to subsidize the fore profit sector, if you will, which does, from time to time, grow up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) but I would like to remind him that the Minister spoke for a period of 10 minutes. The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) spoke for eight minutes. Convention dictates that the Hon. Member also limit his remarks to the same time frame. I will permit the Hon. Member to wind up very rapidly.
November 26, 1985


Ian Deans: I am certainly grateful to you for that permission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I said "very rapidly".


Ian Deans: Given that this is what I consider to be a vitally important task force which is to be given a very serious mandate, I would not have thought that I would have any difficulty getting my views on the record. However, I will do the best I can to wind this up as quickly as I humanly can, I can assure you. I want to make sure that the fore profit potential is kept in mind and that the scarce resources are allocated to provide the maximum child care possible.
I am getting little signals which I can hardly understand. I am having a tough day, Mr. Speaker. I hurt my back this morning and I am suffering considerably. Any further aggravation will cause me great pain.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I want to quickly set out some points which I hope the committee will remember in its establishment of a national child care policy. Child care should be universal. The highest quality child care services should be mandatory. There should be licensing and regulating provisions to guarantee that. The affordability of child care must be kept in mind and it must not be unavailable simply because of lack of income on the part of families, particularly low income families. The parental role must always be paramount. Parents should have an active and significant role in determining the child care environment.
I am just about finished. I only have about 10 seconds if you will just sit back and relax.
With respect to the whole question of sponsorship, child care services should, to the extent that it is humanly possible, be non-profit operations in order to maximize the benefits and the working conditions for those who work in child care should be such as to guarantee salaries and benefits which meet their education and commitment.
With those few comments, I will conclude by saying that I would like to see the committee get on with this work and I thank the Minister for having brought the terms of reference forward.

[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to explain to Hon. Members how this Government intends to make our transportation system more accessible to the disabled. In fact, we intend to achieve this objective by means of a range of specific and positive measures.
Statements by Ministers

It is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House to describe the Government's commitment to improve accessibility to our transportation system for disabled persons.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that all persons are equal before the law. This implies that the disabled must have reasonable access to facilities and services provided by the Government of Canada.

Prior to forming the Government, the Progressive Conservative Party pledged itself to three major goals for disabled persons; to remove barriers to their participation in economic and social opportunities; to support self reliance by disabled persons and enhance their capacity to contribute to their communities and, finally, to work toward implementing the recommendation contained in the Obstacles Report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Disabled Persons. [Translation]
Today, I would like to describe what we intend to do about transportation to make this sector accessible to the disabled. Our Government will be taking steps in a number of areas. First of all, a comprehensive plan for training and development of all public transportation employees in federally regulated sectors; then, defining the type of measures required to respond to the needs of disabled travellers, whereby provincial governments will be urged to ensure that provincial bus companies develop plans for adapting equipment and services and submit these as soon as possible; encouraging the negotiation of reciprocal agreements on paratransit services; co-operating closely with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and agencies representing the disabled, the private sector and other levels of government, with a view to increasing accessibility; retrofitting of terminals and facilities regulated by Transport Canada so that they provide the same level of services to the disabled; co-operating closely with carriers to ensure effective communication; taking appropriate action to provide for a reasonable level of service for the disabled on all transport modes.
These commitments will form the basis of a new policy on transportation of disabled persons which I intend to announce in the near future. This Government is sensitive to the needs of disabled persons in the area of transportation and has reviewed the issues in detail.

Already aware of the needs of the disabled and the problems they face in the area of transportation, the Government has consulted with disabled persons and their representatives in order to acquire a clear understanding of the problems they have to deal with. Today, we are acting in response to recom-

November 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers
mendations made in the many studies that have been carried out in the past. It is now time to act.
Last June, my predecessor set up a committee to advise the Government on what can be done to make our transportation system accessible. Our objective is, first of all, to eliminate physical barriers and to help change people's attitudes to the problems facing disabled persons when they want to travel from one place to another.

This Government recognizes that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms promises equal protection and equal benefit under the law and protects disabled persons from systemic discrimination. To comply with the Charter's requirement and ensure reasonable access to Canada's transportation system for disabled persons, our Government is finalizing accessibility standards and guidelines for the air, rail and marine modes. [Translation]
Furthermore, research and pilot projects are being developed to reduce physical barriers to travelling by the disabled. In terms of accessibility, VIA Rail is proceeding with a retrofit of its cars, while the retrofit of ferry terminals is continuing.
Together with the provinces, we have set up a standing committee on the transportation of disabled persons, and its terms of reference include examining complex issues such as national reciprocity in paratransit services and land transportation to and from airports.
The Canadian Transport Commission is developing a multimode card to identify disabled persons who must travel accompanied.
A new, fully accessible bus, the first in North America, has been put into service as part of a three-year pilot project in Newfoundland. Accessibility Guidelines for travel by interprovincial bus lines have been developed by the Minister of Transport and his provincial counterparts. Their collaboration and support have been invaluable. We believe that carriers will conform with these guidelines, and we hope that specific accessibility standards will be set in the months to come.
During Expo 86, our Department will host an international conference to be attended by experts from the public, private and academic sectors. The purpose of this conference is to create an international forum for the exchange of information on questions concerning the disabled.
Furthermore, in response to a recommendation made at the first meeting of my action committee last August, we have set up four task forces whose members include disabled persons and representatives from the transportation sector, industry and government. They are being asked to submit proposals for dealing with the problems facing the disabled in the following areas: standards of access to national air services, airport services and facilities, communications, and finally, bus services.

The Department has initiated work to complete an inventory of existing equipment available in terminals and on board vehicles for visual, hearing and developmentally-impaired travellers so as to identify areas which need further improvement. We are carefully reviewing the report of the parliamentary committee on equality of rights recently tabled before the House. Their praise for the establishment of our implementation committee is very encouraging.

Thanks to a multi-million dollar program, we intend to improve technology for vehicles and other transport modes and show how facilities and services can be made more accessible. We hope that in this way, we can help people acquire a better understanding of the needs of the disabled.

Today I am also pleased to announce that this Government has selected over 25 communities across Canada which will be receiving grants to acquire much needed specially equipped vehicles. Specific details will be announced in the near future. [Translation]
This Government is anxious to work together with Canadians in order to bring about the desired changes, and it has therefore set up a program to assist small communities where operating a mini bus service might not be feasible. The program is intended to improve the mobility of the disabled by helping set up a volunteer service.

Two demonstration projects testing this new mobility concept are being staged in New Brunswick. Along with the capital grants mentioned previously, they will combine to significantly improve personal mobility and reduce the isolation of disabled Canadians who reside in small communities across this country. All these initiatives and activities have been accomplished through the co-operation and support of many individuals, groups and organizations. Their diligence and thoughtful advice, coupled with this Government's firm commitment, will result in greater accessibility to our transportation system for disabled Canadians.
[ Translation]
I know that all the Members of this House support these measures. In the months to come, I expect to see a host of new initiatives and policies that will help us move ahead towards achieving our objective: a transportation system that is safe, reliable and equitable-in other words, accessible to all Canadians.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition critic dealing with policies and regulations regarding the handicapped, it is my privilege to comment on the statement just made by the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). Along with other Members of the House, I congratulate her on any new steps she

November 26, 1985

may have taken in the ongoing process of establishing equal opportunities for the handicapped to have full access to transportation, and for the elimination of physical and attitudinal barriers to travel. However, I gather that some Members of the Standing Committee on Transport, which is touring the country and taking evidence, are puzzled as to why the Minister did not wait to make her statement until tomorrow when they would be back in Ottawa and able to be present.
I said that I welcomed any signs of progress and I have listened carefully to her statement. Mr. Speaker, I had to listen carefully because, regrettably, there is precious little in her statement that shows progress or that is new since either the press release of her immediate predecessor six months ago or since the progress report made by the last Liberal Government in 1983 entitled Surmounting Obstacles. The Minister said that now is the time for action and then she proceeded to give us 10 action steps. However, of the 10 steps she cited, eight of them appeared in her predecesor's news release of six months ago and she has repeated them almost word for word. Of the two items that are new, neither of them are action oriented but are announcements of more committees and conferences, important though they are. Basically there is no new action at all except with regard to the announcement of 25 communities which will later learn what will be coming to them.
Regrettably, what we heard was not a statement by a Minister to bring some new developments to the attention of the House, but just one more in a long series of attempts by the Government to try to take something which was an initiative undertaken during the last Liberal Government, dress it up in a Tory blue wrapper and call it, as she has done, a new policy. It is too bad that they do not leave well enough alone, give credit where credit is due and get on with new and further action. It seems that the Conservatives just cannot bring themselves to lead, to set the example and to act. All they can do is to lick the bullet-they just cannot bring themselves to bite it.
As far back as 1980 the Parliament of Canada established a special committee on the disabled and the handicapped to review the scope of federal programs in the area of disability. In 1981 it made its report called Obstacles which contained 130 recommendations to improve the status of disabled and handicapped Canadians. Action progress was monitored by this committee and subsequent reports showed that by 1983 the Government had dealt with two-thirds of the recommendations and with three-quarters of those dealing with transportation.
While the Canadian Government did much in the past to deal with such matters within its jurisdiction, and should have done even more, the fact is that the real door to equality for the handicapped was thrown open by the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the last Liberal Government. That, Mr. Speaker, is what will ultimately force all those who provide public service to give equal access to the
Statements by Ministers
handicapped and that is what will propel the Government to some action.
Thanks to the Charter, thanks to the courts, thanks to a decision by a Saskatchewan court last June, and thanks to the Supreme Court for its decision not to allow an appeal, a key principle in this regard was established. Now the handicapped across Canada can demand that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that equal access becomes a reality. Because of the Charter the courts say that identical treatment is not necessarily equal treatment and, therefore, special steps must be taken in any public place to give equal access to the handicapped. It is because of the Charter that the Government must be made to act. It must not be allowed to wait for the courts to settle every case. It must be forced to be bold, to make regulations and to pass laws.
The Minister talked about "developing a detailed strategy" in her blueprint for action, "clarification of procedures", "encouraging negotiation", "working in a spirit of consensus and co-operation", "appointing task forces", and "finalizing guidelines". That is hardly what we would call the language of resolute and vigorous action, Mr. Speaker. What is more, the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) has not announced any minimum standards. She has not announced any timetable. She has not announced any figures showing financial commitment. She has only recycled an old press release.
Laurie Beachell, National Co-ordinator for the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, COPOH, says that instead of vague guidelines detailed standards are needed to force compliance. David Blaker, Executive Director of the Advocacy Research Centre for the Handicapped in Toronto, says that they need to be made law. We still do not hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government that they will bring in standards, regulations and laws because they do not believe in that sort of thing. Why did the Government not bring in an immediate response to the equality rights report and fulfil recommendations 48 and 49 of that report? That could have been done today. The Government does not want to regulate. It prefers to deregulate.
It is precisely because the Tories lick the bullet instead of biting it that today, tomorrow and, regrettably, for some time to come, many disabled people will be refused transportation and will be discriminated against. If they want justice, it looks as if they cannot turn to the Government for it but will have to turn to the courts and call on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to uphold their rights. Thank God for the Charter.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, as my Party's critic for those Canadians who are disabled and handicapped, as a member of the special House of Commons Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped which existed in the last Parliament, and also as a member of the Standing Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped I would like to say a few words about what the Minister has said. 1 read through the Minister's remarks which she very kindly provided to me yesterday. At the outset it was my intention to give her a bit of a hard time. However, the Minister has only held that position of

November 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers
responsibility for several months and I have, therefore, decided to be a little bit charitable. However, I will be less so to the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) because I listened very carefully to the remarks which he just concluded. I must confess to becoming a bit agitated as I listened to them.
As I pointed out, I was a member of the special committee on the disabled which was formed by the last Government after the 1980 election. Our mandate was to draw up a report and make recommendations in preparation for the International Year of the Disabled. While it is true, Mr. Speaker, that that committee made 130 recommendations to the Government, it is not factual to say that the previous Government implemented two-thirds of those recommendations. In fact, I want to point out to the House that that committee on the disabled summoned many Ministers from the previous Government before it to give a report on what they had done and what progress they had made toward implementing the recommendations of the report.
To say the very least, Mr. Speaker, the previous Government did not go much farther than making the precincts of Parliament accessible to the disabled. The only other thing it did was to give assurances that either the Minister or the Minister's Department were examining the committee's recommendations with a view to implementing them. I would be very happy to receive evidence to the contrary, but in my experience the previous Government did even less than the present Government is doing, and it is not doing all that much. I want to make that clear. I cannot sit in the House and listen to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence and not say something about them because what he has told the House is flim-flam. The previous Government did not do what the Member suggested that it did and I regret that very much.


Roland de Corneille: Were you on the committee that wrote the Obstacles Report?


Neil Young: The Hon. Member asked me if I was on the committee. If he listened to my opening remarks he would have heard me say that I was not only a member of the special committee on the disabled and the handicapped, which wrote the Obstacles Report, I was a member of the committee that brought subsequent reports.


Roland de Corneille: Did you sign your name to that?


Neil Young: Of course, I signed my name to that. I think the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence should get straight in his mind which reports he is talking about. I am talking about the committee reports.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) was not interrupted by the Hon. Member who is speaking now. The Member for Eglinton-Lawrence is heckling him and I think he
should listen to what the Member is saying. I would ask that the Chair insist upon that.


Neil Young: Excellent suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Chair tries to be patient with all Members of the House and reminds everyone that heckling consumes time. Perhaps the Member for Beaches may choose not to answer questions put to him.


Neil Young: 1 do not mind answering questions, Mr. Speaker, if they warrant a response. I would simply point out to the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence that the report he is referring to was not a report written by that special committee. It is a report written by the Liberal Government in response to the Obstacles Report. That special committee tore that response to shreds. We called witnesses before the committee. They were people who were disabled consumers. We asked them for their response to the Government's response to our report. In nearly every instance, the response we received from organizations like the Canadian Council of the Deaf, COPOH and a host of other disabled consumer organizations was that the Government did not do what it said it did.
The Government gave a response that was based more on a public relations exercise than in responding in real terms to the recommendations in that report. That is all I want to say on that subject because when we enter into debate in this House we should be concerned with facts, not on what someone would like to believe happened.
Let me deal with the Minister's statement. As I pointed out, the Minister is relatively new in that portfolio and I want to be charitable. I will say that at least the Minister made a report to the House, which previous Ministers have not done. I appreciate that response, rather than those we received from the previous Government. I appreciate the Minister giving us the opportunity to speak in the House on a matter of grave concern to a large percentage of the Canadian population who are disabled or handicapped. Ten per cent may be considered a rather conservative number but at least 10 per cent of the Canadian population are considered to be disabled or handicapped.
Transportation is very much a key to allowing disabled Canadians to participate fully in the mainstream of Canadian life. Employment is the number one key to making a disabled person a fully functional and integrated member of Canadian society but there is not much sense talking about creating jobs for disabled individuals unless we can provide the means for getting those people from their home to their workplace and back again. I am afraid that the Minister's proposals will not achieve that goal.
Unfortunately, today the Minister only gave more suggestions for study, apart from a couple of areas. I commend the Minister for setting up the pilot project in Newfoundland. That was a key demand from COPOH during the election campaign. The Government promised to do something about it and I am glad it has acted.
November 26, 1985

However, there are many other areas that should have been addressed more progressively and with greater leadership than what the Minister has done today. For example, there is absolutely no question that the disabled have not yet realized equality in transportation. Last weekend the executive of COPOH met in the City of Ottawa. At least two disabled members of that executive had difficulty with their air transportation. Air Canada gave one member, who came from Cape Breton to Ottawa, a hard time about getting on the aircraft simply because that person was disabled.
In the time I have remaining, I want to point out to the Minister that she did not talk about taxi service. There is absolutely nothing that requires a taxi service from an airport, which is regulated and licensed by the federal Government, to accommodate the needs of a disabled person. I would ask her to take that into consideration in her statement to the House.
We welcome the suggestion by the Minister that there will be an international conference in Vancouver next year. I do not know whether it is simply an oversight by the Minister, but she said that the groups that will be involved in that international conference will be experts from Government, industry and the academic community. 1 want to suggest strongly to the Minister that there are no other people who are more expert in this field than the disabled. They must be involved in that conference. That was the whole purpose of the International Year of the Disabled. They are the experts.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to consider that very seriously and come back to the House to give us the assurance that the disabled will be involved in that conference.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and responsibility to present a petition from residents of British Columbia who are very concerned about the existence of the Canadian Forces maritime experimental and test range in Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. They are concerned that the American Government policy of not declaring whether their vessels have nuclear weapons applies to Canada. They urge the House to call for a full public inquiry, with powers to investigate those concerns, before the present agreement on the test range is renegotiated.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present two groups of petitions. The first is from residents of Alberta who are expressing the same concerns as my colleague. They feel that there is a need for a public inquiry into the test range at Nanoose. They state that the inquiry should make recommendations before the agreement is renegotiated.
Child Care


Stanley J. Hovdebo: My second set of petitions is from a group from the Prince Albert constituency in Saskatchewan who call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and rescind unfair tax increases.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from some 150 residents of the City of Thunder Bay, primarily from my riding, who continue to protest the decision of the Government to deindex the universal family allowance and make other cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits. They see this as an unfair attack on women and families with children which will have the effect, by 1990, of making the poorest families worse off than they would be if indexation was continued. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate or to maintain the well-established indexation of family allowance.



CHILD CARE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations between the Parties and we have heard the statement of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with respect to the task force on child care.
The order of reference to which the Minister referred I now have. The agreement between the Parties was that the order of reference be now presented and passed without debate. 1 will read into the record the order of reference as follows:
That a special committee of the House of Commons, to be composed of seven Members of Parliament, to be appointed to act as a parliamentary task force on child care. The task force shall examine and report on the future of child care in Canada in the context of the changing needs of the Canadian family in today's society with particular reference to the following:
(1)	The requirements of children for care in parental or non-parental arrangements and the preferences of parents in this regard;
(2)	The role of the federal Government in child care in light of the shared responsibility for child care among parents, the private sector, the voluntary sector and governments;
(3)	Alternatives for future action by the federal Government: The alternatives proposed should take into account factors such as:
(a) The special circumstances of various families; including, although not exclusively, such factors as: marital status of parents, and economic circumstances of families, location, cultural background, disability of parent(j) or child.
(Z>) The financial implications for the Government of any initiatives which may be proposed including tax measures or other fiscal arrangements.

That the Special Committee, in carrying out its review, shall have all the powers given to Standing Committees by section 10(a) of Standing Order 70;
That the Special Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;

November 26, 1985
Order Paper Questions
That the Special Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada to hold hearings and receive the views and representations from interested groups and individuals and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the Special Committee;

That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the special committee is completed, that the committee shall report its finding by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and that it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table; that membership changes shall be made pursuant to Standing Order 70(6)(B).
That the special committee shall report no later than one year following the adoption of this Order.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 65(1), I wish to table in both official languages copies of notices of Ways and Means to amend the Income Tax Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 65(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of said motion.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Question No. 471 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Brisco: 1.	In (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d) 1984 (e) 1985 to date, how many times did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs calibrate or measure the capacity of the gasoline tank truck of the PetroCan bulk dealer in Trail, British Columbia?
2.	Were there any discrepancies noted in any one year and, if so, what was the meaning or interpretation and nature of the discrepancies?


Michel Côté: 1. (a) None. (b) None, (c) None.
(d)	Once, (e) None.
2. Yes. While the meter was found to be correct, each of the four compartments of the truck contained slightly less than the calibrations indicated on the markers located in the compartments. Repairs were made to the unit which was subsequently recalibrated and reverified as correct by the inspector.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)-Customs and Excise-Treatment of visitors at Edmonton International Airport; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-External Affairs-Extradition of United States citizens; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp); Visible Minorities-Japanese Canadians interned during World War II. [English]
May I also advise the House that pursuant to the new rules and because of the Ministers' statements, we will adjourn 60 minutes later tonight.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (without
November 26, 1985
[Stage Direction]
amendment) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) had the floor. As the Hon. Member is not present, is there another Hon. Member who wishes to enter the debate?


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. It is a pleasure for me to speak on the Bill today as its subject matter is especially important in my constituency of Mississauga North.
At last official count in the 1981 census, Mississauga North, with over 140,000 voters, was the second most populated riding in Canada. Indeed, between 1976 and 1981, total population in my riding increased by 39.1 per cent, nearly nine times the provincial growth rate of 4.4 per cent. During this same period, the population of voting age grew by 47.9 per cent compared with the Ontario figure of 9.9 per cent.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Mississauga North continues to grow in this same fashion, and it would come as no surprise to me if our upcoming census shows Mississauga North to be the most populated riding in Canada. While I would enjoy the opportunity to speak at further length about the reasons for and the advantages of such tremendous growth, I will save bragging about my riding for another opportunity, and come immediately to the matter at hand, Bill C-74.
This Bill is not one that has commanded a great deal of attention in the media. It seems our friends in the media have other priorities. It is my belief, however, that this is a very important piece of legislation which will shape the nature of the House of Commons, and even influence parliamentary procedure. The Bill guarantees that the House will retain its particular character. The Bill ensures that Members will not lose the influence they have, and it ensures that the Canadian parliamentary tradition will be effectively continued. It ensures the preservation of a system which is unique to Canada, while it accounts for growth and change in this still young nation. All said, Bill C-74 has not received its due share of public attention.
The ideas contained in the Bill are well founded in Canadian history, yet the impetus for this legislation comes from a modern day Government. In September, 1984, we were given a mandate for positive change. Our Government proposes changes in this Bill which have arisen from broad consultation, changes which will prevent unchecked, costly growth of Parliament.
Representation by population, or "rep by pop" as it is more commonly known, is an idea which has been central to Canadian parliamentary tradition. The necessity for fair and adequate regional representation has as well been a serious consideration for every Canadian Government dealing with this matter. Our first federal Government-and I remind the House that it was a Conservative Government-successfully dealt with all these considerations in 1867. In 1975, the
Representation Act, 1985
previous Government amended the Constitution Act, 1867, so that the number of Members of Parliament allotted to each province would be adjusted after each decennial census. Over the years, these adjustments have meant that the House of Commons is now filled to near capacity. Indeed, I would venture that the unchecked growth of the House would require the conversion of the opposition lobby to government benches. With the amount of activity, or might I say inactivity, in the opposition lobby, it might be put to better use if we converted it to government benches.
Rather than allowing the House to grow at an uncontrollable level, our Government has introduced a Bill which addresses the two important considerations of representation by population and fair regional representation. The Bill also means that the growth of the House will be restricted. In the next election, we propose the addition of 13 seats, bringing the number to 295. Thereafter, increases will be smaller. In 1991, we recommend 296 seats, and for the year 2001, we propose a House of 298 seats.
There has been some criticism of the Bill. However, it is my opinion that the Bill could not be more fair. The procedure for drafting the legislation was fair. We consulted all concerned parties to elicit public opinion. We published a White Paper on redistribution in June, 1985, which was subsequently referred for consideration to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. After careful consideration of the amendments contained in the White Paper, the committee reported favourably. The Bill is fair because it ensures that provinces with stable or declining populations will not lose seats in the House. In the Canadian system, the loss of seats has always engendered great concern. Since the Bill contains the proviso that a province will not lose its present number of seats, the necessity of fair and equitable representation is addressed.
The Bill is fair because it provides for more seats in areas of tremendous population growth, while it ensures that transitory population trends are not permanently reflected in the composition of the House. Our theory for redistribution is careful in accounting for transitory growth trends.
However, it is also important that the Bill is fair to Canadian taxpayers. Based upon 1984 figures, in the first redistribution after the Bill's passage, and even after accounting for the cost of the electoral boundaries readjustment commissions, it is estimated that Canadian taxpayers will save approximately $1 million. Indeed, if the previous legislation was to be left unaltered, the cost of Parliament would skyrocket. While we recognize the value of our own staff and of the House of Commons support staff, we all realize their and our expense. Under the terms of the existing legislation, the House would have 369 seats in the year 2001. Without doubt that would be an expensive proposition.
The Bill gives us the best of all worlds-areas of great population growth will enjoy increased representation in the House, unchecked growth of the House is restricted, and we save valuable tax dollars.
Finally, one of the unique and outstanding features of the Bill is the way in which it reforms certain procedures of the

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
electoral boundaries readjustment commissions. For example, the Bill permits, for the first time ever, Member of Parliament representation on the boundaries readjustment commissions. Second, the Bill allows realistic time limits for the work of the commissions. The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that he needs 30 months to report on boundaries readjustment. If the Bill goes through, he shall have his 30 months.
This brings me to my concluding point-urgency of passage. Time seems to fly more quickly in the political arena and, before we know it, another general election will be upon us. In order for the boundaries readjustment commissions to do a thorough job, and in order for the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare his report, the legislation must pass at the earliest possible opportunity. I am confident of the co-operation of the House in this respect.
In closing, it is my firm belief that this is a fair and just Bill. The Bill addresses the unique Canadian concerns of representation by population and regional representation. It ensures that the fundamental nature of the House of Commons is not altered. Most important, the Bill allows the population of Canada to be reflected in Parliament, while it ensures the continued effectiveness of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before putting the question to the House, I should like to draw its attention to a point of clarification as to Motions Nos. 2 and 3. Motion No. 2 seeks to delete lines 17 to 34 of Clause 2 of Bill 74 and to add some words, compared with Motion No. 3, presented by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), which seeks to delete lines 19 to 34, also of Clause 2. By voting on Motion No. 2, we therefore would not have to deal further with Motion No. 3, having settled the matter for all practical purposes.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We will now move to Motion No. 4. Earlier this day the Chair indicated that we would hear procedural argument on this motion. Therefore, the Chair will hear the arguments before the motion is moved.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-74, be amended in Clause 2 by striking line 34 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"of one, one other member.
4. Among the number of members assigned to Ontario, there shall be
assigned a minimum of 11 members to northern Ontario."
When I drafted my amendment, I asked myself what was the principle in the Bill. I wanted to ensure that the amendment was in line with the intent of the Bill-first, that it did not contravene the intent of the Bill and, second, that it did not go beyond what the Bill intended to do.
The purpose of the Bill is to establish for the next federal election electoral boundaries. Generally speaking, the Bill
wants to restructure the electoral boundaries map of Canada so that some provinces would get additional seats. Indeed, the Province of Ontario will end up with four more seats, the Province of British Columbia will end up with two more seats, and the remaining provinces will have the same number of seats as they presently have. My amendment does not interfere with the 99 seats which have been allotted to Ontario in the legislation. It indicates that that part of Ontario that is known as northern Ontario geographically and in common practice would maintain the 11 seats which that part of Ontario presently holds. We do not seek to add a greater number of seats to the Province of Ontario. We do not seek to reduce the number of seats in any other province. My amendment simply indicates that the 11 ridings in northern Ontario will be maintained.
I would suggest that this amendment falls well within the purpose and intent of the Bill. The intent of the Bill is to establish ridings which would return Members to the House of Commons at the next federal election. My amendment does not go beyond that principle. The principle of my amendment deals with the situation as it exists in the Province of Ontario. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that my amendment is therefore in order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the debate with regard to the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 4. This morning the Chair indicated that it would like to hear arguments with regard to Motions Nos. 4 and 5. It seems to me that Motion No. 4 put by the Hon. Member is very similar to my Motion No. 5 except that Motion No. 5 sets out the exact geographic locations involved in northern Ontario and the 11 seats that exist there. As well, it sets out the procedure for redistributing those seats within the geographical area of northern Ontario.
I would argue that these motions are in order. Motion No. 4 simply seeks to amend one clause of Bill C-74. It essentially applies the same principle to a large geographic area in northern Ontario which represents 80 per cent of the land mass of the Province of Ontario as is applied to Saskatchewan and other provinces which are provided with a floor for representation under Rule 2 of which we have just approved.
The principle of Motion No. 5 is essentially the same one that was adopted by the Electoral Boundaries Commission which identified northern Ontario as a geographical location and accepted the present number of Members. The Commission adopted a population average of 70,000 for the area as opposed to the 81,000 which has been adopted for the rest of the province. The amendment simply applies to redistribution within the Province of Ontario and does not infringe upon any redistribution taking place in other provinces. 1 would argue that Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are procedurally acceptable.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think my actions with respect to this Bill have demonstrated the fact that I am prepared to listen to reason-
November 26, 1985

able suggestions for amendments. The motions I have put before the House at report stage reflect that.
I have listened with great interest to the representations made vis-a-vis the attempt to bring forward amendments at this stage of the Bill. I think the Bill already addresses the concerns that have been expressed in the amendments brought forward by Hon. Members. However, that is not why I am rising now.
I do not think that there is any question that these amendments are clearly out of order according to the rulings in Beauchesne's. Let me express why this is the case. In the first place, the amendment put by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) must be rejected because its wording is too vague. The Hon. Member refers to an area described as northern Ontario. Depending on whether one lives in Barrie, North Toronto or London, one's perspective of northern Ontario may include quite a variety of places and descriptions. The vague description of northern Ontario is not a clearly defined geographical area. Therefore-


John R. Rodriguez: Wait till I send this out to those Tory ridings.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am speaking in technical terms. We all know that northern Ontario is an important part of the country. However, the fact is that it is not a legally defined geographic entity in any official atlas and therefore is incapable of definition.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) identified certain areas in northern Ontario which would be entitled to a certain number of seats. However, both amendments, as Your Honour pointed out at the beginning of debate on report stage, are out of order since they depart entirely from the principle set down in this legislation.
Let me simply remind Your Honour of the fact that the principle of this Bill and the Act which is being amended by this legislation was not that we in Parliament define the location or number of seats within any province. Rather, that responsibility has been delegated to electoral commissions. These two amendments purport to take away that responsibility which is delegated under Section 13 of the parent Act, an Act which is not before the House. That is the principle under which the legislation operates. There are delegations of authority to the Electoral Commissions in each province.
In this case, the amendments purport or attempt to create different rules for the Province of Ontario than those that exist for any other province. The changes proposed to this legislation create one set of rules for all provinces across the country. There is delegation of responsibility within each province to the electoral commissions. However, these amendments would significantly depart from that principle by designating certain things for northern Ontario or for electoral districts in northern Ontario.
If accepted by Your Honour, these amendments would be contrary to the purpose of this Bill which provides rules to apply generally to all provinces. Therefore, on the face of it,
Representation Act, 1985
notwithstanding the merits of the case, they clearly depart from the principles of the Bill before us today.
You will of course, Mr. Speaker, be aware of Citation 773.(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which indicates that an amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the Bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived. In conclusion, quite apart from the fact that we have dealt with the principles and objections that are contained within these suggested amendments, these amendments are clearly outside the scope of the legislation and contrary to the principles of the legislation. I would have to argue strongly with you, Mr. Speaker, that they are not in order. Having said that, however, there is no problem because the amendments I have brought forward are, in fact, dealt with and there will be equity for northern Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: After hearing the procedural arguments of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) as to the acceptability of Motion No. 4, and even though there is some doubt in the mind of the Chair as to its procedural acceptability, it is the Chair's position that the doubt should be to the benefit of the Hon. Member. The same remarks apply to Motion No. 5 put forward by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).
Having said that, the motions will be allowed to go forward, although I must indicate to the House that they will be debated together and voted on separately. Therefore, I will put the motions to the House.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-74, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 34 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"of one, one other member.
4. Among the number of members assigned to Ontario, there shall be assigned a minimum of eleven members to Northern Ontario."


Maurice Brydon Foster: November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on the fine, impartial wisdom of your ruling. There is a reason for moving the amendment which calls for a guarantee that the 11 seats in northern Ontario remain when the electoral boundaries map is drawn for the Province of Ontario.
Geographically, northern Ontario is a huge land mass with very little population. As a matter of fact the population has been declining. The experience in the past has been that when electoral boundaries maps are drawn and the hearings are held the commissioners are dealing with numbers. They have a floor and a ceiling. They have to create ridings between that floor and that ceiling to match the population of northern Ontario. As a result, we could have communities which are up to 800 to 900 miles apart falling within the same riding. The last time the electoral boundaries committee met to look at the electoral boundaries in Ontario there was a proposal with respect to the boundaries of the riding of Timiskaming coming into the riding of Nickel Belt and removing the community of Nickel Centre out of Nickel Belt and connecting it up to Timiskaming. This is a situation in which there was no historical or cultural relationship. There are great distances between the communities in the southern part of the riding compared with the northern part of the riding.
Not only would it be difficult for a Member of Parliament to serve such a riding, it would be difficult for his or her constituents to communicate effectively with the Member of Parliament. Indeed, I could get on to my bias and my horse and ride it. The fact is that the population in northern Ontario is declining. The decline closely parallels the decline in the resource sector. In fact, we have consistently argued that instead of reducing the number of voices in the legislatures, both provincial and federal, we should have more voices to balance the geographic and regional disparities which exist in that part of the province.
I am absolutely positive that if the commissioners were to look at the census figures at the present moment they would see that northern Ontario would suffer a loss of seats. 1 am absolutely sure of that. In fact, to do that would force the commissioners to look at wiping out a riding and bringing in groups from greater and greater distances to make up the nine or ten seats. I do not think that is fair to northern Ontario. The arguments end up like a dog trying to catch its tail. People say that if we can get more people to live in northern Ontario then we could have more seats. We have also heard that if we had more people living in the North we would have more industry. We know that is simply the old chicken and egg argument. It does not cut ice with us because we have experienced this. It seems to me we cannot apply a straight "rep by pop" application to northern Ontario. We have to look at the situation in terms of serving the people. That is what we have to look at- the quality of the service to the people. In fact, we have made these exceptions in the past.
I see the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) moving his head from right to left. We have made these types of exceptions. If one were to look at it one would see that Canada
is a study in exceptions. If representation by population were considered for Prince Edward Island then it ought not to have the number of seats which it now has. That includes all of the Atlantic region. However, because the Fathers of Confederation recognized that there were these anomalies in the country, and therefore the need to recognize those differences and to make sure the representation in the House reflected that, we do have a type of guarantee for parts of the country such as Prince Edward Island and other parts of Atlantic Canada. That is fair.
I argue in favour of the amendment which is before the House. It is only fair to the people of northern Ontario who are taxpayers and who deserve the same quality of service which a constituent living in downtown Toronto, the Beaches or some other southern riding deserves. It would not be a weakening of the electoral boundaries to guarantee northern Ontario its 11 seats. It seems to me it is a guarantee of participation in the democratic process.
I recommend the amendment to Members of the House. I am sure the Conservative Members who represent three ridings in northern Ontario would argue for the support of this amendment if they were here. I believe the three ridings are Timiskaming, Timmins-Chapleau and Nipissing. I ask these Members to try to impose this mesasure upon the Conservative Government. However, I am sure that when it comes time to vote they will want to vote it down. I wish to send this message out to all corners of northern Ontario. I want them to know that the Conservative Government is not prepared to give them a fair voice in this House. Those Hon. Members would be prepared to vote the amendments down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Well, the vote will come and we will see how you are going to vote. We are going to send back a copy of Hansard on that day to folks living in those ridings you presently hold so they will be able to see how fair the Tories are. I ask Hon. Members opposite, I appeal to their sense of fair play, to support this amendment. If they do not, then they will vote against it to their everlasting sorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Those Hon. Members laugh. They think it is funny.


Mr. St. Germain:: Even your own people think it is funny.


John R. Rodriguez: There are cases where a person who lives 300 miles away from his Member of Parliament, has a problem, and wants to see his Member of Parliament. The Member of Parliament is very busy but that person wants to have access to him. That is when the application will strike home. That is when the practical application of the Tories' denial of northern Ontario maintaining its 11 seats will strike home. The proof will be in the eating of this pudding.

I call upon Hon. Members of the Conservative Party not to be stampeded by their House Leader. I urge them to stand up for northern Ontario. Give us the guarantee of 11 seats. It doesn't take anything away from them but it allows the people of northern Ontario to have fair representation in the House of Commons.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I believe your ruling was excellent. It was fair and well reasoned. It was an important decision for the Chair in this House of Commons with regard to Bill C-74, the Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Bill. I think it is absolutely essential that these amendments which were put forward with respect to northern Ontario are accepted by the House of Commons because this Bill is really designed to restrict the growth of the House of Commons.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: It will in effect reduce the numbers of Members who will be provided to Ontario by six. It is interesting to hear Members opposite from the western provinces arguing for reduced representation. If the Hon. Member opposite who just spoke from his seat had really argued for the benefit of Alberta, he would have stated as soon as this Bill was introduced that it was unfair to Alberta because it reduced the representation to which Alberta was entitled.


Arnold John Malone: So what?


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Hon. Member says: "So what?" Does he not want to see Alberta have its proper representation? I certainly want to see northern Ontario have its proper representation because northern Ontario is a distinct geographical unit of some 88 per cent of the land mass of the province of Ontario. My constituency, which is of medium size by many standards, still encompasses 13,000 square miles and is over 500 miles long. Other constituencies such as Cochrane Superior, Kenora-Rainy River and Timiskaming are even larger. Those areas of Ontario want and deserve adequate representation in the form of at least 11 Members of Parliament.
I hope that Members opposite from northern Ontario-the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais), the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher) and the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha)-will come forward and lend their support. We are not doing anything in these amendments to take away from representation in other provinces. We are just saying that out of the 99 Members of Parliament, in the allocation of Ontario there should be at least 11 seats, one ninth, from northern Ontario. We have 88 per cent of the land mass but our population is not nearly as dense as it is, for example in Toronto.
These amendments provide that there will be at least 11 Members of Parliament to be a strong voice from the north in the Parliament of Canada. I think there is a precedent for this in the Ontario legislature brought in by the previous Conserva-
Representation Act, 1985
tive Government. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon, who is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), is a great admirer and adherent of that former Tory Government. It provided 16 seats in the provincial legislature out of 124 or 125 Members. Surely, that precedent is a good one to follow in the Parliament of Canada. We are a distinct geographical area within the province of Ontario and these amendments do not in any way infringe on the electoral arrangements in other provinces. They simply ask for an adequate representation in the Parliament of Canada for northern Ontario within the Ontario allocation.
I think as time goes on, Mr. Speaker, this will be proved to be very wise because constituents demand more services from Members. They want to see their Members of Parliament at community functions. They want to be able to deal on a personal level with Members of Parliament. A reduction in the number of Members from northern Ontario would make this task, which is already difficult, almost impossible.
If we examine the Bill as it was put forward by the President of the Privy Council, we see that the population rises from some 81,000 as proposed in the existing amalgam program to 87,000. This new average population in Ontario will keep rising with each redistribution in the future and it is obvious that the Bill before the House today, Bill C-74, will reduce by six Members the representation as proposed in the existing redistribution legislation. It is impossible to believe that at least one or two Members either in this redistribution or in the next will not be lost from northern Ontario.
I submit that one Member of Parliament can easily look after 80,000 or 90,000 people in Metropolitan Toronto where there are constituencies of a couple of square miles as opposed to the ridings in northern Ontario which have as a minimum, something like 13,000 square miles, as in the case of Algoma. I certainly hope that Hon. Members opposite, including the President of the Privy Council who is a gentleman, scholar and a great Parliamentarian, will see the fairness of this amendment because he grasped the principle and applied it to his own province of Saskatchewan. He said: "We want to have a floor under the representation from the province of Saskatchewan", and he has provided that floor with Rule No. 2 and it provides for 14 Members of Parliament from the province of Saskatchewan with a population of 968,000. This amendment does not demand the kind of fairness which our side is prepared to provide to Saskatchewan.
Because the population of northern Ontario is something around 800,000, we would certainly be entitled to more than 11 seats, perhaps, but we are asking the President of the Privy Council to provide the same fairness for northern Ontario as he has provided for the province of Saskatchewan and his own constituency. There again, you are dealing with very large spaces but not nearly as large a constituency as we see in northern Ontario. Yet this Bill provides a grandfather clause which in effect adds three seats to the number Saskatchewan would otherwise be eligible for. The same thing applies in Manitoba where the population is almost exactly one million people. That works out to 11.7 Members. The Bill provides a

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
floor by adding two more so that Manitoba gets 14 Members even though it has only about 200,000 more people than northern Ontario.
In the interest of fairness, not just for the western provinces as provided by the grandfather clause, I hope the Minister will want to apply the same principle to northern Ontario. He can come to northern Ontario and talk to the people in Sault Ste. Marie, the constituency of the Minister for International. Trade He can talk to the constituents of the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming and the Hon. Member for Nipissing. Ask them whether or not there should be a floor. I am sure the Minister would be persuaded that these amendments set out a fair and equitable and just regime for an important area of our country. Northern Ontario has provided great Members of Parliament in the past. It has sent us a former Prime Minister, Lester Pearson, as well as great Speakers and cabinet Ministers. Last but not least it has also provided great private Members like those here who support this resolution this afternoon. I hope we have persuaded the Minister to give leadership to the private Members on his side so that he will lend his support to at least Motion No. 5 and perhaps Motion No. 4 as well. I hope we have persuaded the Minister to see the fairness of this amendment just as he saw its principle applied to his home province of Saskatchewan in the Bill now before the House.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for introducing Motion No. 5. In principle Bill C-74 has a great deal to commend it. I particularly want to congratulate the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for improving the methodology of drawing constituency boundaries and giving the commissions much more latitude to take into account a community of interests and geographic size. Nevertheless, a special case can be made for the northern part of the Province of Ontario.


Arnold John Malone: Or anybody.


B. Keith Penner: No. That is where you are wrong. There is the voice of Toronto.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Nesbitt Horner: He is from Alberta.


B. Keith Penner: I want to tell the Government House Leader that that is exactly the problem we have had in northern Ontario. The Toronto attitude is northern Ontario is nothing but the poor backyard, the hinterland of the province. They go in and grab the resources, take them somewhere else, move the money back and forth from hand to hand, institution to institution, and that is it. That is why we are making a plea for northern Ontario as a special case. It is not true that every province has a northern part which is precisely the same as Ontario. First of all, Ontario is one of the biggest provinces. Most of the province is in the North. For a long time northern
Ontario has had special status in many respects. If anyone here happens to follow a national sport called curling, they will know that each province enters its own team in national competition called the Briar. Northern Ontario has always had its own curling team in the Briar and, more often than not, and my colleagues from the North can correct me, we have taken the Briar. Because it is the dominant part of the province, northern Ontario requires special protection under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act so that eventually we are not left with only three or four seats under redistribution.
We in northern Ontario have come to see the importance of federalism. On many occasions, when the voice of the North could not be heard in Toronto, we knew it could always be heard in this House. That is why you will find the strongest proponents of a strong federal system residing in northern Ontario. Let me go one step further and remind the House that what the Hon. Member for Algoma has done today is not some innovation which has never been heard of before. You will recall the election of 1979, if you want to call it that. It was kind of an abortive election because we were back at the polls again in 1980. However, that election was fought with new boundaries. Prior to that time, when the redistribution process had been completed, it was discovered that northern Ontario was going to lose part of its representation. One of the very large constituencies at that time was called Thunder Bay. That is not to be confused, I say to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), with the riding he now represents. It was at that time an entirely rural constituency. No part of the city was included. It was one of the largest constituencies in the country. As a result of redistribution, that constituency was done away with entirely. The House was quick to observe that a very grave injustice had been done to that great region of the country. In its wisdom the House sought to redress that grievance. One of the outstanding Government Members at that time, the late R. K. Andras, sensed the mood of the House. He knew this was the place where these injustices had to be corrected. Although the parliamentary timetable was completely filled up in the time leading up to the end of that session, he used political judgment and influence to convince the House Leader of the time to squeeze out a bit of time in which to redress this grievance of the people of northern Ontario. A Government Bill was introduced which was very similar in scope to the motion introduced today by the Hon. Member for Algoma. It was to give northern Ontario a floor representation. It did not ask for anything unreasonable, only to retain the level of representation which they had at that time.
The people of the north, in so many ways, regard themselves as being like a province. It is true that it is a region, but anyone who knows the spirit of northern Ontario knows that the people feel very much as though they are a province. In fact, there have been very vigorous movements in northern Ontario to actually create a Province of Northern Ontario. The name "Aurora" was once suggested. There was once a political party formed led by Mr. Ed Deibel from the commu-
November 26, 1985

nity of North Bay who proposed that there be a province formed, not separate from Confederation, but separate from the grasping hands of Toronto which wanted to take all of our riches and give us the dregs after they were through consuming the resources of the north.
There is a sense that we are a province. At that time we were asking for the same deal which the Province of Saskatchewan has in that it is guaranteed a floor. Although Saskatchewan is a full-fledged province in Confederation, we thought it was reasonable that we have the same thing. The late Hon. R. K. Andras, an outstanding Member of Parliament from Port Arthur, whose political leadership we miss, strengthened the political process in northern Ontario. He was so successful that at one time the Liberals held every seat across the north. That shows the kind of influence that that man had in northern Ontario and in the national life of the country.


Don Boudria: It will be like that after the next election, too.


B. Keith Penner: He introduced a Government Bill into the House. As I explained before, he had only a limited amount of time because the timetable was so full. We debated the Bill that afternoon and almost got it passed. It only required unanimous consent. Although the Members from Toronto were reluctant to agree, even they went along. Finally, only one lone Member, whose name and place of origin I will not mention, withheld consent. He is no longer here because he lost his seat in the infamous election of 1979. It could not have happened to a nicer guy. Because he withheld consent, the Bill did not pass and northern Ontario had to face a very serious disruption in the way in which it was represented in the House of Commons.
The Member for Algoma now wants to redress that grievance. He wants to correct something which should have been corrected in 1978. It failed only by the voice of one single Member, now departed from these august chambers. However, we are going to correct the injustice now. I am sure that Members opposite will help us. They will see that this is right. I know that the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) cannot help but support this. I want to commend, once more, the Member for Algoma for giving this kind of leadership to the rest of us in northern Ontario.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, I intervened in debate this morning. I want to tell you how pleased many of us on this side of the House were with the way in which you rendered your decision to allow both of these amendments to stand. I indicated this morning the importance of these amendments to northern Ontario. I also indicated why we in northern Ontario feel very strongly about the need for maintaining the present number of seats in order that we can do the work for our constituents in northern Ontario.
To digress somewhat from the remarks of the previous speaker, there are certain issues in our lives which transcend political philosophies and political parties. Frankly, I believe that this is one of those occasions. I would like to salute not
Representation Act, 1985
only the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), but also the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who put forward an amendment to ensure that the representatives of constituencies in northern Ontario, regardless of which political Party they represent, will be able to represent the people of northern Ontario. The degree of representation in northern Ontario is very important to all residents there. The test of the Conservative Government will be the decision made by the representatives of the Conservative Party who represent the constituencies of Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins-Chapleau and Timiskaming. We on this side of the House want to see whether they will represent the interests of their constituencies by voting with us, rather than with the Government, to ensure that the number of constituency bases remains the same in northern Ontario.
The Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) has been very eloquent this afternoon in his praise of previous Members of Parliament who represented constituencies in northern Ontario. He mentioned the late R. K. Andras who represented the riding of Thunder Bay. As well, the late C. D. Howe represented that area of northwestern Ontario for years in the House of Commons. We have had a history of very strong representatives from northern Ontario. It would be a mistake for the House of Commons to eliminate a seat in northern Ontario simply through the pursuit of representation by population.
As I indicated this morning, Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate in that I represent the only urban riding in northern Ontario. My job is easier in terms of the amount of travel that I have to do. I can represent my constituency of Sudbury by simply flying into one urban centre. Of the 11 constituencies in northern Ontario, I am the only one to be so fortunate. The other 10 Members of Parliament from northern Ontario have to travel through connecting airports to finally reach the geographic centre of their constituencies. From that point they have to travel by car, float plane, or train in order to service the interests of their constituents.
Whether we accept the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt or that put forward by the Hon. Member for Algoma, it matters little. The important factor is that we retain the same number of constituencies in northern Ontario. I am sure that I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the House when I say that we would welcome an intervention by the Conservative Members of Parliament who represent the constituencies of Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins-Chapleau, and Timiskaming. We would like them to stand up this afternoon and defend the interests of the constituents of northern Ontario. I hope that they will find it within the realm of possibility to vote against the Government's proposal. You know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, that in the quest for reform of the House of Commons it is very important to allow individual Members of Parliament to have a free vote. They should not be pressured by the Government or the Government House Leader. I am sure that he is not going to put the twist on their elbows, Mr. Speaker. Surely he would not do that.
There is only one Minister in the Government who represents the interests of northern Ontario, that is the Minister of

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
international Trade (Mr. Kelleher). The Minister, who represents the constituency of Sault Ste. Marie, has not been in the House to defend the interests of the constituents of northern Ontario.


Don Boudria: Shame.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I think it is encumbent upon-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I must call the Member to order and remind all Members of the House that it is not permitted to remark on the presence or absence of other Members within the Chamber.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I will accept that ruling from you, Mr. Speaker. But, my heavens, I think it is rather telling that that Member would be missing on an important afternoon-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -when we are debating the future of the northern Ontario constituency base. I will accept your ruling and simply indicate that this is a typical case which we have witnessed time after time. The Government back-benchers who are elected by their constituents to represent their interests have been amazingly silent. Why should we from northern Ontario express any more surprise this afternoon? The backbenchers in the Conservative Party have been silent on issues of family allowance and the deindexation of senior citizen pensions. While a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary from the Government may not support these amendments, surely one could hope that the two other individuals who are not in Cabinet or Parliamentary Secretaries could indicate on the floor of the House this afternoon their support for the two amendments put forward by the Member for Nickel Belt and the Member for Algoma so that we could prevent this kind of disembowelling, if I may say so, of the interests of the constituents of northern Ontario.
I am sure that once I sit down, other Members on this side of the House will indicate their support for these two amendments. However, it will come as no surprise to me that once again there will be the typical silence from Government back-benchers.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to join in the debate on this important matter. I want to recognize the insight and wisdom of the Speaker in ruling that the motions put forward by the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) are in order. I want to recognize in particular the foresight of my colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt, who is the dean of the northern Ontario caucus of the NDP, in putting this motion forward. Let me also recognize the support for regional realities in our province and country as displayed by the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) when he seconded the motion of my colleague from Nickel Belt.
Other Members have addressed the importance of recognizing the extent of the geography of northern Ontario and having it properly recognized and represented in the House of Commons. This was referred to eloquently by the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) in particular, who suffered cruelly in the redistribution of 1977. Of course, I might be of two minds about his praise for the Hon. Robert Andras, my worthy predecessor in what is now Thunder Bay-Nipigon. I am grateful that he was not running in the 1984 election, or things might have turned out somewhat different. Nonetheless, I want to recognize the efforts that have been made in maintaining representation for northern Ontario.
It was stated this morning that the part of the province north of the French River constitutes almost 88 per cent of the province. To have such a great geographic mass represented by only one-ninth of the Members of Parliament surely is a mean enough position to be in. I believe that our motion to maintain 11 Members in future Parliaments is surely appropriate to the geographic extent.
With respect to the sports history referred to by the Member for Cochrane-Superior, relating to the province of northern Ontario as recognized by the curlers of this country, I might note that it was not always that way. I believe it was approximately 1947 when the curlers in the City of Port Arthur and Fort William at the time and Sudbury looked at the situation carefully. The Sudbury curlers recognized the travel barriers they faced in going to Toronto to take part in provincial matches.
While that may have been manageable, the Lakehead curlers faced a different challenge. They were often in the Manitoba Briar playdowns and running into difficulties taking part in the semifinals in the City of Winnipeg. As the Hon. Member observed, they were fine curlers from northern Ontario and often represented Manitoba in the national Briar. Therefore, it proved to be desirable in these circumstances to create the province of northern Ontario and allow the curlers from that area of the province to compete in their own provincial play-down to send a team to the Briar. As the Hon. Member stated, we have done very well. We are certainly proud of A1 Hackner and his succession of rinks. We look forward to their winning the Briar and going to the Silver Broom once again this year.
We have seen the good sense that curlers have expressed in years past. We have seen the good sense which Members of Parliament are evincing this afternoon and have evinced in the past about the importance of providing adequate recognition for the northern part of the province. 1 appreciate this opportunity to emphasize the importance of this issue, without reiterating the arguments about the challenges facing Members because of the extent of that area.
However, in conclusion I should explain that we are not only talking about the difficulties facing Members in travelling throughout their constituencies. We are also concerned about the difficulties facing constituents in contacting their Members of Parliament in order to maintain that personal contact with MPs which Canadians deserve. It is extraordinarily difficult to maintain that contact in our ridings and a reduction in that
November 26, 1985

representation will be costly to the Canadian taxpayers in travel costs for MPs. It will also be difficult for constituents to have the kind of representation they want in northern Ontario. This motion is a stout declaration of the need for democracy and proper representation for the people of northern Ontario. I call on all Members to vote for these motions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about this Bill. Those who are watching may be under the impression that the Bill concerns the Briar and curling in Canada. Nothing could be further from the subject of this Bill and I know Your Honour is listening with great interest to the relevance in the debate today.
I suggest there is no Government that has been more sensitive to the needs, hope and aspirations of northern Ontario than the Government of which 1 have the privilege of serving. It is because of the representations made by Members in our caucus who are from northern Ontario that I and the Government have been persuaded to bring in the legislation which we see today. It does more for northern Ontario than virtually any other part of Canada.
This legislation opens more doors than any other legislation introduced by the previous administration. The Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) will be the first to stand in praise of this legislation because it is fair. It does not isolate northern Ontario or the Province of Ontario, but introduces rules which have a common application throughout the country. We have provisions in legislation which, for the first time, mandate the Electoral Boundaries Commission in each province to look at the question of geography manageability in terms of determining the constituencies in each province. Our course of action was not to say that northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, northern British Columbia or indeed any province shall have x number of seats. This legislation has been a response to the legitimate concerns of people who live in large, sparsely populated areas.
We have come up with a set of rules that apply across the country which will allow the electoral boundaries commissioners to come to conclusions-


John R. Rodriguez: We have been that route before.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am disappointed at the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I sat in absolute silence and astonishment, mainly absolute silence when he spoke, because I thought it was important in this House to respect people who put points of view forward. 1 am putting forward what I think is a very reasoned point of view-


Mr. Blaikie:: You are a statesman, are you?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -for people in northern Ontario and across the country. I know the people of northern Ontario would not want to be singled out, by having a law that, say, comes out of
Representation Act, 1985
Toronto. They want a law with equity and fairness across the board. I am glad to have the deputy whip of the Liberal Party here in support of the proposition that I am bringing forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Here is a man with common sense and exceptional perspicuity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is in the provisions brought forward in the Bill a more than adequate response to concerns expressed by Members such as the Hon. Member for Algoma and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


George Albert Proud: Where?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Quite apart from the fact that we have addressed ourselves to the procedural matter, which is now a matter of record and you have made your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we also have an additional amendment taking off any cap on the number of seats and the representation available in growing provinces. This impacts in a very positive way on the Province of Ontario, Ontario being one of the major beneficiaries when it comes to the amendments brought forward.
We have the combination of allowing the full number of seats to flow to a growing province and a mandate to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that the commissioners must take into account the whole question of geographic manageability. What could be more fair and even-handed? Because I received such excellent representations from my colleagues in northern Ontario I was persuaded the amendments should be brought forward. We have addressed the issue.
I appeal to opposition Members. I know during the course of debate within committee that this matter was discussed at some length. I had the opportunity when I was there to deal with the matter with the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). We looked at various ways to deal with the problem of sparsely populated areas in provinces.
The principle that I want in this Bill is one to which 1 alluded in the procedural argument. I do not want us to depart from the very good principle of having independent commissions sitting down, and looking at the demographics in each province to determine on the basis of the guidelines we have established that certain boundaries are appropriate within a province. I do not want to substitute the wisdom of the Government of the day, as it were, for the independent commissions by saying that we are going to declare boundaries should be such and such. The difficulty and the principle involved is one which I think we have all accepted, that the independent commission is the route to go.
If we are going to have a situation where the Government of the day determines boundaries which, with the greatest respect, is what is being suggested here, notwithstanding the

November 26, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
ebb and flow of population, a special rule for a particular part will-


B. Keith Penner: What about Saskatchewan?


John R. Rodriguez: And Prince Edward Island?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say the principle here is the allocation in each province and it is a matter that is within the discretion and certain guidelines of the Commission. That is an important principle, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member will know that when he says Saskatchewan has a set of rules, I am sure he would want to have those rules apply to his own province, not to have exceptional rules for the Province of Ontario. That is, unfortunately, the result of the suggestion he makes in the course of debate.


B. Keith Penner: That is wrong.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say that because I have great respect for the Hon. Member. He has traditionally spoken on behalf of his part of the province, northern Ontario, with great effect. I know that his sense of fairness will dictate his understanding of my position that I think the rules should apply right across the board to all provinces. We should not start saying that Ontario is a special situation. The next thing we will make Saskatchewan a special situation. I know people in Saskatchewan would not want to have a different rule than the one that applies across the board to other provinces. That is what motivates me in this legislation.
We have addressed this matter in the amendments we have brought forward, and it would be outside of the principle that I think we have accepted universally, regardless of Party, that the Electoral Boundaries Commission should have that independence and not be dictated to by any Government of this day or of a future day. They should have that independence. Regretfully 1 have to say the amendments are not acceptable from the Government's point of view.
We are addressing, and I think we will accomplish the results of what the Hon. Member for Algoma and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt have suggested. More important, we want to make sure that what is done is done on a sound principle, a principle from which we will not deviate.
I simply say to Hon. Members that the suggestion is very tempting that we should have a particular set of rules for the Province of Ontario, but I ask Members to take that proposition forward at a time in the future. We could say: "Here is the principle now. We made this arrangement that Ontario in this case is a special instance and in terms of electoral boundaries"-


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a dangerous precedent. I commend opposition to this matter to all Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this very important matter.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


George Albert Proud: I understood that the Minister spoke for the full length of time. Would you not alternate Parties? How would you decide, Sir?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) points out that maybe the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) exceeded his time. He did not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It may have seemed a long time to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis as often is the case in this House depending on which side one sits and on who is speaking.
I indicated that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to speak. We are trying to alternate in terms of numbers and speakers from all Parties. Members on the Government side have not spoken as often as Members of both opposition Parties in this debate up until now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Albert Proud: Call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is not yet six o'clock. May I remind Members that they should reserve their manifestations of joy when they are deserved.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I find that every time I rise to speak, it is an emotional thing with the Opposition. I appreciate the opportunity to address some very well reasoned words to the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I appreciate that it is an important matter which the Chair feels should be decided by the House. I think we are ready to do that, at some point later on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am very sorry to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. [Translation]
It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
November 26, 1985


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved: that Bill C-252, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act (estimates), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank my colleagues who will speak on the Bill as well this evening. As we all know, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now over an hour late. I appreciate those Hon. Members taking the time to stay and support the particular Bill. Also, at the outset, I want to say that Bill C-252 concerns the position of the Administrator of the House, not especially the person of the Administrator of the House.
The purpose of my Bill is very simple. It is outlined in the opening pages of the Bill under "explanatory notes". The purpose is to add the Administrator to those officers of the House of Commons who are responsible for preparing the estimates of the sums required for the House. The administration of the House of Commons has evolved from its inception in 1867. However, there are in fact a number of the 1867 rules still in effect. There were very few changes and no studies to speak of until 1964. The study which took place that year made, among others, three statements worth repeating. The first was:
The Clerk has had to spend a disproportionately large amount of his time in dealing with administrative and personnel matters.
The second was:
The study brought to light some 170 specific problems in the administration of the House of Commons.
Finally, and I quote again:
What is clearly needed is a revised structure which includes positions for administrators who have the time, the skill, and the authority to deal effectively with administrative and personnel problems.
For reasons which are slightly obscure now, this last recommendation was never carried out.
In 1975, a report entitled: The State of Administration in the Canadian House of Commons had the following to say:
If we look at the changes which have taken place in the administration of the House of Commons since 1867, we see that very few major changes have been introduced.
Let me now read a few quotes from the report of the Auditor General undertaken in 1979 and reported in 1980. Speaking of the heavy responsibilities of the then Clerk, Mr. Alistair Fraser, the report said that he had to spend "a disproportionately large amount of time on administrative and personnel matters". The report went on to outline, as a major deficiency, "the lack of a clear separation between the mainstreams of activities in the House-procedural duties and administrative responsibilities-resulting in the absence of
House of Commons Act
clearly defined administrative mandates, organizational relationships and delegations of authority". The last quote from the same report, where the Auditor General's major recommendation to solve one of the fundamental problems identified in 1964 but left unresolved, was to "establish the position of Administrator to co-ordinate and direct the administrative functions of the House of Commons".
Although 1 will be quoting further from these and other reports to support my Bill, I want to ask Members in the House to hark back to the statements attributed to the former Speaker Lloyd Francis last July, regarding the former administration of the House of Commons. Mr. Francis, in my opinion, did not intend that those comments become public then and, also in my opinion, they would probably have been better left unsaid. However, notwithstanding that, I can tell the House that leaving aside the more spectacular quotes which reached the press, the situation was far worse than outlined. Just as it was inappropriate that the details be divulged last July, nothing would be gained from my reciting them now.
In an earlier political life, I had undertaken a major change of staff and direction in the City of Belleville, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I had some idea of the problems which could be encountered, and I was part of the Management and Members' Services Committee which requested the then Speaker, Mr. Jerome, undertake an in-depth study of the management of the House of Commons. The decision to ask the Auditor General to do the study was that of the Speaker, but his support came from the Members' Services Committee in 1978.
I am sure that all will recall the seriously confused political situation which existed in Canada during that short period of time. The Progressive Conservative Government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), lasted only nine months. During that time, Mr. Speaker Jerome accepted the interim report of the Auditor General. In his comments to the House, he said:
To my knowledge, no Speaker has ever been chosen on the basis of administrative expertise-neither has the Clerk of the House nor the Sergeant-at-Arms with whom the Speaker shares these duties-and yet, we have neither comptroller nor professional administrator within the ranks of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker Jerome then undertook to put in place an interim Administrator to begin the clean-up, and he accepted full responsibility for doing so. On behalf of the Government of the day, the late Hon. Walter Baker said:
I say on behalf of the Government that we support the action you have taken with respect to this matter.
That Government was, as I said, short-lived, and Speaker Sauve, in the chair of the thirty-second Parliament, set out to continue the work started by Speaker Jerome. She undertook to change the person of the Administrator who, like his predecessor, faced enormous obstacles. Employees viewed him as an external factor unnecessarily disrupting their lives, and Members quickly sided with employees whom they had known for many years. However, with the full support of the Speaker

November 26, 1985
House of Commons Act
and the Clerk of the day, together with knowledgeable Members of Parliament, the job was undertaken.
Let me now look at some of the results. During that period of time, some 376 administrative positions were eliminated and 94 new ones created. However, during the period, not a single full-time employee of the House was fired or laid off in the effort to reduce costs. Of the 94 new ones, a breakdown should be helpful-personnel, which had been terribly neglected over the years, received 29; the Table Research Branch, 16; computer and electronic services, 27; and miscellaneous, 22, including the Clerk, three, the Administrator, five and the Sergeant-at-Arms, 6. As important, or perhaps more so, is the fact that in the five years from 1980 to 1985, over 500 competitions took place, something that had never happened in the House of Commons previously. As a result of the competitions, 232 employees on staff were promoted and another 241 were promoted or reclassified as a result of ongoing personnel changes.
At the height of the time when questions were being raised about the ethics and the propriety of having an Administrator in the House of Commons, in 1983, the Auditor General undertook a comprehensive follow-up audit of the 1980 report. He said:
The House of Commons now has a comprehensive and well organized financial management operation; excellent briefing materials are provided to members and timely and practical financial reports are given to both Members and House managers. We receive positive feed-back from operating managers on the assistance and support provided by the Comptroller's office.
In short, the staff were even then settling down to enjoy the benefits of good administration, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of Members who pay attention to the administrative system that provides their support services are happy with the results.
Budgets for the operation of the House of Commons during this period when the new Administrator was beginning his duties reflected the expertise of his office. Despite the fact that Members were receiving more and better services than ever before, the annual increase in the budget set aside for the House of Commons was 5 per cent or less. Even though with rampant inflation Government Departments were increasing budgets by 15 per cent to 20 per cent, the House of Commons budget fell below the inflation rate by a large measure.
To outline now all the improved benefits which Members received during this period would take more time than I have at my disposal. Suffice it to say that over 80 per cent of the requests made by the Members' Services Committee were accommodated within the lessened budget. I could also spend more than the time allotted to me discussing and describing the OASIS local area network which has put Members in the position of having the finest electronic support program of any legislature in the world. All of this was accomplished in the period of time I mentioned of lower budgets and clearer administrative services.
While there are always new ideas to be presented for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services and the Board of Internal Economy, either for the administration of the House or for the services offered to Members, the major reforms recommended by the Auditor General in 1980 are now in place. Most in fact have been in place for a number of years and people have adjusted to and now approve of them. Most have no wish to return to the good old days, particularly if they experienced them firsthand. The Chairman of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), reflected the view of many of his colleagues when he declared the following:
We are now the best paid and supported Parliament in the western world.
To a degree, we have broken new ground in the administration of the House of Commons in Canada, but not entirely. The Province of Ontario has had a similar administrative organization since 1976. Australia has had a similar arrangement since 1954. In New Zealand, a Bill has recently passed establishing the position of general manager to be responsible for administrative services. Two quotes from the Hansard of the New Zealand House during the debate on that Bill might be of interest. I quote the following from New Zealand Hansard:
The rationale behind those changes is to allow the Clerk of the House to concentrate on the smooth running of the House and the important constitutional functions that devolve on the Clerk's office in Parliament. The Clerk's counterpart on the administrative side will exercise a full-time managerial function-thus improving the support services provided to Members of Parliament.
I go on to quote from the New Zealand Hansard:
There is a great deal more administration in this building than there was formerly and I think it is fair to say-without casting any adverse reflections on anyone who has been responsible in the past-that there has been a lack of management services here that needs to be remedied.
Finally, a few years ago the British House had placed before it a recommendation that all the administration be put under the supervision of the Clerk. It is interesting to note that a committee of Members of the British House of Commons rejected that recommendation saying that the plan was simply not workable and would destroy the ability of the Clerk to perform his procedural duties.
In closing, let me say that in the last five years the need to add the position of the Administrator to the Standing Orders and the House of Commons Act has been supported by three Speakers-I cannot, of course, ask the current Speaker to offer an opinion regarding a matter before the House-three Attorneys General, two Clerks and most MPs who have any knowledge of the administration of the House of Commons. This form of administration is either in place or is being carried out in other legislative bodies throughout the western world. The fact of the Administrator in the Canadian House of Commons has existed since 1980. The time has come to include that fact in legislation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-252 this afternoon. I intend to speak against
November 26, 1985

the Bill. I think it is a bad Bill and that it is wrong. I intend to talk it out if I have the opportunity to do so. I intend to talk against it and defeat it. I would filibuster it if it were possible.


Arnold John Malone: That sounds like you.


Don Boudria: I say this as a Member of the House of Commons and as a former employee of the House of Commons. Those Members who are concerned with how Parliament should work should, in my view, all be greatly concerned and should all work to defeat this particular Bill.


Arnold John Malone: Sounds like a Liberal.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member is right. I do sound like a Liberal. I believe that Parliament is supreme. I believe that Parliament should be supreme and that no structure should ever exist to take anything away from the supremacy of Parliament. The Hon. Member across the way would like to say that that is a Liberal principle. I would not have taken that credit myself, but now that he has said it, I will accept it on behalf of myself and hopefully some of my colleagues.
The whole principle of the supremacy of Parliament came to light very recently in a very particular way during discussions on Bill C-45, an Act to grant certain rights and privileges to the employees of this institution. It became quite evident that the majority of Members did not want to give the right to strike to the employees of the House of Commons because it was the view of some that by giving them that right, people outside the Chamber would be able to dictate whether or not Parliament could function. In other words, they argued that it took away from the supremacy of Parliament. I do not happen to think that that was a very legitimate concern at that time because we could designate certain employees as essential and proceed without the rest thus giving them their full rights. However, we are still in the process of debating that particular legislation. It was a concern that was expressed by a great many Members of the House.
I am of the belief that the senior servants of the House should report to the Clerk and that the Clerk should report to the Speaker. With that structure, it is my view that the servants of the House are the employees of the House and not the masters of the House. I believe that it is important for us as legislators to considre that. I will not claim that I am the author of that maxim. However, let me cite Citation No. 13 from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
(1)	Within the ambit of its own rules, the House itself may proceed as it chooses; it is a common practice for the House to ignore its own rules by unanimous consent. Thus, bills may be passed through all their stages in one day, or the House may decide to alter its normal order of business or its adjournment hour as it sees fit.
(2)	The House is perfectly able to give consent to set aside its Standing Orders and to give its unanimous consent to waive procedural requirements and precedents concerning notice and things of that sort.
In other words, the House and only the House can be the master of the House of Commons.
Let me continue by quoting from Erskine May. At page 207 it states:
House of Commons Act
The law of Parliament provides the framework for, and determines the nature of, Parliamentary procedure, which consists of the rules and arrangements made by either House for discharging its constitutional functions within that framework.
The principal distinction for practical purposes between parliamentary law and procedure is that any change in the law of Parliament can only be effected by statute, whereas either House is free to modify its own procedure by its independent action; and that for the regulation of procedure recourse is not had to statute except for the purpose of effecting similar procedural changes in both Houses, or of co-ordinating the rules of procedure to changes in the law of Parliament.
In other words, it is an indication that Parliament has to be supreme.
There is another reason for the House not giving consideration to Bill C-252. I fundamentally disagree with the Hon. Member who proposes the Bill who said that it has wide support and has had wide support from Members in the past.


John Raymond Ellis: I said from knowledgeable Members.


Don Boudria: I refer the Hon. Member to the Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons which the Hon. Member quoted himself. Even if the Hon. Member disagrees with what I have to say today I hope he will consider the opinions which were unanimously adopted by the House in order for the House to function. 1 would like to quote from Chapter VIII of the report under the title Administrative Reform which states:
We believe the legitimate right of members to control the House of Commons should be reinforced. For this reason our First Report proposed a Board of Internal Economy.
Further on, in the same chapter the report states:
Members must not only run the House, they must feel that they are in charge. We place a high priority on restoring the pre-eminence of the House of Commons and of proceedings in the Chamber.
What we glean from the report is that the role of Members in giving direction to the House and how it is to be run should be increased and not decreased.
As I indicated earlier on I think that there should be only one senior officer of the House and that should be the Clerk of the House. I would like to read further from the report in this regard which states:
The role of the Clerk of the House of Commons should be one of leadership and inspiration for all employees of the House. For this reason the Clerk of the House must be, and be seen to be, the principal permanent officer of the House, accountable to it, and its bodies, for operations of the House of Commons.
The committee recommends that the role of the Clerk should be one of leadership. That means first-in charge.
I am sure all Hon. Members have noted by now that, indeed, the committee said something in its report quite different from what we heard earlier today. The special committee also suggested that the role of the Board of Internal Economy be increased. It suggested that the board should be structured having the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, two members of the Queen's Privy Council, the Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and two other ordinary Members sit on the board. I presume the Hon. Member opposite agrees with this recom-

November 26, 1985
House of Commons Act
mendation since he voted for it when Bill C-63 was adopted on June 27, 1985. There was provision in that Bill for an independent secretariat for the Board of Internal Economy. This would ensure that the Board of Internal Economy would be run as a management team and that its decisions would not be influenced in any way by any forces other than those of the Members of the House of Commons. This is why there was provision for a secretariat. As far as I know, the structure is not yet in place. If we have time this afternoon to debate anything it should be the establishment of just that.
1 am worried about any Bill which wants us to go in the opposite direction to that suggested by the Special Committee on Reform. Notwithstanding the fact that there may well be a need for someone to administer the House, I do not believe we should be structuring anything so as to afford the House and its principal officer three Deputy Ministers. If having a tri-umverate to run a ministry, or any place, was in order then why is it Ministers have only one Deputy Minister and not three? Ministers have much larger departments than that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is well known that there should be one Deputy Minister, one person in charge who reports to the elected officials. That is the way all Government departments are structured. Therefore, I believe that strengthening the principle advocated in the Third Report of the Special Committee with respect to the senior person, the person in the role of leadership, being the Clerk of the House reporting to the Speaker of the House should be followed. That structure was recommended and unanimously adopted. It is the proper way for us to go. To move in a diametrically opposite direction at this time for whatever reason is totally unjustified.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what we have to gain by putting the kind of structure in place proposed by the Hon. Member in his Bill. It certainly is not because a parliamentary committee recommended a similar formula, and it certainly is not because a number of reports have indicated that we are to have three, what I would consider to be assistant deputy ministers, to run the House of Commons.
If the Hon. Member cannot find any better support for his proposal than the references he gave us earlier today, well, Mr. Speaker, I must say I still abide by my initial decision to vote against his proposal and talk out the Bill.

The Hon. Member has indicated to us how some services on Parliament Hill have tremendously improved. Those were the words he used. Some services may have improved. I have two television sets in my office. Like most people I can only watch one at a time. However, there are two there because that is the way the system works. One wonders whether or not some improvements are necessary. I have a machine in my constituency office with a little printer on it which types out press releases if I so desire. Again, I am sure it is very useful although I have never used it.
On the other hand, we have a structure which in my view is very cumbersome. Notwithstanding the fact that we had to improve certain items, we have destroyed many things in our quest for improvement. The Hon. Member opposite says that no employees were fired in the process of improving the House. I am not sure what is meant by "fired" in his terms. But let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that many employees left not of their own accord. Perhaps people would not call that "firing" necessarily, but some employees who would have preferred to stay, are no longer here. I will put it in those terms.
We have all these gadgets, the so-called improvements, including these excellent briefing materials which the Hon. Member opposite described for us earlier. Yet I asked a messenger in my office to bring a cardboard box to my car so I could bring it to my constituency office, only to be told that because of all these regulations he could only go as far as the door. I had to go outside and get my car from the parking lot and bring it back to the door so he could put the box into the car. I answered very properly that if I had to go outside to get my car, I might just as well bring the box with me and, therefore, I did not need the messenger. The messenger explained to me, and of course I believe him because I know it is true, that this is the way the system works. These are the guidelines with which people in this building have to live. My request did not qualify under a number or kind of delivery.
As much as our system is apparently so improved, and I do not doubt in certain ways it may be better than it was before, let us not believe that everything which has been done in those so-called improvements has been good for the staff or even for Hon. Members of the House of Commons.
To change something means that it is changed, but it does not necessarily mean that it is better. To make the changes advocated in this Bill to amend the House of Commons Act is certainly just one of those examples. It is a change for the purpose of making a change, with plenty of proof that nothing or very little could be better and, in my view, far more could be worse than what it is now.
I ask all Hon. Members to seriously consider the implications of effectively placing another person at a deputy minister level in this House of Commons. I think there should be only one. There are presently two. We should not have three.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have read the legislation introduced by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis). I have had the opportunity to examine it for some time now. 1 do not see it as the almost Machiavellian plot which the previous speaker from the Liberal Party seemed to indicate. I think there are some matters which have been in dispute over the years in this House of Commons. There have been questions about the administration of the House of Commons and as someone who has sat on the Committee of Management and Members' Services for the last year, I can say that I certainly have had the opportunity to disagree with the administrator just as I have had occasion to disagree with the decisions of the Sergeant-at-Arms and occa-
November 26, 1985

sionally with the Clerks who have decided against me on some occasions in the past. I do not mean to indicate that that is a particular reason for being either in favour of or against this particular legislation.
I do not want to see us with three Deputy Ministers, but I do not think that is the main point behind this particular legislation. I suspect that if we are dealing with staffing levels and things of that nature, it can be dealt with in committee and discussed in terms of setting the budgets for the House itself.
My particular reason for liking the legislation before us and for wanting us to view it in more depth in a legislative committee-which is what would happen if the Government were in a position to allow this to go to committee-is that 1 think it recognizes the de facto situation in the House of Commons at the present time.
All three Parties on the Committee of Management and Members' Services expect the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Administrator and, on occasion, the Clerk to come before it. So there is that recognition that there are three distinct roles within the administration of the House of Commons. For that matter, many of the things the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party brought up in his speech are under the direct responsibility of the Administrator at the present time. I would think it only reasonable that the person who is directly responsible should be preparing those estimates for us.
I do not believe we have to go through a list of whether the telephones work or whether one Hon. Member happens to need a computer in his office as opposed to someone who comes from a riding which is, in my case, 2,000 miles away. The ability to get hard copy material back and forth from my riding office is an advantage to me, but I really do not think that type of, if I may call it, petty argument is really necessary to bring before this House. Each riding is different. That is something we spent the whole day talking about. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) rose earlier on a previous Bill and made that very plain. What someone in the environs of Ottawa may need is obviously different from what someone in northern Ontario, Winnipeg, or northern Manitoba would need, and definitely different from the needs of someone representing a constituency in Alberta or British Columbia.
1 believe that in looking at this legislation we should not be bringing those types of matters to bear. Instead, we should be looking at how we want the House to be administered and what controls we want over the House. We should also be looking at what is the exact role of the Board of Internal Economy. That is something which can be considered in dealing with this legislation in committee. That is one of the reasons I would like to see this legislation go forward.
I will not be speaking very long on the legislation as it is specifically before us. I do want to say something in reaction to the Hon. Member who introduced the legislation. I must say that there were parts of his speech with which I was in disagreement. There are still a number of problems in the House of Commons.
House of Commons Act
Another piece of legislation with which we are dealing at this time is Bill C-45, regarding the collective bargaining rights of people who work on the Hill. Many Hon. Members who are presently in the House were involved in debate on this Bill and it has been brought out that there are a number of problems which still exist. There are a number of problems dealing with classification, staffing levels and hiring procedures. Those problems still exist. But that is not the particular subject of this legislation. That is something which we in this House have to deal with and, hopefully, the Government will be moving forward to help us in that endeavour.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I would like this legislation sent to a committee where we can study it in more depth.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-252 introduced by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis). First let me say that I will not be supporting the Bill in principle. I would like to point out, however, that I do not feel it is a bad Bill. The only thing I question is the timing of it.
I would like to speak today about basically three points; the effects which the McGrath Committee Report on Parliamentary Reform will have on this particular House and how we should be looking at that as Parliamentarians after the great amount of effort and dedication was put into this report. I would also like to speak about the Board of Internal Economy, of which I have been privileged to become one of the commissioners. I would also like to discuss Bill C-63.
Bill C-252, as presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings, recommends that we bring about change. There is nothing wrong with change, but change for the sake of change becomes very dangerous when dealing with this institution. I do not believe that he brought this Bill in merely for the sake of change. I am sure he brought it in to bring about improvements in the administration of this House. I want to focus on the improved conditions that we on Parliament Hill have provided for the staff, who are of prime importance for MPs and to the ultimate benefit of the taxpayer, the people we serve.
I agree with the Hon. Member that we must maintain a high standard of integrity. We also must maintain a high standard of performance. That can only be attained by having the tools to work with. On June 27, 1985, this Government presented Bill C-63 to this House. That Bill did not make the changes recommended here today. I do not know why it was not discussed at that time. However, Bill C-63 is excellent legislation. It gave us a new Board of Internal Economy which encompasses all Parties in the House and allows private Members to participate in the decision-making process regarding Parliament Hill. Prior to this, the Board was composed of the Speaker and two Members, generally Privy Counsellors. With the inception of the Board-


John Raymond Ellis: Four Members.

November 26, 1985
House of Commons Act


Gerry St. Germain: I am informed that there were four Members on the Board previously. However, private Members were not represented. Since the inception of certain recommendations from the McGrath Report every Member in this House has a voice on this issue. It also gave Members the opportunity to raise questions concerning the management of the House through a designated member of the Board. That is a great improvement. It allows Members to participate in the day-to-day operations of Parliament Hill.
The Board was also to establish a secretariat. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) made mention of the fact that we had not as yet named a secretariat. I want to point out that we are working in that direction but we have not as yet met often enough to resolve the question of the direction in which we should be going with the administration or financial management of this institution. We have met on merely three occasions. However, I can assure all Members that a secretariat will be chosen and it will be answerable to Members in this House. We as a Board of Internal Economy will provide the guidance required for our staff, whether they be administrative or anything else, because ultimately they answer to us.
This House commissioned the McGrath committee report concerning parliamentary reform. As I pointed out, they covered numerous aspects of the operations of Parliament Hill as well as procedures in the House. I honestly believe that we must give this report full consideration before we enter into further legislative or administrative changes. As the Right Hon. Prime Minister has said on so many occasions, it is a tremendous report in all aspects. It not only makes numerous excellent recommendations but, more importantly, it represents all Members of the House.
I honestly believe as well that were we to allow this Bill to proceed we would virtually usurp the power of the new Board of Internal Economy established by this House. I am not saying that it will not happen that the Board may deem it suitable to make certain recommendations in line with what the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings has put forward, but I would not want to be too hasty in going in that particular direction.
The Board is in its infancy. We are discussing numerous aspects of change which would improve the plight of a number of groups in this operation. Having been a Member and president of a trade union, I feel it is important that each Member of our staff be given full consideration and as many rights as humanly possible, while at the same time maintaining the high standards which have always existed in Parliament.
The new legislative committees we have established are, as well, something which the Board is studying. Here again we have something in its infancy, something very new to Parliament, and this, along with other innovations, should be dealt with in an orderly fashion, one by one. I know that the administration aspect will be dealt with as fairly and judiciously as possible.
There are other Members who wish to speak on this subject. Without a doubt, I, as a Commissioner of the Board of Internal Economy and Member of Parliament, feel that we cannot stand still. We must continue to try to focus our attention on improving conditions for Members of Parliament and for all of those who work on Parliament Hill. The eventual outcome will be a benefit to all Canadians, not only to those of us here, but to those whom we serve.
I would like to conclude my remarks by asking the House to consider delaying, for a short period of time, its decision on this very important matter and to allow those of us who have been designated to consider improvement to the financial and administrative aspects of the House, and to look at the entire program we must deal with on the Hill, prior to coming forward with changed legislation of this nature.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have looked with great care at Bill C-252 in the name of the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), who is Vice-Chairman of the Management and Members' Services Committee. I must say that on the surface the Bill appears to be quite inoffensive, even innocuous. All it is asking is that the administrator be allowed to prepare, table, and defend his own estimates. However, there is a subtlety in this Bill which has been alluded to by my hon. friend for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), and by my hon. friend on the Government side who has just spoken. The subtlety is that the Bill is creating a new officer of the House, a third officer of the House in addition to the two who have traditionally been in charge; namely, the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms.


George Albert Proud: It's about time.


B. Keith Penner: The Chairman of the Management and Members' Services Committee is here and has kindly allowed me to use up the remaining time. He indicated to me that if he were speaking on this Bill he would probably be in favour of it, but with reservations. I suppose that is not a bad position to be in. I would put my emphasis, Your Honour, on the reservations. To agree to a piece of legislation which creates a third officer of the House with equal rank to the Clerk of the House, that officer being the administrator, runs directly counter to a truly splendid and outstanding report, the McGrath committee report which I think is going to be a hallmark of reform for many generations of parliamentarians.
Recommendation 8.2 of this report reads:
We recommend that the Clerk of the House of Commons have ultimate responsibility for the administration of the House.
Having been an alternate member of that reform committee and having enjoyed my association with the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and with the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings, I certainly stand by that recommendation.
The report notes that the Clerk of the House has concentrated more and more of his time on procedural matters. It goes on
November 26, 1985

to say that we understand the need for such expertise in the Elouse but that the role of the Clerk of the House of Commons must be one of leadership and inspiration for all employees of the House. For this reason, the report says that he must be seen as the principal and permanent officer of the House.
The role of the Clerk of the House of Commons has traditionally been that of the chief permanent officer. It is said, for example, that he is learned and highly specialized. He is an expert in legislative procedure but, traditionally, he has wide experience in parliamentary administration.
Mir. Ellis: He had absolutely none, you dunderhead.


B. Keith Penner: If the Hon. Member will relax for a moment before he gets his dander too high, he will appreciate what they have done in Great Britain to deal with this matter. In Great Britain they have recongized as well that the Clerk of the House has more and more responsibilities for procedural matters. They have not, therefore, decided to create a third permanent officer or, as my hon. friend for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell indicated, another deputy minister. In the British House of Commons they have created a department of administration. The department of administration is headed by a clerk administrator who is directly responsible to the Clerk of the House. He is the man who looks after all of the administrative details, but he is not an independent, separate figure running an administrative department apart from the authority of the Clerk himself.
I suppose some Hon. Members would argue that we ought to have a third permanent position, another officer in the House of Commons. We have the Clerk and the Segeant-at-Arms, so why do we not have a third?


George Albert Proud: Yes, why?


B. Keith Penner: The Sergeant-at-Arms has, of course, a long and traditional role in the House of Commons extending back a very, very long way, to the time of King Richard II of England who decided that the Speaker needed someone to protect him. The Sergeant-at-Arms originally was a body guard to the Speaker. Later when that responsibility was no longer required, his functions became those of one who looked after the precincts of the House and ensured that there were good housekeeping procedures and proper security in place. That is a long-standing traditional post.
No one is arguing against good administration. I think the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings jumped to the conclusion that in opposing his Bill we are against good administration of the House of Commons. Of course we are not. We want effective, efficient and cost effective administration. No one is arguing that at all.
However, the big danger which lurks in the Hon. Member's legislation is that, more and more, the House of Commons is going to become just another department of government. It can never be that. The purpose of Parliament is to be the watchdog over the Government of Canada and we need our allies. Our allies are the Auditor General, the Clerk at the
Adjournment Debate
table, the Sergeant-at-Arms and all of those attributes which make our watchdog role as efficient as it can possibly be.
The danger in Bill C-252 is that it sets up a separate administrative structure quite apart from the House of Commons, operating at arm's length. As a result, the teamwork which ought to exist with the Speaker, the Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the subsidiary figure who is responsible for administration, can be broken down. The McGrath committee report drew attention to that danger. No less a person than the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was the vicechairman of the reform committee, indicated at one of those meetings that his feeling was that parliamentarians would be better served if there were a number of people who were not necessarily competing against one another to serve parliamentarians, but complementing one another.
I think the great fear among parliamentarians about a separate administrative arrangement is that it will increasingly become the tail that wags the dog. It will become the force that directs the work of parliamentarians.
My hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was quite correct in drawing attention to the fact that the House of Commons must be in the charge of the Members themselves, and we cannot set up a separate administrative unit that begins to direct and control them. The McGrath Committee Report drew clear attention to that. If time permits me, at page 50 it said-[DOT]


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


B. Keith Penner: You are telling me that I do not have time to put this on the record. Let me conclude by saying that the House of Commons must always be in charge of its own affairs. Those who work with the Members must be the servants of the House, never its masters.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 I put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) relating to some treatment that has been extended to incoming passengers at the Edmonton International Airport by the Customs and Immigration officials. At that time the Minister indicated to me that he would look into the matter to

November 26, 1985
Adjournment Debate
see if there was a way to improve upon the treatment extended not only to Canadians but to other tourists as well.
At the outset, let me indicate to you that I do not intend to take my entire time to make a presentation. It is my hope that we will hear from the Parliamentary Secretary about how we can improve the situation at the airport.
I have several reasons for raising this concern. I have had representations from my constituents with regard to treatment that has been afforded to them. Individuals on the Council of the City of Edmonton have raised this concern. Furthermore, provincial Ministers of the Crown from the Province of Alberta have shared a similar concern about the poor treatment extended not only to Canadians but to visitors to Canada.
I acknowledge the difficulty that these officials have in performing their tasks, but it is essential that these officers convey a positive and good attitude to fellow Canadians and convey a warm atmosphere to tourists who come here on a regular basis. The tourism industry is very important not only to our country, but to our province and our city. I know that the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) have looked into this matter. I hope that the response we will receive will indicate that the situation will improve.
In fairness to the Customs officials, let me indicate that once this issue received some media attention I received calls from individuals who have been very impressed by the courteous manner in which they have been treated. Obviously there are two sides to this issue. I only want to stress that it is essential that we as Canadians always extend a warm hand of friendship to whomever visits our country.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the Hon. Member's concerns regarding the treatment of tourists and visitors to Canada by Customs officers at the Edmonton International Airport. I can advise the Hon. Member that the Department of National Revenue shares his concern about the importance of tourism to the Canadian economy and that the role which Customs officers play in welcoming visitors to Canada is indeed important.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been aware of the situation for some time, and assures us that this kind of treatment vis-avis travellers will not be tolerated, not in Edmonton and not at any other point of entry in this country.
Last June, senior officials from the Department were sent to examine the situation at the Edmonton International Airport.
After their visit, a series of measures were put in place. These measures deal with the training of officers in the kind of attitude and behaviour expected of them, their regulations and interaction with travellersand especially the public's perception of the role of a customs officer. In addition, a number of measures are being considered, and some have already been
implemented, to make customs officers adopt a more positive and sensitive attitude, covering areas such as multiculturalism, conflict resolution, neutralizing delicate situations, interview techniques, interprovincial communications on the job, and so on.
A three-day experiment will be held in Edmonton in November, to analyze the kind of problems encountered at high risk and high volume offices. Customs officers have now received more training in connection with their responsibilities under the Immigration Act. Furthermore, useful discussions have been held with provincial representatives, and recommendations for simplifying certain customs procedures have been submitted to them. We are now awaiting their reply.
Officials are continuing to monitor customs activities closely at the Edmonton airport. The Minister is confident that the action taken by his officials at Edmonton will ensure that a courteous and professional welcome is extended to all persons entering Canada, which Canadians have come to expect of the Customs service.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the 1985 Auditor General's Report supports the fact that Customs and Excise is working toward providing a more efficient and courteous service to the public.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-EXTRADITION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on November 7, 1985 during Question Period 1 asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) about the cases of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler, two Americans who are currently being held in custody in Canada.
You will recall that in the case of Charles Ng, he was apprehended in one of our western cities and charged with armed robbery as well as with attempted murder. Then it came to light that he was the subject of a search across North America, and perhaps world-wide. He was wanted for questioning in connection with some mass murders in the state of California.
You will recall, Sir, that there were some particularly grizzly murders in the state of California and Charles Ng, although he had not been charged with these offences, was wanted for questioning in connection with them.
That raised great concerns on the part of my constituents, and 1 know on the part of all Canadians. I had letters, telephone calls and personal inquiries in large numbers from people who were most concerned that an American citizen who allegedly had committed extremely serious crimes in the United States for which there was capital punishment should be here in Canada; we should be shipping him back to the United States as quickly as possible.
November 26, 1985

Those fears were compounded because shortly after that another case came to light, that of Joseph Kindler. This man had been convicted in the United States of capital offences, had escaped custody and had come to Canada. That, on top of the Charles Ng case, really got Canadian people extremely upset and excited about what was going on in this country.
On the surface, those cases have some similarity. There was the whole matter of extradition of people who had allegedly committed crimes in the United States and were now in custody in Canada. However, there were in fact some differences between the two cases.
In the case of Charles Ng, as I indicated, at the time he was apprehended in this country he had not been charged with any offences in the United States. At that time the Americans had not made any request for extradition. Since then, of course, a number of charges have been laid in the State of California against Charles Ng. In fact, I think there are between eight to ten separate charges of murder outstanding, as well as other charges, in connection with the case.
To the best of my knowledge, and on November 7 the Minister indicated in response to my question that at that time the State of California and the United States had not made a formal request for the extradition of Charles Ng. I am hoping tonight, for one thing, that we can learn from the Parliamentary Secretary what is the state of affairs now and whether there has been a request for extradition of Charles Ng. We realize that there can be no extradition until there is a request.
In the case of Joseph Kindler, however, it was very different. There had been a request for extradition. Joseph Kindler had made an application to the courts in this country to stave off that request. As I understand it, his application was based strictly upon the point that he would be facing capital punishment in the United States, that he was not facing capital punishment here and that it would be unfair, improper and unjust under our Charter of Rights for us to send him back to the United States where he would be facing a death penalty sentence. That case, as I understand it again from the Minister, has been proceeded on and now is awaiting written argument from Mr. Kindler's lawyer being presented to the Minister, all the court proceedings having been dismissed. Then the Minister indicated that probably there would be an oral hearing in front of him as well, and that it would be after that that he would be making a decision as to what to do in the case of Mr. Kindler.
Both those cases are of extremely serious concern to Canadians. They are concerned, first of all, because there is a feeling that it is unfair and improper that someone should be able to come up here and get away from American justice just because he or she faces a death penalty in the United States and does not face one here. Of course there is also a broader concern that Canada could very well become a haven for fugitives from American justice or for fugitives from foreign justice around the world. If we look at some of the acts of terrorism in various countries around the world where people
Adjournment Debate
face the death penalty, theoretically, if Mr. Ng and Mr. Kindler were allowed to escape the situation and use Canada as a shelter, we could very well become the repository for all sorts of international terrorists and fugitives from every corner and cranny of the world.
Those are the basic concerns of Canadians. I think it broadens into their general concern about the issue of capital punishment. We have had expressions of extreme concern for many years about the reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada. It seems to me that the cases of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler highlight that concern very sharply.
I hope we hear from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight an update of the situation of Charles Ng. Hopefully we will send him back to the United States to face justice there just as quickly as possible. Also I hope we will hear an update on the case of Joseph Kindler. Hopefully we will send him back to the United States for his Christmas dinner. I do not think any Canadian wants to see him around any longer than he has to be.
I would also like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary about just where we stand on the entire question of a free debate on capital punishment. That is really the key and underlying issue in all of these cases. I am looking forward to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary regarding all of these items.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the concern he has expressed. I certainly agree that many Canadian citizens are also concerned about the points which he has made here today.
The Hon. Member properly pointed out that he brought up the question on November 17. It was again raised on November 19 by the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy). At that time, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) advised the House that in the case of Charles Ng, no request had yet been received from the United States for his extradition. That situation has not changed as of yet. No procedure has been begun asking for extradition.
In the case of Joseph Kindler, as the Minister pointed out to the Hon. Member for Calgary East on November 19, the only change in that situation has been the extension given to the solicitors of Mr. Ng to prepare their submission to the Minister. The Hon. Member will recall that the Minister stated that the position of that individual was that his extradition to the United States should be asserted with conditions. In order to properly prepare their case and make it to the Minister, his solicitors needed further time.
I am certain that although Canadians may be very concerned about criminals from other countries being in Canada, they are not so concerned that they will deprive these individuals of the right to be heard. I believe the Minister has to be commended for this, and we understand that this is what guided him in the granting of this extension.

November 26, 1985
Adjournment Debate
As the Hon. Member will certainly understand, I cannot give him the assurance that Mr. Kindler will be returned home for Christmas. However, it is my understanding that the Minister will not unduly delay any decision in that case. As for the other case, there is no change of status.
The Hon. Member also requested that I address the question of when we will have a debate in this House on the issue of capital punishment. I am afraid that I can only reiterate an answer which has already been given, that such a debate will take place during this Government's first mandate. However, it does not stand as an urgent priority at this time.


VISIBLE MINORITIES-JAPANESE CANADIANS INTERNED DURING WORLD WAR II
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity to say a little more about a question I asked many months ago. On May 23, I asked the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism about the Government's plans regarding redress for Japanese Canadians and specifically redress for the great injustice which was done them in the 1940s when they were dispossessed, resettled in the interior and faced, even after the Second World War had ended, the discriminatory actions of the Canadian Government.
At the time I specifically asked the Minister if he actually believes that the Opposition's failure to agree to an imposed settlement prevented him from negotiating with the National Association of Japanese-Canadians. That question elicited the following key statement from the Minister:
Mr. Speaker, we never refer to anything we are doing in terms of our conversations as negotiations with the Japanese-Canadians.
He added some observations to that which I need not get into.
I have waited patiently on this matter because I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to resolve the matter. As well, I was aware that the National Association of Japanese Canadians was involved in its own program to demonstrate the extent of losses that were suffered. Even at this point I may say that the association is still involved in a program which, over the next few months, will provide an unprecedented description, an accounting, of the losses which Japanese Canadians suffered in a material way. By that means the incredible psychic and social costs which were inflicted upon them at the time will be underscored.
It seems to me appropriate this evening to investigate this matter a little further and place some principles on the record. We have a new Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). He has had some three months in office. In the last couple of weeks there have been some very disturbing indications of the position which the Government may come to with respect to this matter, particularly indications which were provided in a press release from the City of Ottawa on November 17, following the meeting of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council which is advisory to the Minister. The
council suggested that the redress policy should include among its points a settlement which is symbolic in terms of monetary award, and that it should be directed more toward the prevention of future wrongs upon any ethnocultural groups rather than a correction of past injustices. It went on to suggest that the establishment of a multicultural foundation with a mandate to foster understanding and friendship among ethnocultural communities might be such an expression.
That statement raised the gravest concerns in my mind about the Government's will to move on the indications which it gave, first of all as the opposition Party in June of 1984, and then from the Minister's office in December of 1984. After all, it was the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who questioned Mr. Trudeau, the then Prime Minister, about this matter. It was he who aroused hopes for the first time in decades that if he became Prime Minister he would have the will to do something about it.
On December 15 the Multiculturalism Directorate suggested in a release that there had been agreement between the Minister and the National Association of Japanese Canadians to negotiate something. Sadly enough that promise of December 15, 1984 was turned into an attempt at an imposed settlement before January had ended. It included a refusal to negotiate with the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
Part of my unhappiness about this matter-I might even say my umbrage at what has developed-is the fact that the Prime Minister has been capable of maligning the Opposition by his description of those events. Upon assuming office he said in a letter to a private citizen:
-my Government took the initiative in addressing the concerns of the Japanese-Canadian community that the injustices inflicted-
He states further:
After extensive consultation with the community, the matter was brought before Parliament on January 28 in the form of an all-Party resolution. As you may know, we were disappointed in our hope that the opposition parties would forgo partisan considerations and demonstrate the resolution's wide support among Canadians by giving unanimous consent to its passage.
That sentence is most interestingly worded. How could our consent here to an all-Party resolution indicate wide-spread support for it? Surely a redress proposal needs to have the support of the Japanese Canadian community. That was exactly what the Government had refused to do earlier in January of 1985.
It is then in this context of refusal to negotiate and the rejection of compensation for individuals that we stand. It is in this context that I want to say categorically that it seems to me inconceivable that we could have the arbitrary and dictatorial actions of Government in the 1940s during and after the Second World War redressed by the arbitrary action of a Government in 1985 or 1986. It seems to me absolutely imperative that if there is to be a proper settlement it will have to be negotiated with the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
It seems to me imperative, then, that there be substantial discussions on the details of redress settlement. It is imperative



November 26, 1985

that a parliamentary statement which will have the support of all Parties be developed in just such negotiations with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. It is imperative that this recognize the unjust actions of the Government of Canada in the 1940s. There has to be an agreement, too on the substance of redress. It is conceivable that that might find an institutional form. But I do not think we should rule out the possibility that individuals deserve compensation.
On a concluding note, it seems to me imperative that this same redress settlement include recognition that there were abuses flowing not just from the War Measures Act but in the area of citizenship and in the area of the exclusion of persons from British Columbia well after the war. A redress agreement has to include recognition of all of these elements and cannot be satisfactory to the Canadian people any more than to the National Association of Japanese Canadians unless it includes these.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Let me just begin my response to the Hon. Member by saying that he should be applauding, and, indeed, every Hon. Member of the Opposition should be applauding this Government's initiative, because for 42 or 43 years no national Government took the initiative to begin discussions, acknowledging that a bad problem, an unforgettable problem, took place some 42 or 43 years before. In fact, the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was Leader of the Opposition, and since becoming Prime Minister, is a commitment which we are following, namely, that this Government will acknowledge these wrongs for the first time in 43 years. There will be a form of apology and there is going to be a fair redress package. In fact, some measures, such as the War Measures Act, are already being amended in such a way as to satisfy those people who were hurt by those actions in the early 1940s.
No other Government took that initiative. In fact, the previous administration under Prime Minister Trudeau very clearly said that Government should not get involved in a
Adjournment Debate
redress package, and that the Liberal Government would not get so involved in any way, shape or form.
What I have begun to do in my three months as Minister responsible for multiculturalism is to bring within the scope of discussions across the country not only the National Association of Japanese Canadians but all other interested parties, including the Japanese Canadian Redress Association of Survivors, which is an interested group of survivors from those years, and the Canadian Multicultural Council. 1 would think the Hon. Member should find the statement from the CMC a very positive one and one which is making an input toward my deliberations. My provincial counterparts and all other interested parties across the country are included in the discussions.
I have continually had discussions with them in the past three months building on the foundation which my predecessor had achieved in the previous year. I believe that this is not simply a Japanese Canadian problem. This is a Canadian problem. We must try to get as much input from as broad a section of Canadians as possible.
When I have finally compiled this type of input which 1 require to make a recommendation, then I will do so to Cabinet. It will include an acknowledgement, as the Prime Minister has promised, and an apology of some form, and it will include a fair redress package, fair to the Canadian public and to Canada as a whole.
The main purpose of this is to make sure that this type of atrocity which happened 42 or 43 years ago will never happen in this country again. I take pride in the fact that the Prime Minister took the initiative on behalf of the Government of Canada, for the first time in 42 or 43 years, to deal with this matter. I look forward to having input from as broad a range of Canadians as possible so that we can develop the fairest possible package for Canadians as a whole.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 27, 1985