1985-11-29

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Government places a low priority on agriculture in Canada and on its importance to the Canadian economy. After the recent theft of Government import certificates for cheese the Government forced the importers using these certificates to pay a 10 per cent fine and return the illegally imported cheese to the country of origin. That may have been an appropriate action if there was no illegal action by the importers.
What is not appropriate and not fair is the treatment that has been handed out to Canadian dairy producers. They have been assessed over-quota levies of millions of dollars because some civil servant stole a bunch of import certificates and peddled them to make a fast buck. Why are these producers being fined by having this unfair levy imposed on them? The Minister's defence of the Government's action is as full of holes as Swiss cheese.
The Government should stop picking on the farmers and reimburse them for these levies which have been estimated by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture Dairy Committee to be $5.6 million. The Tory caucus has known about this for six months. We need action from the Government now.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation sold Habitat 67 to a speculator despite the fact that two-thirds of the tenants had made a bid for the entire housing complex.
Forming an association, 100-odd tenants offered close to $10 million. They stated that they wanted mainly to continue to live in their units and, "above all else we want Habitat 67 to
remain in its present conditions as part of our national heritage".
In its purchasing offer the tenants' association made a commitment to protect the existing structure and the exterior appearance of the building. It also asked CMHC management to give it an opportunity to make a counter-offer and the corporation had promised to negotiate with respect to the highest bids.
Just the same, CMHC sold the complex to a speculator for $10 million without giving the tenants an opportunity to defend their own interests.
This is most unfair on the part of this Conservative Government which as usual gives priority to the interests of speculators over those of tenants and workers.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Native Brotherhood of B.C. for their hard work in securing the position of native fishermen in the B.C. Fishing industry. I also want to commend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) for providing $11 million to the Native Brotherhood of B.C. These moneys are to be administered by the newly formed Pacific Native Fishing Association which will operate under the auspices of the Native Brotherhood of B.C.
The Association will provide financial assistance to native fishing vessel owners, assist former operators of rental vessels such as the Cassiar Native Rental Fishermen to purchase their own boats, provide basic business management training, and ensure that native fishermen who wish to leave the industry pass their vessels and licences to other natives through a purchase plan managed by the new association.
Today the Minister announced the members of the board for the new fishing association. These members were selected by the executive of the Native Brotherhood of B.C. I want to extend my best wishes to the Native Brotherhood of B.C. as they meet today and tomorrow in Masset, B.C., for their annual convention.

November 29, 1985


TERRORISM
Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 23, we watched, shocked and helpless, as a tragedy unfolded that was to end in the death of two Canadian citizens, innocent victims of an act of international terrorism in Malta. I am sure that this tragic accident has once more aroused in Canadians feelings of indignation and disgust at these thoughtless acts of terrorism, at a time when terrorism has become common as a form of protest, but at what price!
Despite the tragic outcome of this incident which aroused general consternation among the Canadian public, I would like to point out the excellent work done by officials of the Department of External Affairs, their speedy intervention, their close co-operation with the bereaved family and their sense of duty.
I am sure that Canadians were very pleased and vastly relieved at the announcement yesterday by Canada's ambassador to the United Nations that Canada has decided to help set up an international agency to combat terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this agency will be to defeat international terrorism, since no one can be entirely safe from its effects. We therefore have a duty to support the action taken by our Government, so that tragic events such as the Achille Lauro affair, the EgyptAir incident and the attack against the Turkish Embassy will never happen again.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, last week in Quebec, more than 500 community agencies set up a coalition to ask the Government, and more specifically, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), to review her decision on criteria for job development programs, which now make it compulsory for all futur employees in these programs to have been unemployed for 24 of the 30 last weeks. If the Government does not change its decision, it will mean that all those who have agreed to work under the Government's Canada Works program will be excluded from subsequent programs, and that if the Government maintains this attitude, community agencies in Quebec and the other provinces will have to close their doors.
Mr. Speaker, this particular coalition includes the Regrou-pement des maisons des jeunes du Quebec, the Association des centres de femmes du Quebec, the Mouvement d'action popu-laire et d'action communautaire du Quebec, the Association quebecoise pour la defense des droits des retraites et des preretraites, and the Confederation des organismes provinciaux pour personnes handicapees and various shelter facilities. All those agencies are asking the Government to remember that community agencies can do excellent work for the public while at the same time providing manpower training, provided they are allowed to hire people with experience.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of the House the sinking off the coast of Nova Scotia of the fishing vessel Lady Marjorie, by the Canadian Navy vessel H.M.C.S. Nipigon. The Navy will undoubtedly resolve the procedural problems internally to prevent a recurrence of this type of event in the future. However, the Conservative Government has a clear responsibility to compensate the owner of the vessel. The owner of the Lady Marjorie must be compensated for the loss of the vessel in such a negligent and dangerous manner.
In addition, the owner owned a small fish processing operation based on production from his vessel. That plant employed 15 people. As a result of the sinking of this vessel by the Navy, that plant is closed and 15 people are out of work.
The Minister of National Defence and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) must act quickly on the matter. 1 also note that no member of the Conservative Party from Nova Scotia has seen fit up to this point to raise this important matter in the House of Commons and urge the Government to move quickly toward compensation. It is important that they join the NDP and speak up on behalf of the people whom they were elected to represent. The Government must provide compensation, and provide it quickly.


TOURISM
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, 1985 is the centennial of the Niagara Parks Commission and I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the work the Commission is doing to promote tourism in Canada. Many people do not realize that the Commission is completely self-supporting and is run as a business. Moneys are raised through gift shops, restaurants, attractions, and through water rentals to power companies. Funds are used to maintain not only the lands and gardens but also the buildings and roadways. The Niagara Parks Commission has its own police force as well as 1,400 employees.
November 29, 1985

Last week the third annual winter Festival of Lights, an international light show that runs for three months, began. Along with the nightly illumination on the falls, 30,000 lights are strewn over 55 giant trees. Private companies have joined the celebration, making the winter Festival of Lights a real community celebration.
This Festival has resulted in an increase of over one million tourists visiting the Niagara area and has been an incredible boost for local merchants and business people. The Niagara Parks Commission is to be congratulated not only for its tremendous work over the last 100 years but for its continual leadership in the tourist industry.
As I mentioned yesterday when I presented a petition, there is tremendous potential for attracting tourists to Canada by way of the attractions of the Niagara Peninsula and we need to encourage this in any way we can, both federally and in conjunction with the province.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I, along with many women in Canada, was pleased to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) announce this week that the Native Women's Association of Canada will receive a grant of $1,062 million to help in the implementation of Bill C-31.
As my colleagues in the House know, the passage of Bill C-31 ends years of discrimination suffered by many Indian women in Canada, enabling those who were previously struck off the Indian Register to be reinstated to Indian status. Already over 18,000 applications have been received for reinstatement. It is expected that 70,000 to 80,000 native people will be reinstated under the provisions of the Bill.
The grant to the Native Women's Association of Canada will help them inform their members and families of the intent of Bill C-31, and assist them in applying for status and membership. The funds will also enable the Association to monitor the progress and implementation of the Bill, and prepare a report to the parliamentary committee which will review this issue in 1987.
Finally, as these Indian women take their rightful place again in their bands, I know their contribution will have a significant and positive impact on the economic, social, and political progress of all native people.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we are lucky that Thomas Edison did not have to invent the electric light
Oral Questions
under the Conservative Government's research and development policies, for we would still be sitting in the dark.
Unfortunately the science community is being kept in the dark because of the Government's long and inexcusable delay in providing funds for its most important activities. With increasing frequency we learn of Canadian scientists leaving the country for a more favourable R and D climate south of the border. Not a day passes without us receiving dozens, if not hundreds of letters expressing outrage at the Government's failure to recognize that, without funds for research today, we are saying "no" to the jobs of tomorrow.
Perhaps if this dangerous delay is caused by the lack of clout of a junior Minister, we would be better off to absolish the Ministry of Science and Technology and make scientific research and development of responsibility of every member of the Cabinet. Science and technology affect every aspect of our lives. If the Government does not give urgent priority to research funding, we will all end up in the dark, while Mr. Edison's light bulb will illuminate the road to the United States for the most brilliant brains of our country.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. He knows, coming from a farm family, that western farmers are in deep trouble, particularly those who have been hit by the drought. He should also know now, by reason of the reaction out on the Prairies, that the new drought relief program of the Government is considered to be absolutely pathetic. I suppose that the real villain is the Minister of Finance, but I will direct my question to the Minister. Would he go once again, with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of Finance and explain to him, in the strongest possible terms, that we have a crisis on the family farm in western Canada, and that the program for drought relief just will not do the job?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Right Hon. Member's question. Perhaps I could read into the record what the Vice-President of the Saskatchewan Pool said. He said: "I am sure you know in the minds of a lot of people that it is a great deal of money, and it is a great deal of money". Certainly $150 million is a lot of money. In connection with that, there

November 29, 1985
Oral Questions
was an additional $48 million which was paid earlier in the fall to assist livestock producers.


John Napier Turner: Which Saskatchewan took into its own treasury.


Charles James Mayer: No, it did not take it into its own treasury; that is not the case at all. The Right Hon. Member should know, based upon the amendments which were put through with his Party's support-and we appreciated it-last February, that in all likelihood there will be another interim payment or advance payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act next spring, which will assist producers in getting their crops into the ground.
As I pointed out yesterday, when we consider the amount of money which has already been committed by the Government to assist western farmers directly with their financial problems, it comes very close to $1 billion. That is a substantial amount of money. Also, as I said yesterday, we know that everybody would like more. However, if we put it in that kind of context, I think everybody would have to admit that it is a reasonable amount of cash which will support western producers.


TIMING OF PAYMENTS TO FARMERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the programs to which the Minister referred were enacted long before his Government took power, as he knows. Would he not admit that yesterday he and the Minister of Agriculture misled western farmers by promising that payments under the drought relief program would be available before Christmas? Does he still insist upon telling the House, the country and, more particular, western farmers that they will receive benefits and payments under the program before Christmas? Or, will he give us the realistic date of when that will be done?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any comments which I have made saying that payments would be made before Christmas. What we have said is that the money would be available just as quickly as possible. However, he should know that in the case of British Columbia, where the province has decided to participate in a fashion different from that of the other provinces, there is at least a possibility for some of that money to be made available before Christmas. Certainly we are doing everything we can to get that money out as quickly as possible. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know, as we all know, that when you do not have money sometimes the timing of it, whatever amount comes, can be just as important as the amount.
We are very sensitive to that and we are doing whatever we can to get the money out as quickly as we possibly can.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PROGRAM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as a result of this exchange and the exchange yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister would again go back to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and tell him in the strongest possible terms that farmers consider the drought program to be a token gesture, particularly in view of the fact that western bank depositors are receiving 100 cents on the dollar and the western farmers are receiving 10 cents on the dollar.
Would the Minister give an undertaking to the House that he will review this program with the Minister of Finance at an early opportunity?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody would consider $200 million, spent in western Canada to support people who had problems with the drought, a token gesture.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what one of the press people said yesterday: "The day that the Opposition Members of Parliament have praises for Government intiatives, there will be two moons in the sky and one in the backyard".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: That is one of the concerns we have. Certainly we would all like to do more, but let us give some credit for the amount of money that has already been put in there. Let us tell them that we will try to do everything we can on behalf of western agriculture and all agriculture. As the Right Hon. Member well knows, agriculture is probably the one sector of the economy that is not experiencing any kind of an income increase that we see occurring in other areas, for instance, increases in car sales, in housing sales, and in drilling activity. The agriculture industry is not experiencing that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL OFFICIAL'S STATEMENTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Acting Minister of Agriculture. We note that he is very defensive about the Disaster Assistance Program. He knows that neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister have visited the drought area, as has the Leader of the Opposition who has put forward a program that was very well accepted by the Saskatchewan Pool.
Does the Minister agree with the comment of Avery Sahl, vice-president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, when he said: "This is a token gesture that hardly equals one treatment for grasshoppers", a problem which many of the drought area farmers experienced this summer? This is aside from the costs incurred by the farmers in planting the crop and so on?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Sahl, and I just quoted him, said that it is a great deal of money. When he talks about not doing anything and being taken gestures, again to go back
November 29, 1985

and put it into perspective, we will, as a federal Government, have spent close to $1 billion supporting western agriculture as a result of the drought situation. 1 do not understand why anybody would call that a token gesture, Mr. Speaker.


ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER'S STATEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Maurice Foster (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the Minister had attended the agricultural committee meeting yesterday morning he would have heard the senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Trant, point out to the committee that payments would not be made until next March or April. Why do the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture continue to mislead farmers that payments will be made by Christmas? The Minister reponsible for the Wheat Board knows that the program will not even be negotiated by then, let alone application forms being made available until some time after the first of the new year, and payments not until next March or April, as was outlined by the senior Assistant Deputy Minister to the committee yesterday.
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the senior Assistant Deputy Minister can make statements at committee. Let me tell the Hon. Member it is my understanding that as of this morning, in the case of British Columbia where it will be a different arrangement, there is the possibility-and I emphasize the possibility-that some of that money could be in producers' hands before Christmas.
As far as not having this money available, announced by the Minister of Agriculture on Wednesday, until March or April, that is not the case. If it were the case, it would be unacceptable to us. We would do something to make sure it would get there faster.


ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS WITHOUT CROP INSURANCE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: My question is for the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Last December the Minister of Agriculture stated that if farmers choose not to protect themselves under crop insurance programs, they will find themselves without assistance for crop losses. Since this matter was not addressed in the statement of the other day, I should like to know whether this is still the Government's position. Or will farmers in the drought zone who did not have crop insurance this year receive this payment?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, farmers in the drought zone who do not have crop insurance will be receiving the payment for this
year.


SIZE OF PAYMENTS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: A supplementary question. If there are two farmers in the same area
Oral Questions
suffering the same drought, one with crop insurance and one without, will they receive identical payments on an acreage basis, or will the farmer without coverage receive a supplement?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a definite answer for the Member. I shall have to check to determine how the program will be administered. I can say that it will be administered on as fair a basis as possible, based on the actual loss that the farmer has suffered, without regard to whether or not that farmer has crop insurance.
We will try to ensure that no farmer is disadvantaged by virtue of his not having had crop insurance.


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM DETAILS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We waited three and one-half months for the report from the Member from Assiniboia. In that time, we had expected that all of these details would have been finalized.
Why is it that we do not have these kinds of details? The only detail the Minister was able to give us in his initial statement was that there would be $150 million available. Will the Gustafson Report be tabled in this House so that we can see what he did or didn't do for the farmers of western Canada?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be well aware that as the summer progressed and as we got into fall, there were a lot of circumstances that changed. A lot of people ended up in difficulty because of the wet harvest conditions, quite apart from those who suffered losses as a result of the drought and the grasshopper influx.
One of the reasons for the delay was to give us sufficient time to treat everyone as fairly as we could, based on the loss suffered and regardless of the cause of that loss.
We will be dealing with probably 30,000 farmers under this program, and in order to ensure that everyone is treated as fairly as possible we have taken the time necessary to work out the details in respect of the compensation program.
Ideally, things should have happened quicker; but we are doing everything we can to put things in motion as quickly as we can.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Will the report be tabled?

November 29, 1985
Oral Questions


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the acting Minister for International Trade. Yesterday, your Government stated that lifting quotas on shoe imports would not result in loss of jobs. However, the unions and the Canadian Manufacturers Association do not agree. They say that as many as 5,000 jobs would be lost in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would inform the House whether serious studies have been done to determine the social cost of losing these jobs.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in taking this decision, a decision that was taken in response to a Liberal Party established tribunal, we took into account the interests of the economy as a whole, and that includes consumers, and producers, and workers.
My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has stated many times in this House that the competitive part of that industry is expected to remain competitive, and that where there is particular hardship he will be taking a look at it.


INQUIRY CONCERNING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND WELFARE PAYMENTS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister did not quite answer the question. I would like to know how much Canadians will be paying in unemployment insurance and welfare benefits and whether those amounts will exceed the savings to the public as a result of eliminating the quotas?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question. As usual, the Liberal Party is trying to spread fear and panic among the Canadian people.
If there are difficulties in particular sectors, then those will be dealt with. It was because this Government is sensitive to that, and sensitive to the need for this country to have a competitive shoe industry, that we took the action that we did.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Agriculture-and I hope that becomes a permanent position.
Canada's grain producers are pleased with the restraint shown by the Minister in not taking credit for the final payments in respect to grain. It is the farmers' money.
I would ask the Minister why, in the last few weeks, he and his colleagues have been insisting on taking credit for other pay-outs, pay-outs which are producer-financed, such as payments under crop insurance programs, the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and so forth-payments which would have been made regardless of the Party in power.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is wishing me well in a permanent acting career, 1 certainly thank him for wishing me that kind of luck. 1 appreciate the comment the Hon. Member made regarding the federal Government staying away from making announcements dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board and its final payments. We have not at all done anything different.
Any announcements that have been made have consistently pointed out how programs are funded. We have always said that regarding the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It is a one-third-two-thirds shared cost between producers and the federal Government. I do not see any change, and I have very consistently made that point whenever I have issued press releases, made statements, or spoken. I do not know where the Hon. Member gets that kind of indication.


GUSTAFSON REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, in the last two days the Minister has done quite differently. Does the Gustafson Report make the recommendations for the miserly pay-out that was made? Does the report make a recommendation for long-term disaster pay-outs? Will the Government table the report or must the Hon. Member for Assiniboia be maligned by the idea that he would make this kind of recommendation on behalf of his neighbours?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question which dealt with some of the announcements made recently, the statement that was made in the House regarding a $522 million pay-out indicated that $350 million of that, about two-thirds, came from the federal Government. I did not use the larger figure.
With regard to the Hon. Member for Asiniboia being maligned, everyone knows the kind of work and dedication he put into that report this summer. He lives in the area. He did not have to go to visit it as some other Members must do. If the Hon. Member were to talk to the producers, and if he watched some of the interviews on television last night emanating from the Agribition, he would know that, far from being maligned, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia is being very well received and thanked for the work he did on behalf of the farmers this summer.
November 29, 1985


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY OF BARBADOS
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery today of Senator, the Honourable O'Brien Trottman, Minister of Health and Social Security for Barbados.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and concerns the elimination of quotas on shoe imports.
The Minister admits that the Government will have to take steps to help those who will lose their jobs. Now, workers in the footwear industry, through their spokesman and union leader, Mr. Jean-Paul Hetu, President of the CSD, would like to know what kind of programs the Government intends to set up to help workers. Are these old programs, new programs, or new funds applied to old programs? It is high time we got some information in this respect.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it was the Hon. Member's own party that ordered this inquiry.

I suppose if that Party were still in office, it would have ignored the results. This inquiry provided a very rational view of the shoe industry. The Minister has said in the House many times that the competitive part of the industry will lose its quotas and that, where there is a particular problem in one sector of the industry, the quotas will remain. The disruption to the industry will be minimal and will be dealt with.


INQUIRY IF FUNDS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO HELP WORKERS WHO LOSE JOBS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not answering my question, but if she would only get her head out of the sand, she would realize that this will have a very serious impact.
On December 20, just five days before Christmas-and a Merry Christmas when 100 people will be laid off at Daoust-Lalonde!
I would like to know the following from the Minister and the Government: Is she going to release funds to help those people
Oral Questions
who are going to lose their jobs? That is not hypothetical. That is going to happen.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade has said in the House that the Government supports the results of the tribunal on the shoe industry.


Jacques Guilbault: We know that. What are you going to do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.   La Salle@: You knew that five years ago and you did nothing!


Mr. Prud'homme:: Watch your blood pressure, Roch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.   La Salle@: It was up to you people, Malepart!


Mr. Speaker:: Is everyone finished?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has said that he will meet with the people who are affected should there be major disruptions in the industry, but that will not happen.
*


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. We now have clear evidence of the high-handed, arbitrary, and unfair attitude which is being displayed by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce not only to its employees but also to its customers. Is the Minister aware that the Canada Labour Relations Board has found that this bank, among others, is guilty of numerous violations of the Code? Will the Minister move now to require an investigation and an industrial inquiry into the labour relations practices of this bank under the Canada Labour Code?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the negotiations that have taken place between legally constituted bargaining units and the bank in question. I am aware of the process put down in legislation which those people in Canadian labour have available to them under the Canada Labour Code. That process is fair and will continue to be maintained.

November 29, 1985
Oral Questions


BANK'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 assume that that means that there will be no inquiry. Does the Minister really believe that a bank that would display the kind of attitudes that this bank has displayed toward its customers can be trusted to sit at the negotiating table and work out an agreement with its employees? Why will the Minister not move now to have an inquiry into the practices of this bank as displayed at and beyond the negotiating table, in order to try to solve what is a very difficult problem for a great many quite innocent people?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it very, very strange that a member of the New Democratic Party would demand that the Government become involved between two legally constituted bodies that are trying to come to a negotiated agreement. That is the premise of the practice of bargaining collectively in Canada. I cannot understand the Hon. Member or his Party suggesting that the Government impose its will upon one or the other partners in negotiations.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, but in his absence, I shall direct it to his closest colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was supposed to provide a development strategy for ship and drilling rig builders in Canada. Can the Minister give us any information about this matter?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the Hon. Member for Levis for his interest in the shipbuilding industry. That sector was seriously affected by the decision of the previous Government to cancel its shipbuilding program.
I shall take the question as notice and check with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and I shall report back to the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked him about the possible tokeover of de Havilland Aircraft by Boeing. This morning I learned that notices have been put up in the de
Havilland plant calling all employees to a meeting at 3.30 on Monday afternoon. I presume this meeting is to announce a sale to them. Meanwhile the United Auto Workers and Bob White have been trying for a month to have a meeting with the Government and have been refused. And the only Canadian bidder interested in this matter has not been given an opportunity to know the facts. Why is the Government so obsessed with selling that company to a foreign owner?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, any announcement with respect to de Havilland, if made, will be made at an appropriate time, at the appropriate place, and in the appropriate terms. Parliament will be informed should anything be in the allegation of the Hon. Member who asked the question, at the appropriate time and in the appropriate words.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY EXAMINATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is telling us that the sale will be announced as a completed sale. Will the Minister give Parliament the opportunity to look at the matter in order to give the Canadian bidder an opportunity to make his bid and to give the auto workers a chance to be reassured about jobs? Will the Minister agree that that pre-examination will take place before any sale of such an important part of the aerospace industry is permitted by the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to "the sale", which are his words and not mine. I can tell the hon. gentleman that, in contrast with the experience which I had on the benches on which he now sits, there have been more opportunities for discussing matters in the House of Commons and its committees than there ever were while he was on this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT MEET UNIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about consultation from the Government. My question is for the Minister of Labour. Why has the Government refused to meet with UAW leaders and de Havilland workers with respect to sales plans for the company, despite weeks of union requests for this type of meeting? Why has there been a refusal to meet?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the premise to the Hon. Member's question is completely inaccurate. I have never-and I repeat never-had a request from the leader of the Canadian United Auto Workers Union or from the workers of de Havilland to meet.


Ian Deans: You are wrong.
November 29, 1985


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that just shows the lack of communication on the part of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Bob White wrote personally weeks ago to the Government, specifically to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, requesting a meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Does the Minister not see it as part of his role as the Minister of Labour to see to it that when workers make a reasonable request for a simple meeting to discuss plans which will affect their company that he should ensure that such a meeting takes place?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, now it becomes more clear. The Hon. Member is talking about a letter sent to a Minister of the Government which was not apparently "copy" to me. Therefore, I take it that there was not a request put forward to the Minister of Labour. However, I can say that I will meet, if requested at any time, with both employers and employees who come within the responsibility of Canada Labour when I am requested and when I am able to do so. 1 have done that in the past and I will continue to do it.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the December issue of Hustler magazine. I gave notice of my question both to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Minister of State for Finance. I also offered to show the Minister of State for Finance a copy of the magazine but she declined.
In April of this year the Minister of State for Finance said that the Government regards the control of obscene and hate material as a matter of utmost urgency. If that is true, and if the Government is serious about stopping the importation of pornographic material into Canada, will the Government indicate what steps have been taken to get this magazine off the shelves? Do Canadians have to wait until the Minister responsible returns from his constituency before action is taken?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we do regard this as a matter of some urgency. The circumstances were that although the magazine came across the border the two offensive pages were removed before the magazine hit the stands. Personally, I find the entire magazine offensive. However, if the two pages which do not fall under the guidelines were removed before the magazine was on the stands, and if that magazine is still on the stands, then it becomes a matter for the provincial Attorneys General
Oral Questions
since the matter falls under Section 159 of the Criminal Code. Once it is in the country it is no longer a Customs matter. However, the Department has looked into the matter and there will be a full report by Monday morning.


John V. Nunziata: The Minister is indicating her ignorance of the matter. Customs and Excise indicated that 16 pages were offensive and contravened the Criminal Code of Canada. Notwithstanding that, the magazine was allowed into Canada.


STAFFING OF CUSTOMS SERVICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, what does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to do with respect to his decision to cut 120 positions from Customs and Excise with respect to cut-backs in the Civil Service? Will he give his undertaking today that he will not cut back with respect to Customs inspectors, in order to give the inspectors sufficient opportunity to stop the influx of pornographic material into Canada?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's accusation that I recommended a cut of 150 Customs inspectors is absolutely false.


Raymond John Skelly: It is absolutely right on.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. It relates to the Old problem of getting cash into the hands of farmers. About one month ago the Minister talked about reviewing the possibility of supplying advances on crops which are sitting under the snow. Will the Minister look at the matter now in light of the need for cash by farmers, in particular those in the Peace country?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Peace River comes from an area which, I understand, has left 50 per cent to 60 per cent of its crops in the field. 1 am happy to announce today that last night we completed arrangements to make emergency cash advances available for unthrashed grain. It is in the form of an interest-free loan which will be administered by the Canadian Wheat Board. Preprinted forms in this respect will be in the mail today. Producers should be in a position at the first of next week to go to their elevators and apply for an interest-free cash advance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
8966

November 29, 1985
Oral Questions CORPORATE AFFAIRS


MARKETING OF PHOTOGRAPHIC DEVELOPING MACHINES
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in these depleted times my question is for whichever Minister is acting as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns the notorious one-hour developing machines marketed in Canada by Key Independent Systems, and known to their owners, approximately 50 of whom have gone bankrupt in Ontario, as the "KIS of Death". In a letter to the Leader of my Party on August 19 the former Solicitor General stated that the complainants are to be interviewed with a view to laying charges under the Act. Will the Minister advise the House when these charges will be laid?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will appreciate the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is with the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers in Halifax today and therefore unavoidably absent from the House. I will be glad to take notice of his question and ensure that the Minister gets back to him with a response.


John Edmund Parry: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


John Edmund Parry: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.


WESTERN ACCORD-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in the Atlantic Accord which was signed on February 11 the federal Government undertook to deal with legislation enacting the agreement within one year of the signing of the agreement. We have not seen a Bill introduced nor has notice been given with respect to it. Therefore my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Government intend to follow the letter of the agreement and introduce legislation forthwith?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to report to the Hon. Member that the matter of this legislation will be dealt with in accordance with the undertaking of the Government. I expect that shortly after we return in the new year there will be legislation introduced and available for the Hon. Member to see that we on the federal side will be carrying out entirely the undertakings and agreements arrived at with the Province of Newfoundland.


George Baker: I know that the agreement will be changed somewhat in the legislation.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Government also undertake to change Clause 54 which prohibits industrial development in Newfoundland from use of its own off-shore oil until all other industrial needs are satisfied for the existing industrial capacity in eastern Canada, which is a stab in the back for Newfoundlanders?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that this Government, in its relationship with the provinces, always operates on a co-operative basis. We have demonstrated our great success in accommodating provinces, particularly in this instance. Those parts of the legislation covered by the provisions the Hon. Member refers to are proceeding with the full co-operation and to the satisfaction of Newfoundland's interests.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns passenger safety on Pacific Western Airlines' flights during the current labour dispute. This morning I sent the Minister a list of 16 incidents reported to me, incidents such as a plane taking off tail-heavy due to miscalculation of weight, another taking off with a cargo door open, and another which had to return to the ramp because it was 7,000 pounds under-fuelled. These incidents and others are a direct result of this airline using inexperienced help to replace those on strike.
Can the Minister tell the House what additional monitoring and inspection procedures he has put in place to assure the safety of the public during this dispute, and whether or not he or his officials had any prior knowledge of these 16 and possibly other incidents?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I checked with my office and I have not received as yet the letter to which the Hon. Member refers. 1 will certainly look at it as soon as it is available to me. I want to assure him that surveillance has been beefed up substantially. I also want to assure him that the training courses are monitored and that the standards are prescribed by Transport Canada officials. They are fully qualified. The level of safety, 1 am informed by the reports we are receiving, is normal.
However, bearing in mind our interest in ensuring safety and security for all passengers, I will certainly undertake to look at any allegations or incidents to which the Hon. Member has referred.
November 29, 1985


MONITORING OF SECURITY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry the Minister did not receive the list. We sent it over about two and a half hours ago. However, I will give him a copy immediately.
1 am sure the Minister realizes there have been three labour disputes in three major airlines in a previously harmonious industry, since he became Minister. Will he ensure that this increased monitoring is put in place because it deals not only with safety but also with security? We had an incident of unchecked firearms, embargoed or restricted cargo being shipped as checked baggage, and a host of other such things. Will the Minister investigage all of these and prohibit an air carrier from overworking people crucial to the safety or an aircraft, and also prohibit them from using untrained and under-trained people during a strike?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is fully aware of the very comprehensive audit procedures undertaken at all airports with respect to our methods and procedures respecting safety and security of passengers. There are a number of steps being taken, new equipment is being procured, and we are increasing resources by way of RCMP and other personnel. All standards and procedures are being evaluated. A number of those recommendations are currently in the process of being enacted, and of course we are always concerned and always cognizant of any incidents brought to my attention.
1 think the Hon. Member recognizes that we are living in a different era and we are trying to correct this situation as quickly and as comprehensively as we possibly can.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. The $150 million Crop Disaster Assistance Program will be a tremendous shot in the arm for western farmers. However, I am concerned that some Saskatchewan farmers may be under the misapprehension that this federal initiative will be paid to the Province of Saskatchewan as part of that province's cash advance program. Could the Minister clarify the situation?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments on the package announced by the Minister of Agriculture. Let me assure him that the $150 million is entirely separate from any provincial programs. All these programs are designed to work with and complement each other, but in no way will any of this money go into provincial government coffers as people previously thought. It will be paid entirely to the producers directly, and let there be no confusion on that.
Oral Questions


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is what you thought about the cattle, too.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. Winter drilling in the offshore areas is already under way and the weather is colder and windier than normal this time of year. When is the Minister going to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger concerning search and rescue, instead of endangering even more lives in the offshore?


Erik Nielsen: As the hon. gentleman knows, Phase 1 has pretty well all been implemented. Phase 11 is well along. The matter should be before Cabinet early next month.


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The
Minister is misleading the people of Canada. The major recommendations of that Royal Commission have not been implemented and are not being given consideration by the Government. Why does the Minister insist on ignoring these recommendations on search and rescue? Why will the Government not implement the recommendation of the Hon. Member for St. John's East and put this whole question before a parliamentary committee?


Erik Nielsen: Why does the Hon. Member persist in not hearing me? I said to him, Mr. Speaker, that the matter should be before Cabinet early next month.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Late yesterday afternoon Inco announced that it will be cutting back its production of nickel in the Sudbury Basin by some 10 per cent in 1986. This will result in some 6,500 hourly rated and 1,900 salaried workers being laid off for over two months. This will have serious effects in the Sudbury Basin.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House now what specific steps he intends to take to help alleviate an unemployment situation which is already quite serious?

November 29, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should have noticed, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is at the First Ministers' Conference. I will ensure that his question is brought to her attention. However, I am certain that, given her usual vigour and attention to matters raised by the hon. gentleman, appropriate steps will be taken by her and the Government to alleviate any situation such as that which he describes.


John R. Rodriguez: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: I am tired of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: -utterings from the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: I want to know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: The country does not grind to a halt just because of this conference.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Maybe I should explain. The practice of putting supplementary questions when Ministers have simply taken notice is a difficult one. I think today I am going to go to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


EXTERNAL AID
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in light of press reports which show that the Government turned a blind eye on a questionable payment to a Minister of a foreign Government, I want to ask the Acting Minister of External Relations if the Government is not ashamed that, instead of building housing for needy Costa Ricans, our aid is going to pay the salary of a political hack who earns 25 times the salary of a Costa Rican farm worker?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that matter was brought to our attention last July by the Ambassador and by the Minister for External Relations when she visited there recently. She has indicated that that practice will be terminating at the end of the year and the Costa Rican Government itself will be bearing those expenses.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister involved has been aware of this situation since last June. The program has been in place for almost a year and not a single house has been built. Is the Acting Prime Minister not ashamed that the Government is spending foreign aid money to pay the salaries of political hacks and Ministers instead of building housing for the needy and desperate people in the Third World who need our assistance?


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member has misrepresented the facts. The fact of the matter is that the problem was identified by the Ambassador, brought to the attention of the Minister, and it is being rectified at the earliest possible moment.


THE FRANCHISE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. In view of the important ruling of the Federal Court granting Federal convicts in Quebec the right to vote in the provincial elections Monday, can the Minister assure the House that he will respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and grant the basic right to vote to all convicts in provincial and Federal elections, and if not, why not?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, these are essentially the same questions the Hon. Member put to me in committee yesterday. As the Hon. Member knows, it is the Government's intention to comply with the decision of the court that inmates in federal institutions will be able to vote in the provincial election in Quebec on Monday, but is doing so without prejudice to its right to appeal. We will study the court decision and make a decision on whether to appeal following that.


COURT DECISION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a Tory M.P. urged the Minister to use the over-ride provision of the Charter of Rights should the courts allow prisoners to vote. In view of the fact that prisoners are deprived of their liberty, but not stripped of all other civil rights, will the Minister assure the House that he will respect any decision of the court in this matter and not use the over-ride provision to subvert the Charter of Rights?
November 29, 1985


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the question is simply hypothetical. There is presently a case before the courts which is considering the Canada Elections Act passed by Parliament which denies inmates the right to vote in federal elections. We will want to hear the decision in that case and then guide ourselves accordingly on the basis of what the facts are at that time. My colleague, the Government House Leader has responsibility for any amendments to the Canada Elections Act, not the Solicitor General.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, November 28, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. If the House gives its consent, later I intend to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), concurrence in this report.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


TRANSPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), and for referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, I wish to table, in both official languages, as required under Section 62 of the Western Grain Transportation Act, errata to the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Crow Benefit Payments which was tabled in the House of Commons on April 30, 1985.
Order Paper Questions PETITIONS


FULL INDEXATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a number of petitions from citizens of the country residing in Spadina and other parts of Toronto who have pointed out that the Government's current legislation proposing to deindex the family allowance is unfair, particularly to poor families, especially when we consider the Government's hand-outs to the rich and the large corporations through capital gains tax breaks and straight hand-outs. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
I have another petition which is not exactly the same, but to a similar effect, from a number of people in Scarborough who ask that the Prime Minister immediately withdraw Bill C-70 which would reduce the indexation of family allowances. They say that children should be everyone's responsibility and the principle of universality should be maintained.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I continue to receive petitions from my constituency with regard to the deindexation of universal family allowances. 1 have three petitions today on that topic. The petitioners request the Government to maintain full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.
 * *


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT
Barbara Jean McDougall: leave to introduce Bill C-86, an Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that question No. 460 will be answered today.

November 29, 1985
*
Representation Act, 1985


Mr. Corbett: 1.	How much revenue does the Government estimate it loses annually because of the absence of entrance fees at Kouchibouguac National Park?
2.	What other National Parks do not charge an entrance fee and, in each case, for what reason?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: 1.
Approximately $125,000 in the current fiscal year.
2. Seven other national parks do not levy motor vehicle licence (entrance) fees: (i) Georgian Bay Islands, Northern Yukon, Nahanni, Auyuittuq and Mingan Archipelago. None is accessible by road, (ii) Wood Buffalo and Kluane are accessible by road, but the number of visitors is so low that collection of motor vehicle licence fees would not be cost effective.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 26, 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; and Motions No. 4 (Mr. Rodriguez), and No. 5 (Mr. Foster) (p 8837).
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-74. It is an important piece of legislation on which I would like to provide some input. Some Opposition Members have left the impression that members of the Conservative Government from northern Ontario have been avoiding the issue. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha), the Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher), the Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais) and I have not been avoiding the issue. We are very pleased to be able to address the issue today.
Since my election in 1982 I have repeatedly dealt with the issue of boundary readjustment. It is an issue which is important to all Members from northern Ontario and one to which northern opposition Members have no special claim. For many years the riding of Timiskaming has been subjected to threats of boundary changes and reorganizations. Since October 12, 1982, the riding of Timiskaming has been continually dealing with boundary changes, redistribution and the numerous problems which it may face due to the realignment of northern Ontario. The situation has been on-going during the three years that I have been the Member of Parliament for Timiskaming.
Before I appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission of Ontario in 1983 I contacted nine townships on the outskirts of my riding and 26 within the boundaries of my riding, including the Towns of Onaping Falls, Black River, Matheson, Iroquois Falls and Springer Township. I should mention that the Hon. Member for Nipissing was the reeve of Springer Township at the time. I congratulate him again for now being the Member of Parliament for Nipissing.
I got in touch with the reeve of Chapleau, the Townships of Ratter, Dunnet and Foleyet and the Timiskaming Municipal Association which represents roughly 26 municipalities in Timiskaming. My riding of Timiskaming stretches from James Bay, Moosonee and Moose Factory south to the town of Verner, west to the communities of Matawotchan and Elk Lake and east to the towns of Thorne and Eldee. During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, when 1 was elected on October 12, 1982, many residents who were included in the riding of Timiskaming in the late 1970s believed that there was no reason for their being in that riding. The boundary change was simply to increase the population in the riding of Timiskaming. I came through with my promise that, if elected in 1982, I would do my utmost to serve the entire riding of Timiskaming. In doing so, I set up constituency offices in the northern and southern parts of my riding in order for everyone to have an input into the problems affecting a riding as large as Timiskaming.
The question of a need for change has been addressed again today. My riding borders on the Ontario Northland Railroad which provides a north-south link between strong community interests that should be maintained. A Member of Parliament must represent his constituents in every way possible. In such a riding, with great distances and sparse population, one's travel commitments make it very difficult to represent one's constituents. Therefore, I believe that this Bill is an adequate response to this problem. Timiskaming his comprised of roughly 77,000 square miles and has a population of approximately 56,000 people.
Let me make some general comments before dealing with Bill C-74. When our Government was elected in September, 1984, it was the first time that northern Ontario had sent four Members from the Conservative Party to represent areas in northern Ontario. It is an area that had never been given the opportunity to maintain and expand its population. During the past 50 years, previous Governments never addressed the

November 29, 1985

problems of northern Ontario. Those Governments were very willing to remove the resources from northern Ontario but never put enough back in to encourage our young people to stay and build on the strength of that area. That is why we have had so many problems in northern Ontario. Previous Governments never addressed those problems or encouraged population growth in northern Ontario. They simply continued to remove our resources.


John R. Rodriguez: You are doing the same thing.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Here we have the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) from the rump of the Liberal Party. They are the ones who voted to get rid of the 1979 Conservative Government that would have assisted northern Ontario. What happened?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the Hon. Member to speak to the Bill.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: The problem we faced in northern Ontario was that every time we attempted to do something in the last 50 years, the two Parties on that side of the House got together and destroyed northern Ontario.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Member should remember that we had 42 years of Bill Davis and the Progressive Conservatives in northern Ontario.


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


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: The Province of Ontario has always been well represented by the Conservative Government for years and years-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about that for a moment, the new Liberal Government in the Province of Ontario has a Minister for northern Ontario who told the press that they will put a tourist operation in Timis-kaming-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I ask the Hon. Member to speak to the Bill.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I would be glad to get back to the Bill. Let me address a few comments to Members opposite and illustrate what we have done in the short period of time that we have been in office. During the 15 years that the former Member for Kenora-Rainy River held office, the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog fish reserve issue was never addressed. However, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has solved the problem with a $2.75 million agreement. It took our Government to do it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Bill Davis would not settle it.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I would remind the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) that it was our Government that brought in
Representation Act, 1985
natural gas to his area. The Hon. Member for Nipissing was there for the official opening. He has shown what a new Member can do. Some of the initiatives taken by this Conservative Government in northern Ontario include mining and the development of access roads to resources in northern Ontario, job training and the concerns of small municipalities.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Listen to the chatter over there, Mr. Speaker. They are embarrassed because we are doing what they could not accomplish in the last 25 years. It is glorious to witness what is happening on the other side of the House. While we hear many promises during an election campaign, it takes a Conservative Government to get things done.


Mr. Gauthier:: Get back to the amendment.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Now we will get back to the amendment.
Bill C-74 brings us closer to a fair balance between the ideals of representation by population and regional representation. It ensures that provinces with stable or declining populations will not lose seats or that growing provinces will not be punished. It provides for a simpler distribution formula that is easier to understand.
In addition, I am sure this will be re-evaluated before 1990 and adjusted to fit our future needs. This is an important part of the process which we should not overlook. Furthermore, this formula will slow down the process of an ever-expanding House of Commons. We believe that the quality of representation is just as important as the quantity of representation.
We hope that this Bill will give some stability to the electoral boundary process, which I and my constituents welcome. Bill C-74 ensures that for the first time Members of Parliament will have input into the commission's stages of deliberation in boundary redistribution. At the same time it will provide for a truly independent commission that is free from political pressure.
Many Members have raised concerns about the effect of this Bill. Although we may have different opinions about northern Ontario, I believe we are all concerned about the future of northern Ontario. I believe that the Government is taking the proper action to address this problem.
I commend our House Leader for the hard work he has done on this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Again, we hear chuckles from the other side. Once again, our Government has addressed this problem in a way that will help northern Ontario in every way possible. Continued assistance from the Government will benefit future stability in northern Ontario. It is unfortunate that these problems were not addressed during the last 50 years.
It is a great honour for me to stand, as a representative from northern Ontario, and support this Bill as a means of addressing the problems of redistribution in northern Ontario.

November 29, 1985
Representation Act, 1985


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, little did I think that I would see the day when a Member from northern Ontario, in his second term of office in the House of Commons, would need to read a speech on a topic as crucial to representation in northern Ontario as that of electoral redistribution.
Let me begin by correcting a couple of fundamental errors made by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Mac-Dougall). First, I think all Members of the House should be aware of the chemistry that is taking place here. Obviously, the Hon. Member has given up all hope of influencing his Government, and hence the continued excursions into topics which, though worthy in themselves, are totally irrelevant to the Bill. Hence, the bluff, bluster and another word beginning with "b" which should fit there, of which the Hon. Member treated us to a good portion-


Philip Derek Lewis: That is the baloney that we are getting now. Why don't you say it?


John Edmund Parry: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary should know why 1 cannot say it. It is unparliamentary.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is the baloney we are getting now.


John Edmund Parry: The question of representation is one that will continue, and has continued for some time, to be of great significance to the people of northern Ontario.
A book was published recently under the aegis of the former unlamented Progressive Conservative Government of the Province of Ontatio entitled A Vast and Magnificent Land. No single phrase sums up northern Ontario better than the phrase "a vast and magnificent land".
I should count it as a reproach to myself if, for example, I did not know the names of the other ridings in northern Ontario. The Hon. Member for Timiskaming refers to the riding of Rainy River. There is no such federal riding. There is a provincial riding. As the Hon. Member for Timiskaming observed, the Member for the provincial riding sat in a provincial House for a long time without having very much impact. I think that in this House a Member from northern Ontario should take some pride in being able to denote correctly the names of other ridings in a province as some of us almost think of northern Ontario, but which is that part of the great province of Ontario which is the greatest part.
I should also point out that, while I am giving the Hon. Member, despite his absence, a lesson in geography, there is a White Dog Falls in my community and there is a White Fish Bay. There is not a community answering to the name that he attempted to give it in conjunction with that of Grassy Narrows.
I would draw upon my own riding, since that is the one I know best, for some example of the effect that will occur if this amendment is not accepted by the Government and incorporated into the legislation.
My riding is slightly larger than Germany, not East Germany, not West Germany, but slightly larger than the whole of Germany. Within that riding sit not a mere 30 or 40 communities but fully 110 communities, of which half are Indian reserve communities.


Philip Derek Lewis: Right now they are poorly represented.


John Edmund Parry: In that riding, there are some 77,000 people, which places my riding in the very unusual position of having not only the largest area geograpahically, but one of the largest populations in northern Ontario.
By most possible standards distribution, my riding is unlikely to change very much, either in terms of numbers of people or in terms of size of the geography. When one is used to dealing with 110 communities, the thought of adding two or three, or substracting two or three is not terribly daunting.
I am on my feet today because I believe representation in northern Ontario is a key issue. Despite the fact that there are four Progressive Conservative Members, for example, who represent a combined geographical area and a combined number of communities slightly smaller than the area I represent, I know that representation is an issue for every Member of this House from northern Ontario. That is why, Mr. Speaker, 1 am prepared to stand on my feet and do something to protect the boundaries of their ridings. Under the present proposal there is no necessity for me to try to protect and advocate the boundaries of my own riding.
We have in the Government's Bill one reasonable objective, namely, to contain the growth and the rate of growth of this House, and another reasonable objective is to contain the costs involved in running the House of Commons.
It goes without question that we could easily augment our Budgets if we would only take the common sense and practical approach of abolishing the Senate. The Senate has never been of the slightest bit of use to northern Ontario, nor will it be for as long as it continues. We know, and even the Progressive Conservative Members know, that in order to represent northern Ontario, you have to do a lot of travelling.
I hark back to the previous Member who represented Timiskaming. 1 recall the gentleman, a dedicated Member who lost his life in a car accident. It was probably because he was too tired to be driving over the distance he was driving. Those are risks, and they are very real risks, that Members from northern Ontario accept. I do not believe that Members from northern Ontario, any of us, need to shoulder an increased load in the representation of our communities by having to spread ourselves even thinner than we do at the moment.
We have a system of distribution in Canada that might politely be described as paying lip service to the idea of representation by population, unfortunately, paying much more service to tradition and history. We have a situation whereby-I say this not to be derogatory-the Province of Prince Edward Island, which could fit into the lakes in my riding, is allowed four Members for a population of 122,000.
November 29, 1985

I do not feel that the growth of areas like northern Ontario, and now the levelling off of that growth, has ever been adequately acknowledged or recognized in the representation process.
I feel, similarly, with large urban ridings that we just do not have a system that adjusts to the dynamics of this country, in spite of having a Government that has paid great lip service toward the ideas of the free enterprise system, which obviously implies population shifts, but is not prepared to bring in a representation system to recognize that. Nor does it appear that the Government is prepared to address the difficulty of representation of areas whose greatness is measured as much in terms of their geography and the distribution of their population as in the size of that population.
It saddens me to think that the discourse of the previous Member might have been motivated by a belief that already the Government has put thumbs down on this amendment. I would have hoped he would have been much more positive and active, and I would have hoped that he would have been much more influential within his own caucus and able to accomplish something in terms of getting these amendments accepted.
If these amendments go through, northern Ontario will be a co-respondent, so to speak, in the action that will be taken to limit the number of seats in Ontario which is, of course, a fast growing province and a large one to start with. We do not feel that it would be fair. We entreat our colleagues from the southern part of the province to remember the burdens that northern Ontario shoulders for the entire province and to remember the contribution-the one thing the previous speaker was able to describe adequately and eloquently-that northern Ontario is making to the Province of Ontario and to the country.
My riding is the only riding that bisects the entire country, stretching as it does from the shores of Hudson's Bay to the American border slightly below the 49th parallel. I feel it would be a tragedy if other Members of this House, by failure to pass this amendment, had to face a similar load.


Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we were accused last week or this week of not being too interested in this Bill that has been presented.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Whatever week it was.


Moe Mantha: I would like the Opposition to know that I was in Vancouver and in Winnipeg this past week. At the beginning of this week I was in Halifax. I want to reaffirm and tell the Opposition that I am concerned about northern Ontario.
If I may, I will start with why I do not support the amendments of the opposition Parties. I want them to listen to what I have to say. I do not support the motion to freeze the number of seats in northern Ontario, that number being 11, as was suggested by my hon. friend, because I advocate fairness
Representation Act, 1985
in the proposed Bill. I support development and growth in northern Ontario.
I have faith in our wonderful democracy. I realize that the Bill meets the requirements of fairness and equity. The formula has enough merit to be supported by Hon. Members. I care about northern Ontario and the rest of Canada.
Today, I wish to address an important matter dealing with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is a very critical issue with ramifications for every riding and every region across Canada. Due to time constraints, 1 intend to limit my remarks to the following areas. I intend to review the contents of the Act and specifically how the proposed Act will affect northern Ontario. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to examine the background of the Act, its particulars and, finally, the substance of the Act. I intend to dwell briefly on the make-up of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission.


John R. Rodriguez: What about my amendment?


Moe Mantha: I wish the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would pay attention.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are supposed to be debating Motion No. 4, an amendment which limits or freezes the number of ridings in northern Ontario to 11. The Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) is peregrinating all over the Bill, and I wish he would stick to the particular motion before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) seeking the floor on the same point of order?


John V. Nunziata: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) used a certain word; I am not sure what it means or whether it is parliamentary. Could Your Honour render a ruling on whether "peregrinating" is parliamentary?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not a falcon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We are now debating Motions Nos. 4 and 5 together.


Moe Mantha: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw to his attention that he was talking specifically of northern Ontario. The background I am about to give involves all boundaries. If it is good for Canada, it is good for nothern Ontario.
In addition, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act proposes to accommodate the ever-increasing population of our nation, by ensuring that all Canadian citizens will continue to receive fair and equitable treatment in all regions of Canada. The primary purpose of the Act is to prevent unchecked and costly growth in the number of federal ridings across the country. As amended in 1975, the Constitution Act, 1867, provided for the number of Members of Parliament allotted to each province to be adjusted. These adjustments were to be made according to a formula which took into account the

November 29, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
demographic significance of each province, as well as the particular status of the Province of Quebec. Over the years, as a result of these adjustments, an ever-increasing number of Members of Parliament filled the House to near capacity. Under the present formula, the distribution of the increased number of seats, based upon the results of the 1981 census, would increase the number of seats to 310 after the next general election. It has been estimated that direct costs to accommodate extra Members would amount to $90 million.
Application of the present formula would increase the number of Members to 343 by 1991 and to 369 by the year 2001. Needless to say, this will result in a host of problems. It would mean additional administrative costs which would have to be borne by Canadian taxpayers. The physical lay-out of the Chamber is unable to accommodate that number of Members. The significant increase in the number of Members may have an undesirable effect on the character of the House. Private Members would have relatively fewer opportunities and less effectiveness in the House. It has been suggested that the sense of collegiality may suffer. Finally, it is not certain whether an increase in the number of Members in the House would automatically mean that the electorate would be better served. More members does not mean better representation.
The new adjustment formula, as proposed in Bill C-74, while respecting the need for representational equity among the provinces, will slow the rate of growth in the number of Members of Parliament and will thus lessen the operating costs of Parliament.
Let us examine the proposed formula. The draft Bill intends to accomplish three important goals. First, Bill C-74 intends to limit increases in the membership in the House of Commons to levels which are moderate, fair and equitable. Second, the Bill will ensure that no province or Territory will lose seats in the House of Commons through redistribution. Third, it will enable provinces with growing populations to get additional seats in a fashion which reflects the need to maintain the House of Commons at a level close to its present size.
Under the proposed formula, the House would increase to 288 Members after the 1981 census, as compared with 310 Members under the present formula. By 1991, the number of Members in the House would be elevated to 292 as opposed to 343 and, by the year 2001, to 296 as opposed to 369, when I hope to retire as the Member for Nipissing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Moe Mantha: 1 thought that would rattle my colleagues. I will have a little white beard by that time.
In summary, Bill C-74 provides that each province will retain, at the very least, the same number of seats. I have tried to paint a picture for the Opposition by indicating that to give confidence to northern Ontario, we should not put on a cap of 11 seats. If there is an increase in population, we are proposing that we should gain seats in northern Ontario. It would not remain at 11 seats, as the Opposition wants.
On a real positive note for northern Ontario, let me indicate that we want to increase the population in that area. In the Sudbury riding, Inco had over 23,000 people working for it.


John R. Rodriguez: Are you kidding?


Moe Mantha: Now the number is down to about 6,500. We are trying to guarantee jobs in that area, as well as in my area of Nipissing.


John R. Rodriguez: Get back to your speech.


Moe Mantha: I will now deal with Nickel Belt, for the benefit of that friendly little fellow over there. There has been a decline in jobs at Falconbridge. I would like the Opposition to be positive. It should not let things go down the drain. We want industry in the North. We have raw materials. We can create our own jobs.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) wants to put a cap on the number of seats, to freeze it at 11. We do not want to do that. We want to go with the population. However, my other friend from Nickel Belt just skates around the whole thing. He says what we are saying and he says what the Hon. Member for Algoma is saying.


John R. Rodriguez: You are the skater.


Moe Mantha: He is sitting on the fence and not saying anything. The Commission will make the boundary changes. It should have been done by the previous Government. Members of the Official Opposition are saying that they are being professional about this matter. They had the opportunity to do something about it. The people voted for a change; they voted for us.
I want to represent Nipissing here, as well as other Canadian people. We in northern Ontario invite entrepreneurs to come north to develop and create jobs for our people. That is why we are becoming involved in deregulation, to make transportation cheaper so that people will come to northern Ontario to create jobs for us.
We do not propose to put on a cap of 11 seats. We are encouraging growth in the North, and that growth will provide us with more seats. If the opposition Parties have their way, if there is an increase in the population, we will not gain any seats. We in northern Ontario are positive that we want to increase our population.
[ Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I was quite surprised by the remarks of the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha). It is the first time I have seen as disciplined a Member defend the interests probably of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who must have drafted a few good notes. It is fitting and quite acceptable.

*RHffinnHi
November 29, 1985

The Hon. Member speaks not only against his personal interests-and I think he should be given a medal for that- but against the interests of northern Ontario.
1 come from the Province of Quebec, a province which, under this new scheme-


An Hon. Member:: We will not hold that against you.


An Hon. Member:: That is Quebec's problem.


Marcel Prud'homme: 1 know that some of the Members opposite feel very frustrated any time there is mention of the Province of Quebec. The Members opposite seem to get very nervous whenever the Province of Quebec is mentioned. "Quebec" is a great name-as great as the name "Ontario".
As a Member from the Province of Quebec, I am rather surprised at the speech delivered by the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha).
As I said earlier on, here is a Member who, in the name of Party discipline, stands up and speaks against, not only his own personal interests, but the interests of northern Ontario.
It is well understood, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of representation by population is the principle that we should always adopt. However, we have already agreed that, given the vastness of this country, exceptions to that principle would be made. For example, we have made an exception in the case of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory-and I do not think any Member will disagree with those exceptions.
Also, because the Constitution provides that no province will have fewer Members in this place than the number of Senators representing that province, exception from the principle of representation by population is made in the case of Prince Edward Island and at least one other province of the Atlantic provinces.
Canadians fully understand that some protection has to be given in these circumstances. At the moment, I am the Chairman of the Management and Members' Committee, a committee which has put forward some proposals in respect of Members' budgets.
While the provision of the same budgetary amount for all Members of Parliament would seem to be the appropriate and proper thing, the Management and Members' Services Committee realizes that exceptions have to be made.
I see the very competent and able Vice-Chairman in his seat, and I know that he agrees with me on this point.
The committee is of the opinion that provision should be made in Members' both in terms of geography and of population. Those proposals have now been placed in the hands of those who will ultimately decide.
It would be unfair, for example, that a Member for a constituency with a population of over 180,000 should have the same budget as that of a Member whose constituency has a much smaller population; it would be unfair for Members
Representation Act, 1985
representing districts larger than some of our provinces to have the same budget as Members representing constituencies of a much smaller size.
We are trying to find some means by which the budgets of such Members can be increased so as to allow those Members to better exercise their duties as parliamentarians.
I do not mean to exaggerate, but the same principles should apply in respect of northern Ontario. We do have in the Province of Quebec the same situation as exists in northern Ontario. The commissioners who will be appointed to revise-


Moe Mantha: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member is trying to put words in my mouth. 1 did not say what he has said. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not consider that to be a point of order. It is a question of debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Member is not following my remarks very attentively. What prompted me to speak was the fact that my hon. friend, in his speech, was not protecting the interests of northern Ontario. That is what brought me to my feet. The rest of what I say is my own speech.
I am not quoting the Hon. Member, so I do not see where there is a point of order.


Moe Mantha: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha), on the same point of order.


Moe Mantha: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my comment in relation to the boundaries was that 1 am not for freezing the number of seats at 11. What I said is that if there is an increase in population, we could gain seats, in the same way that-


An Hon. Member:: Come off it! That isn't so.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have a debate with the Hon. Member. If there is no protection in this respect for northern Ontario, there will be fewer and fewer seats from that area every time there is a redistribution.
The Hon. Member makes a general invitation to Canadians to come and live in northern Ontario so that some seats may be saved.

But that brings to mind Quebec's revenge of the cradle, you know, more children to open up new lands-

Everybody was promoting the opening up of the northern regions of Quebec for farming. Well, 1 do not think people are going to do that just in the interests of the survival of that region.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to say is that if we were to accept... I see several of my Quebec colleagues here and 1

November 29, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
hope that when I repeat the word Quebec I do not make our colleague too nervous, for he seemed to be very miserable a moment ago ... I think it is the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) who looked unhappy when 1 referred to Quebec. Some people are a little bit unhappy like that, but things change.
I would suggest that if we were to accept the principle whereby Northern Ontario needs protection, the commissioners to be appointed in each province would conclude that the thrust of this debate was that the larger communities in each province must be protected. For instance, the province of Quebec ... I think it would be very unfortunate if representation were strictly applied to Northwest Quebec. I am not defending Liberal interest, since at the present time, these ridings are represented by Government Members. I don't think we should apply the same principle we apply for instance to Montreal, where 1 come from. I represent a Montreal ridings, and my constituents realize that I can go everywhere in my riding on foot, and so I don't have problems in that respect. I do have some problems linguistically speaking, because about 50 languages are spoken in my riding, which is a different problem altogether.
Quite frankly, I think we can go along with the principle of giving certain regions within a province certain guarantees. In fact, these are provided in the Bill.
However, if this principle, which is being supported in an amendment by our colleagues in the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, were acceptable to the House, and I do not see why it should not be ... I am not accusing my hon. friend from Nipissing, but I want him to understand that applying the principle across the board would mean that my hon. friend here who represents the Northwest Territories . .. They would not even have a Member! And that would be unfortunate-

It would be absolutely unacceptable for the Northwest Territories to have no representation. As a result, an exception was made for that region. It is an immense area with very few people, and an exception was made. The people of that region, the majority of whom are native people-and those are the true Canadians, having been here long before either the French or the English arrived-would not have their own Member of Parliament if the principle of rep by pop were strictly applied. To my mind, the Northwest Territories should have three seats.
In so far as the Yukon Territory is concerned, I think we have more than enough in one Member for the moment. It may be that some day we will want to have two Members representing the Yukon Territory.
I would not like to have a double of the present Member for the Yukon Territory.


An Hon. Member:: Where would you find two Erik Nielsens?


Marcel Prud'homme: And boy, has he ever changed since moving to the other side! He can no longer attack the Government. Instead, he has to endure in silence. But soon we will serve him with what I call the "Yukon book of tactics#. We are studying the tactics he has used for the last 20 years, and certainly we will have a lot of fun with those in the next session.


Marcel Prud'homme: My hon. friend was not here 20 years ago, or he would be singing a different tune. In any case, I would hope, and I know my fellow members from Quebec and in fact the Members of all parties in the House will agree, that the same principle, namely to help underrepresented regions by allowing them to have fewer constituents, should also be applied to Northwest Quebec.
I also hope that when the commissioners decide whether to allocate three or four ridings in Northeast Quebec, they will consider that like the Lac Saint-Jean area, the region is a historic entity, an entity that should keep all four of its Members, even if that does not exactly correspond to the rule of so many constituents, so many Members . .. The same principle should apply also in the area-and it does apply now because there an exception-in the Gaspe area, which you know very well and visit every summer with your family, Mr. Speaker, instead of going abroad, as other Hon. Members do.
Because of this very principle, I, both as a Quebecer and a Montrealer, am pleased to join with others to fight for the interests of other provinces.
Because this is true federalism, provided that one day, when asked, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North will be as sympathetic to the representation made concerning Quebec as I am today concerning the representation made concerning Ontario, so that the House as a whole may reflect more accurately not only the Canadian population but also the geography which we know so well in Canada.	I


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have just debated Motions Nos. 4 and 5 together. We will vote on them separately.
The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
To come back to the subject, I think that the principle-


An Hon. Member:: You have no original ideas of your own. [Translation]

November 29, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 3 of Standing Order 13, the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock, Monday, December 2, 1985.
The question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 81, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. We will now be dealing with Motion No. 6.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-74, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 15 and 16 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"12;
(6) the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable
electoral district boundaries:
(i)	the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and
(ii)	a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province; and
(c) the commission may depart from".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief with respect to this particular motion. As Hon. Members will know, this motion is one which I undertook to move at committee stage on the basis of representations made by members of the committee and, most particularly, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). It seemed to me that during the course of the deliberations and discussions in committee, a point was made that would strengthen even more the mandate to the electoral boundaries commissions so that they must indeed take into account things such as the manageability in geographic terms of the size of constituencies as well as other matters of historical areas which may be included within constituencies,
Representation Act, 1985
community of interest and the like. I think this was a very important ingredient in the initiative we have taken on this particular legislation.
I have been listening with great interest to the discussions that have taken place. For the first time now, we have made provision under our legislation that these particular items must be considered by electoral boundaries commissions in the creation of new boundaries. I believe all Members whish to have that sensitivity in place as part of the mandate of the electoral boundaries commissions which are independent commissions that will be reviewing the boundaries in each of the provinces.
I know this particular motion is one which was promoted in the course of the committee hearings and one with which I am glad to agree on behalf of the Government. At this point, 1 would once again thank those Hon. Members who participated in the committee hearings. I think we had a very useful and constructive discussion with respect to the Bill. On behalf of the Government, I was happy to be able to accept suggestions put by Members from both sides of the House with respect to improving this legislation, a legislation which I think is good in the spirit in which it was brought forward initially.
With those few words, I hope the House will be able to accept this particular motion so that we can carry on with third reading of the Bill at an appropriate time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate our support for the amendment put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It does make clearer community of interest, historical voting patterns and electoral districts in northern areas.
I was really disappointed that we did not have the support of the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) with regard to maintaining 11 seats in the redistribution. I think the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) seemed to indicate that he was in favour of maintaining the floor of 11 seats for northern Ontario. We are still waiting for the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais) and the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher) to indicate whether or not they will be voting for those amendments when they are put at six o'clock on Monday. We certainly hope they will vote for them and we hope they will be able to make the President of the Privy Council and the Government caucus reconsider this matter, which is very, very important for representation in northern Ontario in the years ahead. However, we do want to indicate our support for Motion No. 6 which stands in the name of the President of the Privy Council.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in these closing moments before one o'clock, I would like to indicate our support for this particular motion. 1 will have more to say about it after lunch. I would like to call it one o'clock now, Mr. Speaker.

November 29, 1985
Representation Act, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House adjourned for lunch the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) had the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before lunch, we in the New Democratic Party support the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Indeed, we are pleased that the Minister has brought forward such a motion. It was at the insistence of representations made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), as well as the persistence of the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), that the provisions in this motion were brought forward in order that they not be left to the inclination of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission.
What is particularly interesting in the motion is the fact that it recommends that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission shall consider such matters as community of interest, community of identity or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, as well as a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated areas, such as parts of northern Ontario. What the motion states is that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission shall consider these matters. No longer is it a matter of the commission either being able to do so or not; it is now mandatory.
We have no difficulty with supporting this motion and we urge all Hon. Members to support it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and I each have a short statement which we would like to make with respect to the motion which is before the House. This is something which was recommended to the Government by Members of my Party when we saw the Bill. Although we disapprove of the Bill in general we think it is greatly improved as a result of this motion. Not only do we support it but we are surprised that the Government House Leader and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) would have brought forward a Bill which did not recognize the long standing practice of taking into consideration community of interest, community of identity or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province and the manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated rural or northern regions of the province.
I can speak from personal knowledge with respect to the importance of the former point because in my region, the metropolitan Toronto area, although it may seem like a rather homogeneous agglomeration to outsiders, it is made up of
traditional communities. Some of these communities are very old and have become knit together by population increases. However, the people in these communities think of themselves as living within pretty categorically identifiable areas of the city. This was demonstrated when there was an attempt, which succeeded to a large degree, in the matter of postal zoning for the city, which overlooked the fact that there was a Municipality of North York, Downsview and quite a number of other areas in which people feel that they live in a community and prefer to be identified as such as opposed to simply being a numbered unit inside a pretty large diverse metropolitan area. Thus, this principle is even more strongly applied to the matter of electoral boundaries.
To use my own riding as an example, there are three communities in it which are divided by my present riding boundaries. When the present boundaries were established representations were made to try to draw the boundaries so that the people of a community, for example those people in Downsview, might be able to look to one Member of Parliament in relation to a particular problem which they may have with the federal Government for resolving that problem. When the boundaries do not take account of historic communities that continue to exist in these areas, it tends to undermine the spirit of community which is important in Metro Toronto.
This amendment is one we approve of, but it does not change our minds about the Bill as a whole. However, we will vote for this amendment.


Marcel Prud'homme: As 1 was saying this morning, Mr. Speaker, I just do not understand why the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) should always vote against the amendments introduced by Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party and why he should come up with reasons which resemble somewhat what our colleagues from Northern Ontario have already brought before the House.
Our Ontario colleagues wanted to be more specific. They said: "A manageable geographic size for constituencies in sparsely populated regions."
I think that with that description, the Hon. President of the Privy Council meets the concerns of our colleagues from Northern Ontario, but I wish the House had accepted the two amendments introduced by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, because they provided concrete examples of what the Minister is seeking today under paragraph (b) (ii). I think the Commissioners would then have known about the wishes of the House and would have been provided with concrete examples of what we are seeking through the amendment moved by the President of the Privy Council.
I am afraid that with considerations of such a general nature, the Commissioners, I think, could go just about in any
November 29, 1985

direction. But if the House had accepted the specific amendments introduced by our colleagues this morning, the Commissioners would say: We are going to use this concrete example and apply it mutatis mutandis to the other Provinces, wherever similar cases exist. Again, 1 hope that when the Commissioners for the Province of Quebec are asked to deal with the Quebec electoral boundaries, they will remember that the House wants remote ridings such as that of Lac-Saint-Jean to maintain their representation, and ridings in North Western Quebec which, geographically speaking, are of an enormous size to be allowed a smaller population. But that principle is merely stated today, because we have no concrete examples to give them of the strong will of Parliament.
But, in this House, the majority has ruled differently. Being a democrat, 1 bow to this decision, I have no choice.
I should like to deal also with the concepts of community of interests and community of identity.

Here 1 would like to get the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I know he is very busy now with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry.


John R. Rodriguez: He is going somewhere.


Marcel Prud'homme: Most likely. They are all good friends.
The phrase "community of interests" is well translated in French. I do not know if the text was prepared in French and translated into English or vice versa, but when you translate "community of identity'-

-by "identite culturelle'-

-1 am not sure that we are not talking about two different things. We will have to be very careful because a commissioner in an English province could use the English text and a commissioner in Quebec, depending on his or her first language, could use the French text. Those texts will have to be reconciled to make sure that they really mean the same thing. If they do, forget about my comment; if not, then come back to the House at the first opportunity and clarify the situation. Then, by unanimous consent, everything can be done, including the acceptance of my fourth report from the Committee on Management and Members' Services later on this afternoon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I promise I will do my level best to get that through.


Marcel Prud'homme: I want you to know it is not my report, it is a majority report voted by a majority of Members supporting the Government.
I want to draw your attention, Your Honour, to the fact that I very proudly represent a district, which is more than what Canada is used to having. I am glad to see my colleague from the Northwest Territories back because 1 am very highly respectful, not only of the two founding races but of those who
Representation Act, 1985
were here before us, the Indian and Inuit. We have to remind ourselves always of what Canada is all about. I have the honour to represent a district which is most likely the most multicultural district in Canada. There is no doubt about that.
We have the immense additional problem of having to function in languages other than the two official languages of Canada, and that makes our life more difficult. I am afraid that my electors are not as well served as they may be or should be, and perhaps certain considerations should be given to them because of the fact that very few districts are like Saint-Denis. Some in central Toronto and central Montreal are similar, but when you have over 50 languages spoken, many by people who speak neither of the two official languages when they arrive in Canada, you understand the immense difficulty in serving them well. Out of respect we should at least try to understand them in their own language until they have the ability to speak either one or both of the two official languages of Canada.
The Minister very correctly put in the wording that the commission shall consider the community of interests or community of identity when considering reasonable electoral district boundaries. We were talking about that during lunch. We will have to be very careful about what we mean by community of identity and community of interests. I would hope that community of interests would not mean that the very rich should stay together and the very poor should stay together. I hope it does not mean that the multicultural people should stay together and the Anglophones and the Francophones should be given a seat. That is why I would like to get more precision as to the meaning of community of interests.
1 do understand very well the requirement for a manageable geographical size for a district which is sparsely populated. There is no doubt that that is clear. In the past many commissioners have split villages which traditionally and historically belonged somewhere farther away and for reasons we never understood were put them together. It is good that the commissioners will read the speeches we are making and we hope they will understand the sensitivity and historical background of this country, as well as be very sensitive as regards the notion of community of interests.
Last but not least, it is an old tradition of mine to observe a full census every 10 years, and I am going to go through the fourth census in my career. So I have to be very careful.
When the commissioners sit down to design the new boundaries they will design them according to 1981 figures. We should give the commissioners some flexibility, and 1 ask the Minister to consider that between now and next week. That was a wish of the Chief Electoral Officer.
In Toronto there has been a switch of population since 1981. There has been immense new development. The same thing has taken place in Montreal. Downtown Montreal is becoming less and less populated, to the benefit of the west of the Island

November 29, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
of Montreal. I am not being political because both extremes of the Island of Montreal are represented by members of the majority Government for the time being. Therefore, it is not a question of being partisan. But downtown Montreal has been developed commercially and there has been immense develop-meng going on in certain districts of Montreal since 1981. The same thing is happening in Toronto. I see my hon. friend, the President of the Equality Projects Task Force. His riding is one of the best examples I can find.
If the commissioners were to design the map according to the 1981 census, as the law says they should, they will already be depasses par les evenements and we will not have a map which is representative of what exists today. Therefore, flexibility should be given to the commissioners.
Another consideration is the fact that since 1981 in the major centres, as populous as they are, there have been changes in the population, and that should be taken into account in the redesignation of the map.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this redistribution Bill. I want to thank the Hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for moving this particular motion which recommends that in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries the commission shall consider the community of interest and a manageable geographic size.
I come from a part of Saskatchewan where both of these factors must be looked at. The new boundaries that have been established for the Prince Albert constituency contravene both parts of that clause. Neither the community of interest nor the geographic size have been well established in the new map. For example, the proposed Prince Albert constituency takes in well over half and nearly two-thirds of the Province of Saskatchewan. The area is 750 kilometers long and 500 kilometers wide, which makes it an area of unmanageable geographic size.
I appreciate that this amendment gives the commissioners more direction and recognizes a couple of factors which I think must be recognized. If instituted, it will give those groups of people least likely to be heard in the House an opportunity to send a Member to Ottawa who would represent them more directly than is often the case.
I would like to refer specifically to the first part of that clause, the community of interest. In the proposed Prince Albert constituency there are approximately 30,000 people of native ancestry. There is a fairly large but sparsely populated agricultural area which is intermingled with a forestry area. There is, as well, the very small city of Prince Albert with a population of between 30,000 and 40,000, approximately half the total population of the constituency. Therefore, I agree that we should request that the commission review this in the case of the Prince Albert constituency in Saskatchewan. Prince Albert is only one of the constituencies that both of these clauses deal with and I use it as an example because I am familiar with it.
Besides the fact that there may be several different communities of interest in a constituency of that size, the difficulty
in representing such an area should be considered. I have found it very interesting to listen to the debate regarding the difficulty in representing northern Ontario with 11 Members. The area that the Members were concerned about is probably only twice as large as that which is now being proposed for the Prince Albert constituency. Travel, which is necessary to represent a constituency, is very difficult in those circumstances.
I visited most of northern Saskatchewan while I was the director of education for the area. Unless one is to take several months, many places can only be reached by aircraft. Unless the Government starts supplying aircraft to northern Members, they cannot afford to travel to those places. Although the size of the constituency remains large, the number of people can be reduced, which would allow the Member the opportunity to visit more of his constituents in order to gain first-hand knowledge of them. There is a second area which is as large as my present constituency which has a road system and about a third of the population of the total constituency.
Besides that, in this constituency as well as in many others along the northern fringe of the country, knowledge of a number of languages is required in order to do a good job of representation. In the Prince Albert constituency four languages are spoken: Cree, Chipawin, French, and English. The ability to represent communities depends, to some extent, upon the ability to speak the language or the languages of the community.
The basic principle of representation, representation by population, has been honoured by its breach in many places across Canada. I think that situation must be accepted. For instance, at present there are 80,000 people in the proposed constituency of Prince Albert. If we take away the northern area of Prince Albert, which would have a population of over 30,000, that would cause the other smaller constituencies in Saskatchewan to be increased by a population of 3,000 or less. That is not really a major factor as far as an individual Member is concerned. This is true for Churchill and for some other new constituencies as well.
I am suggesting that while the representation by population principle is acceptable and should be a basic principle, we should not consider it as the only way to divide the country. For example, the Hon. Government House Leader represents half of the City of Saskatoon. I believe it would be much easier for him to represent the entire City of Saskatoon than it would be for a Member from Prince Albert to represent more than half of the province. That must be taken into consideration when the boundaries are being drawn up.
It is important that we maintain the fairest representation but that it be not always defined by representation by population.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Bound-
November 29, 1985

aries Readjustment Act. I am particularly pleased to be speaking to Motion No. 6 which deals with the powers of the commission with respect to the definition of electoral district boundaries.
As all Members are aware, it is no easy task for the commission to decide how a particular constituency should be defined and what would be reasonable boundaries. There are many factors which must be taken into consideration.
Motion No. 6 states that the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries. First, the commission can look at the community of interest or community of identity in the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province. The legislation would require the commission to consider certain matters. What does it mean when it says that the commission must consider the community of interest with respect to a particular area? That might present a problem to the commission in the sense that it would have to define first what the community of interest is and then determine how to adjust the boundaries to take that particular community of interest into account.
The motion goes on to say that the commission must consider the community of identity. In my view that might present more difficulties in terms of trying to understand what it means. Does it mean that the commission must consider what particular ethnic group is predominant in a particular area and, in deciding where to draw the boundaries, must the commission try to encompass the whole of a particular ethnic community?
There are arguments for and against that particular suggestion. The argument against it is that it might result in the ghettoization of a particular ethnic community. Some would argue that that is a desirable right, while others would not, but the effect of this motion is to require the commission to look into that particular issue.
Of course, the commission must also look into the historical pattern of that particular electoral district. I do not believe there is any difficulty with the commission doing that in certain areas. In my riding, for example, certain municipalities used to exist but because of changes by the provincial Government through amalgamation and the expansion of particular municipalities, the municipal make-up of Metropolitan Toronto has changed.
A number of years ago we had the old town of Weston that was a distinct municipality in Metropolitan Toronto. There were a number of similar municipalities, the number of which were reduced through amalgamation some years ago. However, the historical feeling of the people in those municipalities has not changed. They still refer to their place of residence as being the Town of Weston, for example, or the Town of Leaside or the Town of Mimico.
It is important that the commission take into account the historical nature of a particular a rea and try to keep it intact as much as possible. We would not want the commission to dissect these historical municipalities that perhaps may no
Representation Act, 1985
longer exist in law but still exist in terms of the feeling of its particular residents.
I represent the riding of York South-Weston. I do not represent the Town of Weston, only the part of it which lies south of Lawrence Avenue, but because the name of my particular riding is York South-Weston, many people outside of my riding believe that I represent them. That is the problem with dissecting particular communities.
The commission would also be mandated by this amendment to consider, in determining reasonable electoral boundaries, a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province. We have no difficulty with that particular provision. While the Liberal Opposition supports this particular amendment, we do point out some of the difficulties that might result with respect to the problem of defining or understanding what this particular legislation might mean.
In the few minutes that remain, I would like to speak generally about redistribution. As Canadians know, at present there are 282 seats in the House of Commons. There was a previous proposal to increase the number of seats to 310, an addition of 28 Members. If those Members were Liberal, of course no one on this side of the House would complain. However, all joking aside, the concern raised by a number of Members is that if we continue to use the same formula that at present exists which results in an increase in the House with every census, sooner or later we would run out of room in this place. Perhaps there would be a couple of Members sitting beside you, Mr. Speaker, being able to look at your notes. There would be no more aisles and there would be benches similar to the British House of Commons. I suppose ultimately we might have that program some time down the road when each and every one of us has long gone to other places.
I think there are problems with respect to trying to limit the representation or the number of seats in the House, recognizing the very practical problem of trying to house the extra Members in the House. One has to consider the very basic premise from which we all work, our British parliamentary history that there should be representation by population. That is where you begin. That is a fair place to start. One vote should mean just as much in one area of Canada as it does in another.
We all recognize because of history, and because of our particular history here in Canada, that one has to deviate from the important concept of representation by population to take into account the regions of Canada that are not as densely populated as others.
In the City of Toronto, from where I come, or in any other major city, you do not have the problem of lack of representation in the House of Commons. You do have that problem in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and in other provinces, including Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. These areas are not as densely populated as the larger urban centres. We have to deviate from the principle of representation by

November 29, 1985
Representation Act, 1985
population to say that in certain areas we will not insist on a certain number of people or on a certain degree of population.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that my time has expired. It is unfortunate because I wished to raise several other points.
Let me reiterate our position. We support Motion No. 6, notwithstanding some minor difficulties with respect to interpretation that we might have. Generally, though, we are in opposition to the Bill.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just a couple of words-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: -that will take maybe just a minute, that is all.
As far as this amendment is concerned, I think some Members should be more forthright in expressing their own opinions about this amendment as they see it for the ridings they represent.
Some Members in this Chamber who represent rural areas would say that there should be fewer people in their riding than in a riding considered to be urban. Those Members would say that the urban ridings should have twice as many people in them as in a riding considered rural. Then you would have another Member who would say that if you have what is classified as being rural urban, that should fit into the same category as being completely rural. If they do not say it they should come clean and be honest about it. If they were not trying to follow the Party line or anything like that, the reason that a Member, who represented a rural urban riding or a completely rural riding in Canada, would say that is that those areas are by their very nature 95 per cent non-industrial.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: It means that those Members have more phone calls than the other Members.


An Hon. Member:: I doubt it.


George Baker: They get more letters from constituents than other Members. They have a different function in Parliament than the other Members have. Let us be honest about it. There are certain ridings in Canada, and it has always been the case, where residents of the riding would not know who their Member is. A name would come up and they would say: "We do not know if that is municipal, provincial or federal". But go to a rural riding, go to a non-industrial riding and ask who the Member of Parliament is, bang on. And if you ask who the provincial Member is, bang on. You ask them who their municipal Members are, again bang on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: There is an exception to that. In certain urban areas there are some very popular people in the House of
Commons, like the Hon. Member who spoke a few moments ago.


John R. Rodriguez: The hustler.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: However, Mr. Speaker, not wanting to get away from the subject under consideration, here is the fact of the matter.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What about the amendment?


George Baker: The Government House Leader asks about the amendment. As I read the amendment, it is twofold. The amendment which the House Leader introduced says that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission will look at the connection that one part of a riding has with another and will not destroy any historical or traditional links. The second part of the amendment says, "Let us look at geography in the total consideration of the Bill on redistribution."
There is another element coming in here, that is, the type of riding and area that a person represents. I do not wish to make excuses for Members of Parliament but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are some Members here who sometimes do not know how far to go on a certain problem they get. For example, there are Members of Parliament who are asked to look at an appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, an appeal to the Veterans Allowance Board or an appeal to this or that. Then the constituent says: "We want you to represent us before that board". After that is over, a second appeal comes. Perhaps it is before a court. On one case you are perhaps tied up with two or three days of actual work. You say to yourself, like some Members do who have a 100 or 150 cases of appeals before the Federal Court or the Tax Court of Canada; "Am I really doing justice to these cases?" Some Members are not lawyers. They appear before a judge to get a decision regarding a constituent. I am not saying that there are some Members here who, out of necessity, work ten times harder than other Members. There are certain ridings that require more attention than other ridings simply because of geography and a practically non-existent industrial base.
There is a third element here. Who makes the decision on the third element, I do not know, but it should be taken into account in making decisions on where boundaries lie. In some areas of the country there should be two Members. If this Bill were not before the House, perhaps geographically speaking there would be a separate riding for Labrador. Under this piece of legislation that cannot be so. All it does is to rejuggle the boundaries within the Province of Newfoundland.
I should like to make a point which I think is a very legitimate one. Some Members of Parliament deserve smaller areas of coverage than others, simply because of the circumstances in their ridings. As the House well knows, that determines what is done by a Member of Parliament. I mean, there are only so many hours in a day. A Member of Parliament is
November 29, 1985

either a constituency man or is involved in committee work and everything else in the House of Commons. We cannot do both. That should be a major consideration. In rural areas it is the Members of Parliament who speak on behalf of the people. In other ridings, associations and organizations prepare briefs. Sometimes we do not know one from the other, there is so much representation. However, in rural areas it falls back to Members of Parliament. That should be a third consideration when we are dealing with the particular amendment before the House.
I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment. 1 cannot see any great good coming from it. The reports of the boundaries commission which 1 have read always made the point that an area was a concise geographical one, that one area was connected to another, and used rationale to divide it up. They have always indicated geographic, historic and economic reasons for an area being as it is. However, there is nothing wrong with including that in the actual Act. It certainly re-emphasizes the wishes of the House of Commons. I think we agree with this particular amendment.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow the articulations of my colleague from eastern Canada. There are few Members in the House who can approach the Hon. Member's knowledge of electoral ridings, commissions and so on.
I, too, am in favour of the amendment as proposed. However, I have some concern about the English and French versions of the amendment itself in that they seem to give a different perspective. In English the amendment reads:
-the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries:
(i) the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical
pattern of an electoral district in the province,-
The French version identifies the community of interest or the community of identity on a cultural basis as well. That strikes me as being somewhat odd, in the sense that the word "cultural" was not used in the English version but appeared in the French version. I think that is quite significant. It ought to be consistent in both languages, of course, but there is also the importance of the word "cultural". If we are to draw boundary lines based upon cultural group, cultural identity or cultural neighbourhoods within a certain metropolitan or rural area, then I am at odds with such a philosophy. If we base ourselves upon cultural lines, perhaps we are trying to ghettoize something we ought not to ghettoize.
There are a number of different ethnocultural communities in my riding, comprised of Canadians who came from different parts of the world or Canadians whose ancestries were certainly in other parts of the globes. Should we draw a line around a community of predominantly Italian Canadian extraction and another line around a community which may have a Spanish background? I think not. 1 think we must preserve the integrity of communities, whether the delineations be physical or otherwise. However, it disturbs me somewhat that the word "cultural" was included in the French translation of the particular amendment.
Representation Act, 1985
Perhaps we ought to look a litte closer at this particular amendment, to ensure that we will not draft boundary lines based upon culture. Certainly one is a Canadian, whether one is of Canadian Italian background or of Canadian Portugese background. I am somewhat surprised that the word "cultural" entered into the question of boundary guidelines.
In addition, it makes sense to preserve the sense of community in our deliberations. Obviously the legislation will result in new public hearings to solicit support and recommendations from the public at large in terms of where delineations should be drawn. The last series of public hearings conducted by the previous administration were ignored by the present Government. One thing which came through loud and clear in many of those deliberations was the importance which people attached to the sense of community. People were very sensitive to any community being delineated in a way which would perhaps radically change their way of life. Individuals and neighbourhoods came forward, be they businessmen's or ratepayers' associations. Perhaps they were used to doing the community work in their own market areas and being delineated according to those boundaries. They were the last ones to want communities to be cut in half or otherwise. This amendment speaks very boldly and forcefully to the sentiments which were expressed by Canadians from coast to coast. Therefore, it makes sense that the commission be instructed by the House, by parliamentarians, that when it has hearings across the country, these guidelines will be the parameters of the debate. Certainly the debate will be representation by population, but the parameters will be to safeguard what is there now, to safeguard the way of life enjoyed by individuals in their communities. At the same time it should be recognized that we need an equation which will assure Canadians of the best possible representation in the House of Commons.
However, I return to the word "cultural". Perhaps in the ensuing debate, in committee or at the public hearings, that word could be somewhat better defined. As I indicated, it appears in the French version but not in the English version. I do not think we should get into boundary disputes on culture. That is the last thing at which we should look. I am pleased that the House provided me with an opportunity to include my comments in the equation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: On division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.

November 29, 1985
Income Tax Act


INCOME TAX ACT AND RELATED ACTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 28, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) 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 second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I reflected upon the capital gains provisions contained in Bill C-84 as I listened to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) trying to explain to the provincial premiers in Halifax yesterday why the federal Government was going to have to change the formula for EPF funding, a change which will result in the provinces receiving $6 billion less over the next number of years for use in hospital funding and post-secondary education funding. The Prime Minister's words were that the money had to come from somewhere; that the federal Government had a big deficit that it had to reduce.
When I heard the Prime Minister talking about that, I could not help thinking about this measure, a measure which will benefit well-off Canadians by allowing them free capital gains appreciation over the next five years up to the tune of $500,000 each.
I have seen a number of assessments as to how much of a drain that represents on the fisc. It struck me that had the Government of Canada been somewhat more rational in approaching the Budget, it would have been possible for the Prime Minister of Canada to maintain whatever goal he has in terms of deficit cutting while still being able to respond positively to the provincial premiers yesterday in terms of their desire to maintain the traditional federal assistance provided to those very important provincial programs.
1 do not think it is digressing at all to talk about the hospital funding programs in Canada. While I was not in the House of Commons at the time, I can recall the kind of encouragement and leadership the Pearson Government provided in convincing the provincial Governments to establish hospitalization programs and eventually to establish universal medicare for all Canadians. Part of the consideration was the promise that the federal Government would be a solid supporter of these programs. Indeed, during the years since-years when there have been largely Liberal Governments in office-the federal Government has stood behind those programs, and it has done so notwithstanding the consequences for the federal financial position. The federal deficit is much larger than it would be had the provinces been left to take care of medicare and hospitalization funding at their expense, as the Constitution provides for programs of that nature. In a spirit of co-operative federalism, the Pearson Government made a strong financial commitment to those programs, a commitment which this
Government is backing away from under the guise of reducing the deficit.
The cost of the proposal in respect of capital gains contained in this measure is one of the principal reasons why this Government is not in a position to support these provincial programs-programs that were undertaken in the 1960s on the understanding, on the basis of the agreement entered into between the Liberal Government of the day and the provinces, that the federal Government would provide transfer payments to assist in their funding.
We do not approve of this capital gains tax exemption of up to $500,000 in one's lifetime. We are going to vote against it. While we agree that the federal Government has to be concerned about the provincial hospitalization and education programs. We in the Liberal Party do not find acceptable the introduction of a shiny new loophole available for the well-to-do in Canadian society while the general tax burden is being increased on lower and middle-income Canadians. That is not something that is acceptable to the Liberal Party, and for that reason we intend to vote against the proposal that there be this capital gains lifetime exemption of $500,000. The Liberal Party does not object to the use of the Income Tax Act to provide certain incentives. Capital gains are already taxed at a lower rate than other forms of gain or income.
I appreciate all of the theoretical arguments that distinguish capital appreciation gains from earned income. However, from the point of view of the morality of it, there is a very good argument in favour of imposing the same rate of income tax on capital gains as applies to earned income. We do not do that in our system because of the incentive that we want to provide for investment. As a result, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
However, this Government is going further. This Government wishes to reintroduce the inequities that the Carter Commission criticized in its report-a report that came out at the end of the 1960s-as a result of which the capital gains tax was first introduced. I very much regret this big opening in the Income Tax Act, an opening which will benefit only that relatively small number of Canadians earning capital gains.
The suggestion made by my leader-a suggestion which I shall repeat-is that we would be more comfortable, if the Government wants to encourage investment by Canadians to see the incentive, the encouragement, focused on the type of economic activity that is truly beneficial to the Canadian economy, the type of activity that creates jobs and economic activity in our country. But, as my leader has pointed out, the way this exemption is drawn, not only does it give tax favoured treatment to the individual who invests to create jobs and to create economic activity, but the same beneficial tax treatment is available to those who buy and sell condominium apartments in Florida or those who buy and sell works of art from the Middle Ages. In other words, any type of investment qualifies for this capital gains tax lifetime exemption, to a maximum of $500,000.
Part of the reason that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) puts forward for going with this much wider exemp-
November 29, 1985

tion than one which we would have been able to support is that he wanted something simple, something that would be easy for taxpayers and investors to understand. To our way of thinking, it would be far better to add a few technicalities to the measure-technicalities which would focus an exemption on encouraging investment of the kind that is useful in job-creation and in building up our country-thereby saving, as some people have estimated it, up to three-quarters of the total cost of this particular tax incentive.
Objective people who have reviewed this proposed exemption have indicated that 75 per cent of its benefit will go to those who make investments that have absolutely no positive impact on the Canadian economy. It is a measure that will encourage the sale of businesses, which is something which may not necessarily be beneficial to the Canadian economy; it will encourage the selling of an apartment in some other part of the world, if one is lucky enough to own one; it will encourage the turning over of works of art.
Can we expect the Canadian taxpayers to support that kind of activity and to view it as something that should receive favourable treatment under the Income Tax Act? We say no. The Prime Minister of Canada, yesterday, said that the federal Government could no longer afford to provide the same level of increased support for hospitalization and medicare, programs administered by the provinces, because of the large deficit. I wonder how many Canadians are going to believe that. I wonder how many will not be able to see that this is done to try to finance some of the mistaken fiscal policies of this Government, including the one before us in this measure.
I want to deal, as well, with the personal individual surtax of 2.5 per cent for incomes of $29,500 to $60,800 and 5 per cent for incomes over $60,800 in 1985. It is pointed out that these rates will double in 1986. Of course, these rates, as much as they are being increased and as much as a surtax is being created, do not result in one additional nickel being paid by those taxpayers who organize their affairs so that they pay no taxes at all. The Government promised in the Budget that it would deal with the situation of Canadians who have high incomes and who pay no income taxes at all. I would like to talk about that problem for a moment.
The reason there are individuals with high incomes who pay no taxes at all is that those individuals have organized their affairs to take advantage of a great many incentive opportunities under the income tax laws which permit individuals to save taxes by making certain kinds of investments and by organizing income receipt opportunities in ways recognized by the Income Tax Act. I recognize that virtually all of those incentives were put in place during the Liberal administration but it certainly was a trend which concerned the former Government and purportedly concerns the present Government. Something should be done about it. No matter what incentives of which an individual wishes to take advantage to reduce his income tax, he should not be able to reduce it below a certain minimum tax.
Income Tax Act
This Government made the promise during the last election campaign that it would introduce a minimum tax so that the situation for which they criticized the Government of which I was a part would be corrected. The temporary individual surtax which the Government has proposed is not the answer. That is not a measure that will increase the taxes of Canadians who pay no taxes at all because of the way they organize their affairs.
When the Budget was introduced, the Minister of Finance indicated that a paper would be introduced and there would be some answer on a minimum tax to be imposed on that category of Canadians by the end of this year. We have yet to see any of the answers. Some of the options have been put forward, but as the end of the year draws nearer and with few days for parliamentary business remaining before Christmas, there is still not a Bill before us to implement that minimum tax.
Another thing that makes this Bill unacceptable to us is that while those who will be paying the minimum tax when it is introduced are free of paying taxes in the meantime, the other provisions of the Budget which increased taxes imposed on ordinary Canadians and reduced the effective amount they receive through family allowances and the old age pensions have already been put into place. They are now beginning to affect the incomes of average and lower-income Canadians.
Whatever Conservative Members said about their constituents and however much they made appeals to lower and middle-income Canadians during the election campaign, what has become clear when looking at their way of organizing the Budget and the way taxes have changed since they have come to office is that the beneficiaries of their policies will be the Canadians who are better off. The people who will bear the burden are the middle and lower-income Canadians. We object to that part of the income tax Bill that is before us and we intend to vote against it as well. I had wished to make some further points, but I will stop now and allow the debate to be taken up by one of my colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. Debate. [Translation]
Otherwise, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has the floor.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today, to speak to 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.
I am pleased to be able to continue the debate started by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) on November 27, 1985.
The ultimate purpose of this legislation is to restore our country's economic growth and thus provide jobs and enhance the well-being of Canadians. Its purpose is to give each and everyone of us a chance to have a better life and especially to

November 29, 1985
Income Tax Act
give our business people a much-needed stimulus for business development and expansion.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of Bill C-84 will have the effect of giving our small- and medium-sized businesses, especially, a free rein. They will also give private enterprise the priority it deserves in our country's economy. We have 750,000 small-and medium-sized businesses in this country. We have a million and a half unemployed, a legacy we received from our Liberal predecessors.
As soon as we came to power in September 1984, we tackled the unemployment problem. In November 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) presented his agenda for economic renewal. Basically, this agenda proposed giving the private sector a free rein and opportunities for profits. It received the confidence of the private sector, which immediately understood, upon reading the agenda for economic renewal, that the new Government would try and save money by cutting Government spending. These measures, in addition to others, should eventually help us to reduce our deficit.
Subsequently, in his May Budget, the Minister of Finance announced to Canadians concrete measures aimed at stimulating economic recovery. Further to this agenda for economic renewal and the May Budget, our Government opened the door to foreign investment by eliminating FIRA and introducing legislation to establish Investment Canada. From now on, instead of pestering foreign investors, we are providing a climate that is attractive for and welcomes investment.
Our Government has also started to dispose of Crown corporations. We will soon be able to announce further significant developments in the disposal process. Canadians will then be in a position to manage, on a profit-making basis, assets which until now were managed by Government technocrats lacking the profit incentive or any other kind of incentive, who moreover were not accountable for their actions, not even to Parliament.
We have also started a very important series of negotiations with our U.S. partners. If these negotiations are conducted successfully, and we intend that should be the case, they will open up a market of 250 million customers, enabling our businesses to become more specialized and to maximize their production processes.
Incidentally, I have the pleasure to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been appointed chairman of a special committee that will regularly monitor and analyze developments in Canada-U.S. negotiations, with special emphasis on the interests of the Province of Quebec.
We also signed the Atlantic Agreement and the Western Agreement. We put an end to the climate of confrontation, the arrogance and the insatiable appetite of the Liberals who were never able to reach a consensus with the provinces concerning the development of Canada's plentiful natural resources.
As promised to the people we have begun deregulating the oil industry. We scrapped the National Energy Program in which the previous Liberal administration had sunk billions of dollars.
Respecting small- and medium-sized businesses, we amended the legislation in order to allow banks to lend them money at preferential rates, and our Government guarantees the repayment of those loans along with the interest. The legislation gives Canadian bankers more operating room and does not create further administrative red tape for small- and mediumsized businesses.
To ease the administration of the act we liberalized a number of significant matters, particularly concerning the caisses populaires which, because of their position, did not enjoy the same privileges as banks did. We lifted some of the restrictions thwarting the business of several caisses populaires so that those institutions, which are well acquainted with promoters and their environment, can now lend them money with the backing of the State.
The Liberals failed to recognize the importance of the caisses populaires.
During the period set aside for questions, the Liberals, unable to analyze the impact of our economic program and envious as they are of our successful efforts have to ask specific questions.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I must also make specific comments. While our Government tells Canadians they may have to put up with some restraints, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) willingly takes a 15 per cent annual salary cut-back and all Ministers agree to make do with 10 per cent less. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) who is here today happens to be one of those who have accepted a 10 per cent cut in his salary. These are some of the details which the Liberals would rather not mention.
I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Turner, I think, did not accept to have his salary reduced by 10 per cent. As for Mr. Broadbent, the leader of the socialist party, who is so close to working men and women, to the needy and to widows and orphans, he did not accept to reduce his salary by one cent.
As for the results of our program, they have been extraordinary. We have enabled the creation of over 340,000 new jobs in the last 15 months. The interest rate has gone down by 3.6 per cent. For instance, a smaller business with a debt of $300,000 will save $1,000 in interest costs because of this 3 per cent decrease in the interest rate.
Thanks to these savings, our businesses can reduce their costs and be more competitive on international and American markets, which is very important in this period of intense trade negotiations with our southern neighbors.
November 29, 1985

The lower interest rates on mortgages, securities and lines of credit for smaller businesses will allow them to increase their sales and therefore their production, which means that they will be able to hire more workers.
At the consumer level, a lower interest rate is even more significant if we think about Canadians with a $50,000 mortgage on their home. They will now save $150 in interest costs, and if we consider the impact of the taxation system, at a marginal tax rate of 50 per cent, that is the equivalent of a $3,600 a year pay increase. It is important to point out that a 3.6 per cent decrease in interest rates is the equivalent of a $3,600 a year pay increase for Canadian families.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, unemployment has gone down by 1.3 per cent generally and by 2 per cent among young people.
The Bill proposes measures which have already proven to be effective because of the positive reaction of Canadians. One of the most important and appropriate of these is the capital gains tax exemption of up to $500,000. This provision is economical for the Government because it will not deprive us of more than $600 million in revenue and its positive effects are incalculable.
Mr. Speaker, everyone is sensitive to an increase in his on her assets. The system created under the Liberal Government discouraged the accumulation of assets and therefore prevented businesses from prospering. The proof of this is that the Government had to invent all kinds of public schemes to replace private initiative. Our population had lost all motivation. The possibility of making non-taxable profits thanks to the capital gains provisions will allow our citizens to invest, especially in smaller businesses, and so improve their capital structure and reduce their borrowings.
This Bill also provides for the creation of small business investment corporations, for the purpose, among others, of promoting the provision of venture capital. These corporations will pay no income tax.
Bill C-84 allows Canadians to set up limited partnership investment corporations to deal with small businesses.
The possibilities offered by Bill C-84 will facilitate capital raising for high technology companies. They are the companies of the future, that will be competitive on the North American markets. That, Mr. Speaker, is one way of improving the lot of Canadians.
High technology development used to be done by technocrats in Government laboratories, but as a result of this Bill, private enterprise will be able to generate its own capital and, given the creativity, initiative and fighting spirit of its managers, to develop new technologies directly for its own use.
This Bill also closes some tax loopholes. The objectives set by the Liberal Governments which implemented them could never be reached, due in part to the shrewdness of business people and the lack of foresight of the Liberal legislators. Our
Income Tax Act
Government plugs these tax loopholes while streamlining the Act.
This concludes a few comments on the most important aspects of our legislative program. 1 know very well that the Liberals are going to do their utmost to delay passage and Royal Assent of this Bill. That is the way they work. They have no regard for the priorities of our country. They act on only two fronts. They question minor details and reach a consensus only on the use of filibuster, both in the House and in Standing or Legislative Committees. People should know that Liberals will try anything to delay what we are trying to achieve. That is one reason why they will stay in opposition for a very long time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments'? The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, 1 could not miss this opportunity to make a comment and ask a question. I note that the Hon. Member is blaming the Opposition because his Government does not know how to govern. Frankly, I think he exaggerates a little. After all, the Opposition is not responsible if this Government keeps struggling with increasingly serious problems, unable to solve them and constantly embarrassed.
If the Government took more time to manage the country instead of appointing Conservatives on committees and to various other jobs, the country would perhaps be better governed.
Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question to ask. The Hon. Member has just praised his Government and told us that it has plugged, to use the word, the loopholes in the legislation. And if such is his Government's intention-Mr. Speaker, I would never have accused him of belonging to the extreme right as the other Conservatives do. I thought he was more fair-minded, but I see that I was mistaken and he is just as bad as the others.
However, I would ask the Member opposite why this Government who wants to plug loopholes has taxed the poor this year? Why does the Government want to de-index family allowances? Why did the Government try to tax senior citizens while taking no action against the rich until next year or even later?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for giving me the opportunity to answer a few matters of particular interest. I would ask him firstly why your Leader, or you so-called leader, did not agree to a 15 per cent cut in his salary for the benefit of the poors, those who need it, as you claim? If he were to set the example as a Leader, it might have a significant impact.
I would also tell the Hon. Member that we have created
340,000	new jobs since September 1984.

November 29, 1985
Income Tax Act
I would also tell my hon. colleague that, unless he has no mortgage on his house, that the average Canadian-


An Hon. Member:: I have none.


Gabriel Fontaine: Great, congratulations, Sir. The average Canadian saves $1,800 a year on mortgage interest costs and I have explained that those savings amount to a $3,600 salary increase. This was done through the involvement of our Government, and it is a significant achievement.


Mr. Champagne:: Mr. Speaker, I believe what my hon. colleague just said is very true-


Don Boudria: Go ahead, congratulate him!


Michel Champagne: If the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) wishes to stand up to contratu-late him, he is welcome to join me. The question 1 would like to ask my hon. colleague, and he will call me to order if I stray away from the subject matter of our debate, is the following. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said earlier that our Government wanted to de-index, wanted to harm old people, families, poor people, mothers with children, but Mr. Speaker, this is what I would like to ask him: When did the former Government when they were in power introduce an income tax for the wealthiest people in the country? Mr. Speaker, when did those Members on the side of the previous Government who claim to be supporting the poor and the low income families, when did they stand up? When did the Members opposite stand up, Mr. Speaker, when family allowances and old age security pensions were cut? When did they stand up? Really, 1 would like to know, Mr. Speaker, because since they have been in Opposition, all they have been doing is yelling around. That is what they do. They come to our constituencies and tell people things that are just not true at all. 1 would like to know, Mr. Speaker. And that is why I am asking my hon. colleague, so that for once at least the people of Canada, all our constituents, including the people of Quebec, will know what the Liberal Members have been indulging in the past few months: cheap political rhetoric.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that when his party came to power, just after his Government took office, one could fill a large food basket with $100 or even $50. However, when you left, one could hardly fill a grocery bag with this same $50. This is how you treated Canadian consumers, all the while reducing family allowances and old age security pensions. Under your regime, the size of a food basket shrank significantly.
It was your policies which started the inflationary spiral throughout Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult to believe what we are hearing. Was it not the Hon. Member's
Leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), who stood up on the election platform in Sherbrooke, Quebec, in July of 1984 and said to the people there and, through them, all the people of Canada, that he would not touch senior citizens' pensions? Was it not his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who issued a Budget which was a direct attack on the senior citizens, a Budget which attempted to reduce the deficit on the backs of our seniors? Was it not his Minister of Finance who tried to deindex senior citizens' pensions notwithstanding the fact that his Leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, promised those senior citizens during that election campaign that OAS was a sacred trust and would not be touched?
We fully recognize that the Leader of the Conservative Party was thirsting for power and was prepared to do and say anything in order to gain power. Would it not lead one to seriously question the credibility and integrity of this Conservative Government when, during the election campaign, it made promises to the disadvantaged in our society and then, the moment the Government came into office, forgot all about the promises? The Hon. Member talks about caring and compassion, honesty and integrity. Was it not his Prime Minister who made that promise, yes or no?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, even though we have inherited from the Liberals a pitiful administration, a poor financial situation and huge difficulties, we are still able today to allocate $45 billion of our $105 billion budget to social programs and had it not been for the $25 billion in interest payments, we would allocate today 57 per cent of our spendings to those programs. We are still able to do it in spite of the problems we have inherited from you. We have done that while creating 340,000 jobs.


Lucie Pépin: Part-time jobs.


Gabriel Fontaine: We have reduced interest rates. We have reduced unemployment. Our Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has increased by $1.8 billion the funds earmarked for retraining programs available to Canadians. That is what we are committed to achieve, Mr. Speaker, and what we are achieving.


Marcel Prud'homme: I would simply like to ask a question from my hon. colleague and friend. He is blaming us for the deficit but in fact, the previous Government was never blamed by the then Official Opposition. I understand that the Hon. Member is new here and incidentally, I welcome him to this House, but 1 have one thing to tell him: 1 have sat on the opposite side and I don't want to be nasty gratuitously but I have already been there and as far as I remember, the Official Opposition which now forms the Government never blamed us at the time for what he calls abuse and deficit. On the contrary! We had to
November 29, 1985

hold them back. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we had to hold back Opposition members who were asking us to take a thousand other steps that could not be paid for given the financial needs of the Canadian people. Therefore, do not blame us for that.
If it is true that... 1 conclude, Mr. Speaker. If it is true that we are presently in a period of restraint in Canada, how can he explain to his constituents in Levis that one of the first useless expenditures of this Government consisted in spending almost $55 or $60 million on something as useless as new uniforms? How can he explain that to his constituents of Levis if we really have to limit our expenditures, at a time when all over the world and particularly in Geneva, in Europe, people talk about a reduction in armaments, in the military staff of both big alliances of NATO and of the Warsaw Pact? However, at the same time, the Minister of National Defence and Deputy Prime Minister, who controls about everything in the House, the protector of the Conservative Party and of everything, proposes to increase our NATO forces by 1,250 soldiers at an added cost of $100 million a year. Extra millions, hundreds of extra millions, and if those things had not been done, they would not increase the deficit. I would like to understand how he can feel justified in blaming us for some things for which his party did not blame us when they were in the Opposition since those people asked us for more expensive programs. Now those things are happening under his administration. How can he justify all those military expenditures? I recognize the importance of military spending. But how can he explain that to the people of Levis? I would like him to tell us how he explains this to the people of Levis, whom I know, because personally I have not found a way to explain such extravagant military spending to the people of Montreal-Saint-Denis.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for his excellent remarks. However, the Hon. Member will not lead me today from a Budget measure with financial repercussions to a debate on an international level. When the Member for Saint-Denis tells me that the opposition never talked about the deficit, I have to remind him that it is not the opposition who gave us this mandate on September 4, but the Canadian men and women; they are the ones who have sent here 211 of us to reduce the deficit and rebuild the economy, to give them back hope, to revive businesses, to reduce interest rates and unemployment and to raise the standard of living of the population. The Opposition did not give us that mandate on September 4, 1984: the Canadians did. And I have to tell the Member for Saint-Denis that the honorable Member for Levis was also given that mandate and that he is proud to participate today in its fulfilment.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is clearly a Friday afternoon. We face the prospect of this
Income Tax Act
meagre piece of legislation before us-two hundred and how many pages? With the normal expectations of Friday afternoon, we even see the rebirth of the "Rat Pack", the rebirth of what we thought, for the sake of the Liberal Party, was long buried.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The leader left town.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have the grasshopper pack now.


Steven W. Langdon: It seems to be back and re-emerging. I must say I am reluctant, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and interfere in the re-emergence of the Rat Pack because it gave us a sense of-


Sergio Marchi: Envy, jealousy.


Steven W. Langdon: -Liberalism in its true essence. But I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that today I am speaking with some chagrin about the Americanization of Canadian politics, particularly about the Americanization of NDP politics.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's tough.


Sergio Marchi: Do you have any?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You had to hire an American pollster.


Steven W. Langdon: We confess, Mr. Speaker, to having had an American pollster. 1 remind the Chamber that the American pollster was faced with a difficult task, that of taking a Party at 10 per cent at the polls and putting it back into its rightful place as a powerful political movement across the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are dreaming.


John V. Nunziata: This guy is dreaming in Technicolor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it succeeded. We found the right American to give us help. Unfortunately, the Conservatives, in their search for an American to give them guidance and direction have clearly stumbled on the wrong American. Perhaps Will Rogers was the one they sought, but I fear that the man they found was the mighty Mencken whose notion of a beautiful day was one with sleet replacing a blizzard, whose notion of happiness was a newspaper strike.


John V. Nunziata: What's he talking about?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives found their Mencken, they found a man who could guide them as they sought political popularity through reshaping their tax policy. Mencken gave them advice. It was, I can see, remarkable advice. It is advice which I would have taken with some scepticism. However, with their customary sense of complete faith in things American, with their commitment to continentalizing our political system, they took the advice of Mr. Mencken.
Mr. Mencken's advice to the aspiring politician would have sounded something like this: Young man, if you wish to become a successful Prime Minister-

November 29, 1985
Income Tax Act


John V. Nunziata: What about young women?


Steven W. Langdon: We realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is a tradition of ghosts leading Prime Ministers. In this case the ghost must have been that of Mr. Mencken and it must have been speaking to our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The message must have been this: "Young man, if you wish to be Prime Minister, for a short four years"-and perhaps the Prime Minister did not quite pick up that phrase "four years"-"here, Mr. Prime Minister, is the course to follow. It is an easy course, Mr. Prime Minister, a course which recommends itself to me as a humourist in the American tradition. First, Mr. Prime Minister, you tax the middle classes because the middle classes are forever likely to complain and by taxing them at least you give them a target at which to direct their complaints. Tax them seriously, Mr. Prime Minister, because if you do it in a half-hearted way I fear the middle class will not notice because the Canadian middle class tends to be a little comfortable. So tax them and tax them hard."
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the ghost of Mr. Mencken quoted to the Prime Minister the comments that he made during the Leader's debate when he said he intended to tax the rich and tax them hard. "Then, just to make sure your political future is well established, take taxes away from the rich. Make certain that the taxes you take from the rich are taxes which are completely undeserved. Make certain that the tax breaks that they receive are something that they do not have to earn. Do that and you can be assured of a place in the history books of Canadian politics."
So, Mr. Speaker, a Budget came down with magnificent tax breaks for the rich for which they had to do nothing. They could put their money into the paintings of French impressionists with which I have no quarrel. French impressionism is something I respect. They could put their money into Florida condominiums. Again, I would not want to quarrel with the sunshine of Florida. They could put their money into real estate in Wisconsin. Now, frankly, real estate in Wisconsin is a bit risky in my mind. However, they could put their savings into real estate in Wisconsin and they could receive their capital gains without paying a single penny of tax. We could build up this nice contrast between the poor, hard-working, salaried, middle-class members of our society, whose taxes were increased by this Budget, and the rich with their condominiums in Florida, their investments in Wisconsin, and their French impressionists on the walls.
However, Mr. Speaker, Mencken was not through because the ghost of Mr. Mencken recognized that a full piece of satire had to have its complete exclamation mark. It had to include taking money from the mouths of babes. You could not just tax the middle class and give tax breaks to the rich, you had to also have a system that took from the mouths of children. Then, if you succeeded in putting a package like that together, you could have the ultimate in this country-a tax proposal that infuriates everybody. Therefore, because we believe that Mencker had clearly been listened to, we tested whether there had been this sense of infuriation across the country, thanks to the Conservative's tax measures.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member during his most eloquent and interesting speech, but I would like to bring to your attention Standing Order 6. It appears that we do not have a quorum in the House. However, in view of the fact that I see a number of Conservative Members scurrying to their seats, I would not ask that you ring the bells. I would simply request Hon. Members opposite-[DOT]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is only one Liberal in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We do have a quorum in the House now.


Mr. Thacker:: Just wait until the next opposition day.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for helping to expand the audience for the advice which I am giving to these poor misguided souls on the other side of the House.
We wrote to thousands of Canadians across the country, indicating that we were launching a campaign this fall for fair taxation. We asked these people to respond to our questionnaire. Most Members of the House send out questionnaires with their regular reports from Parliament. I consider an average return on those questionnaires to be perhaps 250 to 300 a week over a period of three or four weeks. In one week we received 600 responses to our fair taxation questionnaire. These responses run 98 per cent in favour of the yes position on each of these questions. First, we asked our constituents, "No one should make an income of $50,000 a year or over and pay no taxes. We need a minimum tax now to make sure everyone pays their fair share". A yes answer was supplied on virtually every return that we received. I note that the Government, despite its promises, has not yet come through with a minimum tax which it proposed during the election campaign.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is coming.


Steven W. Langdon: The Hon. Minister says that it is coming. So is winter, so is Christmas, so is spring. I hope that the minimum tax reaches us before Christmas.
The second question was: "We need an end to a capital gains tax exemption that lets a few wealthy Canadians earn up to a half million dollars tax free while ordinary families will pay up to $1,000 more a year in taxes". Over 98 per cent of the respondents said yes, they agreed with our position.
The third question which we put was: "We are against the proposed tax changes that hurt the ordinary family by taking $635 million out of the child tax benefit system". Again, on that question, 98 per cent said yes, they were against that as well.
Finally, we said: "Tax concessions to corporations must be used to create jobs, not to let big corporations take a tax holiday. The Mulroney Government should give tax breaks and grants to small businesses and local projects to create jobs
November 29, 1985

Tobacco Smoking Mr. Mazankowski: Call it four o'clock.
instead of giving it to big corporations". Again, there was overhwelming support for that statement.
I brought some of these questionnaires to the Elouse to share some of the extemporaneous comments which come back on questionnaires such as these. For instance, there is a questionnaire which says at the bottom-forgive me for breaking parliamentary decorum but it is not me, the questionnaire- "Mulroney is a liar". Forgive me for quoting from this list-


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member knows better than to read into the record something that is unparliamentary, purportedly said by someone else. I would ask the Chair to consider the matter and suggest that in his considerable speech material he pick something that is more appropriate. Furthermore, he should pick something that is true rather than that lie.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the Hon. Member is aware that that cannot be done. I am sure he will withdraw the words. I understand that he was quoting in the first place, but he knows that he cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly.


Steven W. Langdon: Of course, I would never suggest in the House-though it may happen elsewhere-that our Prime Minister is a liar. However, 1 felt that I had to quote directly from the material which I received.
1 have a few more quotes which I think might possibly be within parliamentary decorum. In any event, it is not me, but my constituents who say: "We should get rid of Mulroney and his cronies". It is signed by "a very highly burdened taxpayer". Another one reads: "For our country's sake, dump Mulroney".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member, when he talks about the Prime Minister, to refer to him as the Prime Minister, not by name.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know if there is anything in the rules, but you can educate me if you like-


Philip Derek Lewis: Lord knows that we have tried.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know of anything in the rules that prohibits a Member form reading his mail, as long as it is germane to the debate. He can read what other people are saying about anyone in this place or anything that is done here. It happens every day in the press. In fact, the Hon. Member could read parts of the telephone book as long as it pertains to taxation. I do not understand why there is a call to order. The Hon. Member is not saying these things himself. He is quoting from the mail he has received from his constituents.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Unidentified.
(1600)


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member wishes to identify them, I would be quite prepared to table them before the House and 600 more.


An Hon. Member:: Read them out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that he cannot do that. As far as the comments made by the distinguished Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), Beauchesne's clearly indicates that an Hon. Member cannot, in a quotation, cite something which would normally be disorderly in the House. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) will of course have the right to continue his speech the next time the matter is debated.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HEALTH ADVISABILITY OF DEVELOPING PLAN TO REDUCE TOBACCO SMOKING
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should develop a comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco smoking, its attendant diseases and specifically, that the Government commit itself to discussing co-operative measures with the provinces and introduce the necessary legislation within the coming year.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the House seldom has the opportunity to discuss a matter as important as the one with which we are dealing this afternoon. We seldom have the opportunity to discuss real life and death issues. The issue of tobacco smoking for Canadians is one which affects every person in the country. The problem is very much greater than people realize. As many as 35,000 Canadians die every year as a result of tobacco-related diseases. When we consider that the toll of Canadians in World War II was 45,000 for the entire war, we have some idea of the scope of the problem before us. There are 350,000 deaths in the United States every year and, when we consider the rest of the world, it is into the millions. For Canada, smoking is the number one preventable health problem. Canada is the fourth highest country in the use of tobacco products, and we have the highest rate of tobacco smoking in the industrial world.
Tobacco smoke contains 3,800 chemical compounds, 50 of which are known to be carcinogenic. For some of these compounds, no level of exposure is known to be safe. Sidestream smoke-and that is what we all breathe, whether or not we

November 29, 1985
Tobacco Smoking
smoke and whether or not we like it-contains an estimated 50 times the number of carcinogens in mainstream smoke. We are all badly affected by it. The symptoms of healthy adults exposed to secondary smoke include eye irritation, nasal congestion, headache, cough, sore throat, hoarseness, nausea and loss of appetite. Loss of appetite will become relevant when we consider the level of pollution of VIA Rail. It just may be one of the reasons that the railways company which has the worst food in the world also has the most polluted railway cars in the industrial world.
Twenty-one per cent of Canadians have conditions aggravated from exposure to secondary smoke. This goes from the serious extreme of cystic fibrosis, to the use of contact lenses at the other end. In between, we have people with heart disease, asthma, hay fever and angina, whose lives are indeed troubled by exposure to unwanted tobacco smoke.
Relatively low amounts of carbon monoxide significantly impair driving ability by reducing braking time and by delaying recovery of vision from glare. In short, cigarette smoking causes accidents on the road.
The cost to the economy is estimated at $8 billion. That is the cost in terms of health care costs, medical costs, loss of time at work and fires. A quarter of fire deaths are due to smoking. Only $3 billion is brought in by taxes. In short, we have a $5 billion deficit every year due to tobacco smoking. For a Government which says it is concerned about the deficit, one has to wonder about the $5 billion, year after year, added to the cost to the economy. It is time to act now. All medical associations, including the Canadian Medical Association, provincial groups, physicians, surgeons and the public, are looking to the Government to act.
Prior Liberal Governments failed to act. We can look back to an excellent report of a committee of the House, the "Isabelle" report of 1970. It contained excellent recommendations on how to deal with the problem and excellent documentation. In that time there was the introduction of some Bills, even a Government Bill to ban advertising of smoking in 1971. It was never even debated. That is how much attention the Liberals gave to this most important problem.
Government bodies, such as the Canadian Transport Commission, Air Canada, CN, VIA and all such organizations with federal Government responsibilities, have been given the responsibility to protect the public from tobacco smoke but they do not act. In fact, the Canadian public is exposed to secondary smoke as a result of their failure to act. Not only is the Government failing to act, it is making the problem worse. It continues to encourage the tobacco industry. There is the proposal of a national tobacco marketing board to subsidize exports of Canadian tobacco to Third World countries where the increase in smoking is at the order of 4 per cent per year. It is immoral to continue this. We should be encouraging farmers to switch to other more wholesome crops. Farming is badly hit, in any event, by production in Third World countries. The idea that we should make up for this economic trend by subsidizing exports to Third World countries is flagrantly immoral. Yet, that is what the Conservative Government is considering.
Who, in conscience, can recommend subsidies for a product which is killing 35,000 Canadians per year, as well as people all over the world? According to the President of the Canadian Medical Association, each tobacco farm is indirectly responsible for the deaths of 10 Canadians every year.

We are beginning to recognize the problems of secondary, passive smoke.
Medical authorities estimate that 5,000 Canadians die each year from the inhalation of tobacco smoke pollutants, that is that out of the 35,000 who die each year, 5,000 were nonsmokers. That death rate is five times that caused by driving while intoxicated.
Inhaling tobacco polluted air is equivalent to smoking ten cigarettes a day. I have not even yet raised the ill-effects for pregnant women and their babies, or for children at home. Twice as many children of smokers' families suffer from respiratory diseases as children of nonsmokers' families.
Air polluted by tobacco smoke has become a major problem in the work place. A great many companies allow their staff to smoke on the job even though ventilation is woefully inadequate, with the result that illness strikes employees including nonsmokers, and the public. Customers are also badly served.
Female workers are forced to file complaints through their union representatives. Members of the public and customers have no recourse, nor do non-unionized employees.
Time has come to respect the rights of all Canadian workers to breathe fresh air. Such toxic substances would not be tolerated if they were the by-product of manufacturing processes. They would be banned from the work place, and people would ask for adequate air conditioning devices to get rid of such pollutants.

I have received letters and telephone calls from people recounting the problems they have had at work. People have had to quit their jobs because of the danger to their health. The problem for Canadians who smoke is particularly high because more Canadians are heavy smokers. Therefore, the problem is worse for their non-smoking friends who have to work around them.
The same goes for smoke in airplanes, trains, buses and stations. VIA Rail is the most toxic and most polluted train service in the industrial world. What a record that is! Neither it nor airline companies provide real non-smoking air space. The Department of Transport and the federal Government which are responsible for the unhealthiest treatment of the travelling public in the industrial world are our Government and our Department of Transport. I have written in and complained, as have others. The Railway Act is simply ingored. There is no enforcement. Employees who complain are told that it would cost too much to give them decent air in stations or at their place of work.
November 29, 1985



And the smokers themselves? Both sexes are concerned here since an increasing number of women are now smoking and have fallen victims to this habit. In most cases, today's adults started smoking when the ill effects of cigarettes were not well understood. And the vast majority of smokers, and I mean 90 per cent, would cease smoking but they find it hard to do. We have to help these people quit smoking. The great majority of smokers now admit that smoking is also harmful to nonsmokers. They would endorse stricter regulations if they were introduced in a reasonnable and sympathetic way.
But children are the most pitiful victims of smoking. They now start to smoke when twelve years old. And it is a well known fact that advertising is aimed at the young people, especially at teenagers. One must not forget that the child who starts smoking will be losing, on average, 8 years of his or her life.
Because tobacco companies are losing customers-who quit or die-they are directing their efforts at the young. This is forbidden in their own so-called advertising code, and that code itself is a farce. One tobacco ad agency strategy was leaked to the United States Federal Fair Trade Commission. Let me quote from it. It is very interesting. The following is that agency's recommendation:
An attempt to reach young smokers, starters, should be based upon the following major parameters:
-present the cigarette as one of the few initiations into the adult world;
-present the cigarette as part of the illicit pleasure category of products and
activities;
-create a situation taken from the day-to-day life of the young smoker but, in
an elegant manner, have this situation touch on the basic symbols of the
growing-up process, the maturity process;
-to the best of your ability, considering legal constraints, relate the cigarette to
"pot", wine, and beer.
Altogether, provide starters with a rationalization to start smoking.
And, of course, the cigarette companies are going after women increasingly because men, very sensibly, are quitting in large numbers.
The advertising code is a farce. Complaints do not result in billboards being taken down, even when they are close to schools. Not one billboard respects the provision for a prominent display of the warning against smoking cigarettes. The warning, if you can see it-and sometimes it is hidden behind the lighting-is one to two inches in height. It needs to be six inches in height to be read, and 12 inches in height to be considered prominent.
The warning itself is inadequate. It is voluntary, and the reason for that is that previous Liberal Governments never legislated the warning. The warning is weak. In the United States, for example, the warning says such things as: "Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy." In Australia, the warning says: "Smoking is addictive. Smoking kills." That is certainly true. In Iceland, it is: "Protect children from tobacco smoke. Tobac-
Tobacco Smoking
co smoke pollutes the air and is a health hazard." Yet in Canada we have only a very vague warning. It does not mention at all that smoking is addictive; it does not mention at all that it is harmful to children in the family. It suggests that one should "avoid inhaling"; in other words, it is suggesting that the smoker cause more harm to people around him by forcing those people to breathe in secondary smoke.
Fortunately, Canadian athletes are speaking up about the hypocrisy of having tobacco companies sponsor sporting events. The organization Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada counts among its members prominent athletes. They accuse the tobacco industry of "deliberately trying to link cigarettes with sport," and a "flagrant violation of any acceptable standards of corporate or advertising behaviour." I quote:
While tobacco manufacturers continue to pose as exemplary corporate citizens, thousands are dying. These are not good corporate citizens. They are pushers in pinstripes. The fact is that the children are most aware of the brands that do sports sponsorships.
It seems that sport sponsorships are the ideal form of advertising to get young people to start smoking. While adults-especially men-are quitting, young people, especially girls and young women are beginning to smoke. Now more girls smoke than boys, and among young women in their twenties, the percentage who smoke has gone from 36 per cent to 49 per cent in the last three years. It is not uncommon to have 11 and 12-year-olds smoking.
This is shameful and very distressing. The companies are going after young people to get them to start, with the hope that once they get them started, they will not be able to quit. The tobacco companies never admit that smoking is habit forming, that it is addictive; that it will be hard to quit once one starts. They get people hooked when they are young.
Organizations supporting a ban on cigarette advertising include the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the World Health Organization, a number of city councils, a number of boards of education, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Heart Foundation, and the Canadian Home and School and Parent/Teacher Federation. A report of this House in 1970 recommended a ban, unanimously. A Bill was introduced by the then Minister of Health and Welfare, Mr. Munro, but it was never debated.
Previous Governments have simply capitulated in the face of pressure from the Tobacco companies. It is shameful that the Governments in this country have been prepared to put the interests of the tobacco companies ahead of the health of Canadians. We do not know how much money political parties get from these companies by way of campaign contributions, but certainly that type of consideration has been put ahead of the health of Canadians.
Tobacco companies like to say that a ban on advertising will not make any difference. But we wonder why they are fighting it so hard if they really think that. Let's be very clear: partial bans do not work. Adbvertisers of tobacco products simply shift to other media, as they did when television advertising of tobacco products was stopped in Canada. At that time, they concentrated their advertising efforts on billboards and maga-

November 29, 1985
Tobacco Smoking
zines. In the United Kingdom when tobacco advertising was stopped on the broadcast media, the switch was to gift coupons, various kinds of promotions and giveaways, and sport and cultural promotions. These other avenues of advertisement have proved very effective. As a result, there has not been a ban in actuality. Advertising especially affects young people, as demonstrated by the studies in Britain which show that children smoke the most popular brand. Conversely, where there has been a ban on advertising, as in Norway, the rate of smoking among young people has decreased.
It is an interesting fact that the differences in life expectancy as between women and men are coming together, the reason being that women are increasingly smoking and men are quitting. As a consequence, the life expectancy for men is going up, while at the same time it is going down for women. We have the horrible possibility that we will achieve equality in mortality rates before we achieve equality in any of our economic aspirations or aspirations for political representation.
I am asking the Government to today give a commitment to bring in a comprehensive serious program to deal with this problem. Any such program would have to include a ban on all forms of advertising of tobacco products. Such a ban could be phased in over a two-year period. Along with it, there should be a positive counter-advertising program aimed at discouraging young people from starting to smoke. Secondly, there should be a phasing out of all supports to tobacco production, research and marketing, with those moneys redirected to crop substitution and aid to farmers to get out of tobacco production and into something that would add to the health of Canadians.
There should be legislation to require that there be smoke-free areas in the work place, in places where the public is admitted, and in all modes of transportation under federal jurisdiction. As well, there should be an increase in the taxation of cigarettes, with the moneys so derived directed to counter-advertising, health promotion, research, quitting programs, and crop substitution. In other words, the tax revenues that result from cigarette sales should be utilized in programs aimed at reducing tobacco consumption.

I charge this Government with having neglected the health and the life of Canadians. I charge this Government with yielding to the multinationals of the tobacco industry, with allowing them to make profits out of the health and the lives of men, women and children across the country. On behalf of all Canadians, I call for a realistic and humane program that will stop this butchery.

Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of rhetoric and gesture. This Government has not taken the problem seriously. It is behind Canadian public opinion in that regard. I ask the Government to stop following Canadian public opinion and to start setting it. I ask this Government to do what Canadians are asking, that being to take public health seriously, to take Canada's number one preventable health problem seriously. 1
ask this Government to bring in a comprehensive program which puts the health of Canadians first.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak to a subject that is so important to the health of Canadians, and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for presenting this motion.
As we all know, the Department of National Health and Welfare is aware that tobacco has a very severe impact on the health of Canadians. It is estimated that annually some 33,000 deaths can be attributed to tobacco smoking. Canada is one of the countries in the industrialized world with the highest tobacco consumption per capita, despite a decrease in the percentage of people who smoke, which has slowly dropped to 42 per cent among men and 37 per cent among women. In 1981, this group represented about 40 per cent of Canadians over 14. One item in the figures for 1981 is particularly alarming. In that year, 42.6 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 were smoking 40.5 per cent of Canadian men and, surprisingly, 45 per cent of Canadian women. If we look at the statistical trends for certain illnesses, this could explain why lung cancer is gaining ground and starting to catch up with breast cancer as the form of cancer responsible for the greatest number of deaths among the Canadian female population.
A number of organizations are taking an active interest in tobacco consumption and its effect on health. Programs to deal with the problem have been set up by non-governemental organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Association for Non-Smokers' Rights, as well as by provincial departments of health. As far as the dangers of tobacco smoking are concerned, it seems public awareness is quite significant and increasing rapidly. It is also important to note that society is becoming increasingly reluctant to approve or even tolerate tobacco consumption, not only because of health considerations but also from the esthetic point of view.
Mr. Speaker, the issue becomes really urgent when we consider our young people, who constitute a group that is particularly vulnerable and easily influenced. Is it not true that, often, habits acquired at that age stay with us for the rest of our lives? The consumption of tobacco and other substances that become addictive or create a kind of dependence may result, years later, in the deterioration of our health. We must not forget that tobacco smoking definitely increases the risk of death and also increases the burden on the health care system used by those suffering from tobacco-induced illnesses or a handicap resulting from their condition.
Since the problem can largely be avoided by a change in lifestyle, the Department of National Health and Welfare has both a moral and a legal responsibility in this area. However,
November 29, 1985

there is no easy solution. Tobacco is not an illegal product, and thousands of Canadians depend on the tobacco industry for their livelihood. It has even become a tradition in certain families. It is a fact we cannot ignore when considering measures or programs aimed at reducing tobacco consumption. If tobacco sales were to stop tomorrow, this would trigger a major economic crisis.
In designing relevant programs and to achieve some progress in the area of tobacco consumption, the Department has opted for a specific and methodical approach, using all the resources available to a national federal agency.
In accordance with its mandate by law which is to protect the health of Canadians, the Department of National Health and Welfare directs monitoring programs through its Health Protection Branch. Data on the prevalence of diseases in Canada and their distribution according to age, sex, occupational group and region are collected regularly in co-operation with cancer associations, provincial Health Departments, educational institutions and other federal departments such as Statistics Canada. These data are then transmitted to health care staff and those responsible for health policy, through the medical press, government publications such as "Geographical Distribution of the Death Rate in Canada", conferences and other informative meetings in which the Government takes part.
Such monitoring activities make it possible to establish the incidence of cancer, respiratory ailments and cardiovascular troubles-diseases which strike smokers more than others. After analyzing those data and comparing them with tobacco consumption statistics, we can draw projections not only, to help us draft provincial and federal policies, but also to treat patients, give them advice concerning their specific case, and urge Canadians to adopt a healthier way of life.
The Health Protection Branch also makes tests to establish the toxicological effects of tobacco components. Branch technicians study the genetic effects, analyze the various components of tobacco, and then provide the medical community with their findings.
Since tobacco regulations do not fall within the realm of a specific authority, the DNHW has taken the initiative to come to grips with the health hazards inherent in the use of tobacco. Negotiations with the tobacco industry have been going on for a number of years, more precisely since scientific evidence has shown that tobacco is definitely a health hazard. As a result of those negotiations, a warning appears on all packages of cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco. There is full co-operation with respect to grading measures and standardization of lab tests. Technical meetings are also held regularly for researchers of the department and their colleagues in industry.
The industry has agreed to voluntary restrictions to tobacco advertising. A many faceted formula restricts advertising to localities and designs that leave every discretion to consumers.
Tobacco Smoking
This agreement practically precludes all advertising directed at younger people who can be influenced more readily.
In cases where voluntary guidelines might not go far enough, the department takes up the cudgels for Canadians and attempts to convince the industry to change its approach. It must be said that, generally speaking, the tobacco industry has been willing to co-operate with the department on this issue, and that relations between both parties remain positive and friendly.
The department has hired the services of private agencies to come up with advertising campaigns aimed at urging Canadians to smoke less. For instance, in co-operation with the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association launched an information campaign under the slogan "Pharmacists, Take Position".
In addition, through the Health Protection Branch, the department keeps the public aware through releases on various questions, and responds to regular requests for information from interested groups.
However, the Department of National Health and Welfare is not the only federal department involved in the quest for a solution to the serious problem caused by tobacco consumption. It remains in contact with the other Federal organizations concerned and, under certain circumstances, it takes together with them corrective measures. For instance, the increase in Federal tax on tobacco has resulted in a reduced consumption of this commodity. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Office of the Auditor General have set up policies to limit smoking in the working place. The Department of National Health and Welfare has just put forward a policy to restrict smoking to specific designated areas identified as "smoking areas". A program is also being offered to encourage civil servants to quite smoking. The Department has adopted this policy on the basis of a survey of its employees who strongly supported the idea of restricting smoking to designated areas. Having consulted a great many people, the Department is now in a position to advise other institutions on the tendencies that emerge and the orientation to give proposed policies in the fight against the use of tobacco. In addition to conducting research on tobacco and providing support to those carried out by various organizations everywhere in this country, the Department subsidizes research in this area through its national program on research and development in the area of health and, indirectly, through the Medical Research Council. That way, the Department is helping channel the efforts of scientific researchers to maximize results.
The Department already has structures allowing it to develop acceptable political options for the purpose of implementing an exhaustive plan to reduce tobacco consumption.
Under the guidance of the Deputy Minister, experts in the Health Protection Branch, the Health Service and Promotion Branch as well as in the Policy Planning and Information

November 29, 1985
Tobacco Smoking
Branch are working together on this problem. The Department can then communicate with the industry, the various Provincial Governments as well as with non-governmental organizations and groups, as well as co-operate with other Departments. Thanks to this organization, the Department has inaugurated major programs like the non-smoking generation and the national program to fight against the use of tobacco.
The Department can rely on the advice of specialists in various areas such as tobacco toxicology, health promotion, clinical medicine, economy, policy planning and legal services. It can focus their efforts toward the finding of solutions to tobacco related problems, while taking into account the impact which these proposed programs are likely to have on the economy of the industry.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has developed guidelines on the use of tobacco for instance in collective transit systems. The Department has also helped other federal agencies and Departments, Crown corporations and private organizations to prepare their own programs.
Finally, the Department provides assistance for outside initiatives in this area, by suggesting for instance anti-smoking guidelines for health facilities and private industry.
Because of the Departmental structure, the Federal-Provincial Community Health Advisory Committee approved in April 1985 the joint development of a national anti-smoking program directed first and foremost at young people, but also at Canadians generally.
The first phase of the program for young people, entitled "For a generation of non-smokers", was launched in October 1985 by the federal Government and provincial and territorial authorities. This is an extension of the "Generation" program of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The federal Government has therefore already shown its commitment to joint initiatives of this type, and constantly explores other avenues of co-operation with the provinces, industry and relevant organizations.
The mechanism for federal-provincial co-operation allows the Department to take on the role of leader in many aspects of the fight against smoking and of the promotion of health. In addition, the Department supports provincial programs which need it and mobilizes considerable human and financial resources to bring Canadians to adopt a healthier lifestyle.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for bringing to the attention of the House a very important and serious matter.
Needless to say, the ill effects of smoking have to be discussed far more seriously than we have discussed them in the past. It is not a matter of which political Party has done or
not done enough in the past. Collectively, no one has done enough in the past at all levels of Government with respect to this issue. I think we have to be more conscious with respect to the matter. Statistics have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that smoking is injurious to one's health. Together, as elected officials, we have to give signs of encouragement to those people in the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Minister, and others to increase and strengthen government policies which are now in place in order to encourage our young people never to start smoking and to encourage all others who are still smoking to quit.
Hon. Members know that in its wisdom the Government decided to mount a publicity campaign to encourage people not to smoke. The publicity campaign on television is aimed at young people. It has all types of jingles, music and other things which are meant to tell the young people of Canada that, indeed, they should not start smoking. Of course, that is very laudable. I have watched the ads carefully and they are not quite as convincing as I would like to see them. They do not demonstrate to me the ill effects of smoking. Rather, they portray young people dancing. The idea that you do not have to smoke in order to enjoy yourself is the theme. This is fine. However, we need to have a far stronger message than that for young people.
The other matter with respect to the advertising campaign with which I took exception was the fact that the Government of Canada earlier this month decided to award a contract for an anti-smoking campaign to a company whose claim to fame is the fact that it is the advertising agency for Imperial Tobacco. One wonders about the credibility of the campaign when one considers this fact. Obviously, our young people at whom this advertising is aimed are not fools. They know there is a certain element of hypocrisy in a process which would hire the firm which does advertising for Imperial Tobacco to mount a campaign to tell young people not to smoke.
In my hand I have an editorial dated Thursday, November 14, from one of the Toronto newspapers. It deals with this matter. It is entitled "King size mistake" and states:
At McKim Advertising, they have it both ways. First, the firm is handling more than $6.6 million a year in advertising for Imperial Tobacco, the cigarette manufacturer. And now it has a $800,000 job from the federal government to create an anti-smoking ad campaign.
But we shouldn't worry. Jim Mintz, the federal Health Department's marketing chief, sees no potential conflict of interest. "That was a concern, I might tell you," he told The Star's Martin Cohn this week. "The department and the minister were satisfied that there was no conflict."
That is most assuring. When one reads a little further in the article one will find out why the Minister was so assured. It states:
Why? One explanation is that McKim convinced government officials that it would not play down its anti-smoking ad campaign to avoid offending Imperial Tobacco.
I ask Hon. Members: How on earth can we determine that? First, the company got the contract, which was an untendered contract. Therefore we do not know whether the Government is obtaining the most effective ad which it could for its advertising dollar. As I pointed out earlier, the whole credibili-
November 29, 1985

ty of the advertising process to encourage our young people not to smoke is damaged tremendously by the fact that this company is the advertising agency for Imperial Tobacco. However, there is another thing wrong with the whole process. Let me read further and I am sure you, being a very non-partisan person, will identify it right away. I continue to quote from the editorial:
Another might be that Health Minister Jake Epp is well acquainted with the creative talents of Ron Telpner, McKim's senior vice-president and Winnipeg manager, who has played a key role in Tory election advertising in Epp's home province of Manitoba.
You can see how the Minister was apprised right away of this person's qualifications. The editorial continues:
Telpner denies that he is on the receiving end of a patronage pay-off. "It (the patronage charge) absolutely outrages me," he says.
I can understand how a Conservative getting a Tory job could be outraged by the fact some people are pointing out that he is a Conservative getting a Tory job. Reading further:
Expressions of outrage and perceptions of patronage are one thing; conflict of interest is another. The Health Department has made the wrong choice in McKim and McKim has made a king size mistake in playing both sides of the street on such a controversial issue.
I bring this to your attention because the worst thing we can do is treat the subject of smoking lightly because it is so important. Think of the increase in heart attacks in people who smoke. Think of the lung diseases, some of which are caused entirely by smoking. In other words, we have diseases which would cease to exist if people did not smoke. We are spending countless millions of taxpayers' dollars to eradicate all kinds of diseases, and we are doing so with a certain amount of success. As a nation we have an excellent health care system. I am beginning to wonder whether the Government will put the axe to some of that with the way it is cutting back on transfer payments to the provinces but, be that as it may, by and large we have a good health care system. In recent years that system has assisted in increasing the life span of our citizens. It has worked well. However, if we all got together and really drove home the message of how bad smoking is for our health, if we did it with the serious attention it deserves and in a manner as proposed by the Hon. Member, then we would be a lot further than we are now.
I want to let other Members have a chance to say a few words on this subject, or perhaps we could immediately vote in favour of this good resolution, but I also want to say that I am very concerned about a trend we are seeing now. No doubt the Hon. Member has noticed this herself. We are seeing older Canadians quit smoking and that is very encouraging. In the case of my own family, my mother quit four or five years ago and my father only recently. I am very encouraged by that. However, as I travel throughout my constituency and elsewhere I have been particularly alarmed to see the number of young people who are still smoking, especially the number of young women. I do not have exact statistics on it and perhaps others who are knowledgeable could inform us, but it seems to me there is a shifting between the sexes among younger people
Tobacco Smoking
who smoke. Unfortunately I smoked when I was a teenager. 1 managed to give it up a while back. However, I seem to recall that many young men smoked but few young ladies smoked. Today it seems to me there are as many if not more women smoking than there are men. I know the number of young men smoking has gone down and perhaps that accounts for a portion of it, but it has to be more than that. 1 am convinced that the number of young women smoking is also on the increase. No doubt the reasons for this are peer pressure, the bad example set by adults and so forth. Nevertheless, we should aim the campaign at them in particular because the side effects from smoking are damaging to anyone but particularly to young women. As they get closer to child-bearing age, it is of particular concern because health statistics demonstrate that there is potential harm to the unborn child because of smoking.
I was at a meeting only a few weeks ago in my constituency. One of the moderators was a young woman who was seated beside me and it was quite obvious she was expecting a child in the not too distant future. She was also puffing away at cigarettes. I did not count how many she had during the short meeting of an hour or so but I'm sure it was a half dozen or so. I watched her smoke and the only thing that crossed my mind was why could this person not understand the harm she was doing not only to herself but to the child she was going to bear in the very near future. I am very concerned about that, as I think a lot of Members are. We have to increase the work we are doing there. We have to consider very seriously this motion proposed by the Hon. Member. We should all support it and congratulate her for the work she has done.

I know that the Hon. Member herself opposes smoking, perhaps even with fervour, at least from what I hear, and I do not blame her. It is sometimes difficult for us who have public duties to speak out vigorously against those who smoke, especially when people who come to our offices start smoking. Most of us seem to tolerate this, even if we do not like it. I know, however, that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood (Ms. McDonald) tolerates it much less than I do, at least according to what I have been told, and I congragulate her on her courageous stand on this issue.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that more should be done in that area. For example, the Hon. Member referred to conditions aboard planes. I admit that some people do smoke, and I do not like it, Mr. Speaker, but still I can put up with it. I seriously wonder why is it necessary to allow smoking aboard a plane travelling between Ottawa and Montreal, a flight of about fifteen minutes.
I am sure smokers can wait 15 minutes to have a smoke, Mr. Speaker. The same thing goes for other flights such as the one between Ottawa and Toronto and other similar ones. On longer flights, if they have to be tolerated, then so be it for the time being, but let us begin somewhere. Let us at least
8998

November 29, 1985
Tobacco Smoking
begin in those areas where it is absolutely unnecessary and where it could be avoided.
This is an area where we could implement the suggestions made by the Hon. Member today.
My congratulations to her once again and I ask all my colleagues and Members of the other parties to support this motion.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague in expressing my appreciation for the very genuine concerns advanced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I have experienced the determination that our colleague has just spoken of when she comes into a legislative committee and the first point of order she puts forward is one indicating that she is allergic to cigarette smoke. I do not know whether she is allergic or not, but she finds it offensive and I cannot argue that at all. I respect the concern that she has for her health and that of others. As the chairman of that committee, and a smoker, I do not for a moment object to or feel resentful about that kind of a point of order. 1 am sure that others and other committees will benefit from leaving the weed alone for a period of an hour and a half or two hours while in committee. The Member may be assured that as a health professional I know better, it is just that I have not got to it yet.
The need to reduce tobacco smoking in Canada is an area of concern for the federal Government. Indeed, that is why the federal Government is currently undertaking policies and programs which aim to discourage tobacco consumption and is studying several alternative strategies concerning a whole range of tobacco issues.
As has already been indicated, Canada has a high tobacco consumption rate. Thirty-nine per cent of Canadians smoke. However, polls indicate that the proportion of smokers in Canada is decreasing. For example, in 1985, 41 per cent of men and 37 per cent of women aged 15 and over smoked cigarettes, compared to 60 per cent and 40 per cent respectively in 1966. A source of concern, though, is the rising prevalence of smoking among Canadian youth, especially young women. For example, there has been an increase in daily cigarette smokers among the 12 to 14 and the 18 to 19 year old age groups while smoking among the 15 to 17 year olds has remained fairly constant. Among Canadian women in their twenties, the proportion of daily smokers has increased from 36 per cent in 1983 to 49 per cent in 1985.
There is no doubt that smoking is a major health hazard. It is the single most preventable cause of death and illness in Canada. Over 30,000 premature deaths in Canada per year are attributable to cigarette smoking. It is estimated, for example, that 30 per cent of cancer deaths, 30 per cent of heart disease deaths and 90 per cent of chronic obstructive lung disease deaths are caused by smoking. Male lung cancer
rates are increasing. Lunc cancer rates among women are also increasing and are overtaking breast cancer rates.
I would like to digress for a moment and emphasize what 1 have said in a more real way. Just over a month ago I attended the funeral of a very dear man whom I loved very much; my father-in-law. Up to 16 yeras ago he was a cigarette smoker. I swear that that man of 65 was healthier than I in physique and appearance. Yet, he succumbed to the insidious maglignancy of cancer which first attacked his lungs. He fought that brave battle for close to a year before passing away. To me this has a very close association. It comes even closer when, speaking to my sister a week ago, I found out that the cancer that she as a smoker has been fighting is making further inroads. One can only assume that sometime in the future she will die prematurely. One really must wonder about the sense of myself, as a health professional, being engaged in the same habit. If it is of any solice to those in the House today, I am addressing that problem in a very real sense. Next week I will undergo the treadmill test which will surely tell me that I have been pushing my luck.
To return to the thrust of my speech, economically it is estimated that the monetary cost of tobacco-related deaths and illness exceed the taxes collected and, probably, consumer expenditures on tobacco products. The federal Government is concerned about these human and economic costs and has already put into place policies and programs which aim to reduce these costs. However, the federal Government also recognizes that smoking is, unfortunately, a customary activity with a long history which will be difficult to change. While surveys indicate that smokers do want to quite they, nevertheless, do not want Government to tell them not to smoke. The production and marketing of tobacco has also supported a considerable economic infrastructure ranging from tobacco farmers to tobacco manufacturing employees. It has beena source of employment and income, albeit not the best.
In developing a workable tobacco policy, the federal Government must continue addressing the health problems caused by tobacco smoking while avoiding undue economic disruption to the tobacco farmers and industry workers as the tobacco market inevitably declines. The federal Government has taken an active role in maintaining and initiating policies and programs which will achieve these goals.
I would like to outline to the House some of the accomplishments to date in this regard. On January 25, 1985, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) announced that effective that date all national amateur sport bodies funded in part by the federal Government would be required to desist from any new or renewed sponsorship arrangements with the tobacco products industry for events and programs that primarily involve amateur athletes. The new policy was in response to concerns raised by many Canadians that tobacco products were being promoted through the sponsorship of the Canadian Ski Association by R. J. R. Macdonald Company. This announcement followed extensive consultation with all the Parties involved including representatives of amateur sport governing bodies, the tobacco industry,
November 29, 1985

the medical community and various interest groups. The federal Government decided not to intervene with the CSA-R.J.R. Macdonald contract in order to give the association time to find an alternative sponsor. However, it was agreed by all the parties involved that a formal relationship among the national amateur sport organizations, funded extensively by the federal Government and the tobacco industry, could not continue.
Second, the federal Government has continued to monitor the voluntary agreement among the tobacco manufacturers which has been in place for approximately 15 years. It brings violations of the voluntary tobacco advertising and promotion code to the attention of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council and holds ongoing discussions with the industry to extend the code. The purpose of the code is the establishment of and compliance with uniform standards of cigarette and cigarette tobacco advertising and promotion in Canada. It has proven useful in restricting cigarette advertising on radio and television and in limiting, to some extent, cigarette advertising
Tobacco Smoking
expenditures. It has also ensured that health warning labels appear on cigarette products and tobacco print, billboard and point-of-sale adversiting.
Third, the federal Government has enhanced its comprehensive smoking prevention and cessation programs aimed at reducing the incidence of smoking in Canada, especially among Canadian youth. It has, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, funded the "Time to Quite" program and the "National Program to Reduce Smoking". The current expenditure level on all non-smoking promotion programs is approximately $1.7 million per year. Mr. Speaker, I see that it is five o'clock and I will so call it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hour provided for the consideration of private members' business is now expired. [English]
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 2, 1985