1986-10-15

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


[Stage Direction]
REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT NOT INTERVENE TO REVERSE CRTC DECISION ORDERING REIMBURSEMENT™ BELL CANADA SUBSCRIBERS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were glad to hear about the CRTC ruling granting a refund to Bell Canada subscribers. According to the ruling, subscribers will be entitled to a credit amounting to about two months' service charges and long distance rates will be rolled back by roughly 20 per cent. The CRTC also ordered Bell Canada to provide telephone service to customers with hearing impairment in Quebec and Ontario.
This hard-earned victory is due to the 300-odd interest groups from all walks of life which appeared as witnesses during last summer's public hearings.
On behalf of Canadian consumers, I urge the Government not to intervene to reverse the CRTC decision.


NOBEL CHEMISTRY PRIZE
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House this afternoon and share with you and through you with Members of the House of Commons and, in fact, all Canadians, the news that John Polanyi, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Toronto, has been awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry jointly with two Americans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Tupper: Professor Polanyi was born in Berlin, educated at the University of Manchester, and came to Canada as a National Research Council post-doctoral fellow in the mid-1950s and worked there with Dr. Stacie. In 1957 he joined the University of Toronto and since then he has progressed rapidly
in the scientific community to be recognized as an international leader. Much of his work since he joined the University of Toronto has been financed through NSERC and at present he is the largest grant holder of that institution, a landmark for Canadian science.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION REQUIRING BELL CANADA TO MAKE REFUNDS TO SUBSCRIBERS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, consumer power and complicated hearings have paid off. Yesterday the CRTC announced a decision requiring Bell Canada to refund $200 million to telephone subscribers in Ontario and Quebec as a result of excessive revenues Bell had obtained. In addition, Bell has been directed to reduce rates for long distance calling by 20 per cent effective January 1.
This is welcome news indeed and marks the first time the CRTC has been as tough as this in any decision. I applaud the CRTC as well in its direction to Bell to provide a message relay service for the hearing impaired that will operate 24 hours a day. People with hearing handicaps have been lobbying for this for 10 years.
A monopoly such as Bell has an obligation to provide services at a reasonable cost. It is the job of the CRTC to see that returns are reasonable and that consumers are well served. The decision of the CRTC yesterday shows that the system can work.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Last October 10, 11 and 12, Mr. Speaker, the parish of Sainte-Odile in my constituency of Quebec East celebrated its 25th anniversary. I should like to tell Members of the House how proud I was about the results of the dedicated work done by a group of

October 15, 1986
volunteers whose selflessness and co-operation ensured the outstanding success of these festivities to highlight the 25 rewarding years of Sainte-Odile parish.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I was able to see for myself that volunteer work is a virtue in itself and that men and women who are active in this field create around them an atmosphere of vitality and an unmistakable sense of gratitude. The unqualified success of the Sainte-Odile parish 25th anniversary celebrations attests to the rewarding fall-out of volunteer work. Again I commend Sainte-Odile parishioners for their active participation and dynamism. Our community is richer thanks to these people.
Bravo and congratulations for remarkable work and noteworthy activities, Mr. Speaker!
all levels of government to do everything possible to promote tourism.
When promoting this industry, everyone should keep in mind that, year in and year out, the single largest tourist attraction in this hemisphere is Niagara Falls. Visiting the Niagara Peninsula are approximately 14 million people per year and they are not there just to see the Falls. The Shaw Festival, the Welland Canal, Fort George and the Niagara scenic parks are just a few of the attractions that keep people coming to Niagara. Now that Expo has just closed, it is time for everyone to come on home to Niagara Falls. They will be just in time for the Festival of Lights.



* *
*


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, Montrealers and as a matter of fact all Canadians are rightly concerned about disclosures made in La Presse this morning to the effect that the Government has manipulated bids for the contract concerning the maintenance of the Canadian Armed Forces CF-18 fighters.
This morning the Survival Committee for Canadair stated that two months after the call for tenders in January 1986, the Department of National Defence was ready to accept an unsolicited proposal made by Bristol Aerospace including a 13 per cent price reduction from its first bid. Why has the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) accepted a second proposal from the Bristol group? To what extent were those dealings legal? How can such a bid be reduced by 13 per cent within a period of a mere two months, Mr. Speaker? The Government has to shed some light on that mysterious way of administering tenders for the contract with respect to the maintenance of the CF-18. Otherwise this Government will seriously jeopardize its credibility.


TOURISM
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, there is no faster growing industry in Canada than that of tourism. It is predicted that by the turn of the century tourism will be the largest industry in Canada. Therefore I think it is prudent for


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need for a fair, just, and equitable tax system for all Canadians, I wish to announce today's winner of the great untaxed corporation award. It is TransCanada PipeLines, which was, through successive Liberal and Conservative tax measures, granted the right to pay no taxes in both 1980 and 1981 on profits totalling $256.6 million.
Had the tax system been fair and equitable, and had TransCanada PipeLines been required to pay even a 25 per cent tax rate on its profits, average Canadians would have paid $64.2 million less in tax because of this one company alone.
This award is a reminder to the Government that there is a serious and immediate need for comprehensive tax reform.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion announced the Government's new policy on textile and clothing imports. This means the multifibre agreement under the GATT is renewed, and this Conservative Government intends to renegotiate and extend bilateral restrictive arrangements with more than 25 countries exporting low-cost clothing. Thanks to this new step, there will be a more moderate rate of growth of imports consistent with the domestic market. Those are two vital industries, employing as they do more than 20 per cent of Quebec's manufacturing manpower.
Further, the new policy includes a customs duty return program aimed at increasing the competitivity of our shirt

October 15, 1986

manufacturers, and the strengthening of border checks by laboratory analysis of the fibre contents of imported goods, as well as the review of the regulations dealing with the indication of the country of origin.
Those measures will ensure that a viable level of textile and clothing production is maintained in Canada and in my constituency, where the industry employs more than 5,000 workers.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the farm debt crisis is getting worse every day with thousands of farmers across Canada facing the loss of their farms. In Ontario over 900 farmers are two to three years behind on their FCC loan payments.
Last June, in two sittings of the House, we passed the legislation creating Farm Debt Review Boards. Still, the Farm Debt Review Boards are not functioning in Ontario. Only three of the ten member board have been appointed so far. Over 100 farmers have applied for help from the board, yet not a single case has been heard.
Last Friday the Ontario Federation of Agriculture sent an urgent telegram to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) urging action by the Government, and cautioning the Government that farmers' patience is running out and they are becoming increasingly angry.
I call on the Government to take action and get these boards operating immediately. The Government must change its ways and give the farm debt crisis the urgent priority it deserves.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, about
725,000	Canadian families, or 1.3 million children, will benefit from an early payment of the child tax credit this November, 1986. This credit introduced by this Government will provide timely assistance to Canadian families, and will reduce the need for tax refund discounting.
The prepayment, which is $300 per child, is an amount equal to approximately two-thirds of the full credit. The remaining amount, if any, will be paid after the 1986 tax return is filed in early 1987. The prepayment will automatically be made available to eligible claimants who had a family
income of less than $15,000 in 1985. Other recipients will receive their credit in the spring, as has been the case in the past. Furthermore, no applications for the prepayment will be required. This measure complements the $70 increase in the tax credit this year, and the measures to control the money that may be taken by tax rebate discounters.
By providing, for the first time, an early payment of the child tax credit, the Government is clearly demonstrating its concern for the needs of middle and low-income families in Canada.


NOBEL CHEMISTRY PRIZE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate, on behalf of all Canadians, Dr. John C. Polanyi of the University of Toronto, who today has been awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry for his work on the dynamics of chemical elementary processes.
Dr. Polanyi is the second Nobel Prize winner in chemistry in Canada, and follows the prize awarded to Dr. Gerhard Herzberg of Ottawa. Both men have had associations with the federal National Research Council, Dr. Polanyi as a postdoctoral fellow and Dr. Herzberg in a life-long career there.
In congratulating these men on their achievements, we must also reflect on the Black Wednesday that struck the NRC today in the budget cuts which eliminated 200 jobs, wiped out programs, and cut back the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics.
Can we not better honour the persons who have brought recognition to Canada by strengthening our commitment to basic research instead of thoughtlessly disbanding the hard work of many talented scientists?


AIRPORTS
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, of all airports in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue, James Bay and Northern Quebec areas, the regional airport in Val-d'Or is the most important in terms of services and traffic volume. Its importance is longstanding. It is located within the transcontinental flight corridor and the international air corridor through the North Pole.
Mr. Speaker, over these last ten years, the Val-d'Or Chamber of Commerce, the City of Val-d'Or, the Corporation

October 15, 1986
Oral Questions
de developpement industriel et commercial de Val-d'Or and the MRC de la Vallee de I'or have all made representations, both individually and jointly.
Through the efforts of this Conservative Government since 1984, that $9.5 billion project will be completed in 1987. The competent assistance of Reynald Imbeault and Daniel Bleau from Transport Canada has been a great help. The project is an excellent example of what the people of Abitibi and their MP can accomplish when working together at solving problems of common interest and seeing through a project of such significance in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the recent takeover of the Continental Bank by foreign-owned Lloyds Bank was another signal to Canadians that the Government has not yet made good on its promise to enact comprehensive regulatory reform for the financial services industry.
The Speech from the Throne in 1984 contained a promise to follow through on the reform process begun under the previous Liberal Government. However, since then trust companies have failed, banks have closed their doors, and major financial institutions have come under the control of a non-financial institution. Studies and reports have proliferated. Provincial Governments are pursuing their own reform agendas, but our federal regulatory environment is virtually unchanged and the Speech from the Throne merely reiterated a two year old promise.
The Government is fast running out of time and options. Unless it replaces promises with action now, it will continue to be overtaken by events.


NEW MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Walter Van De Walle, for the electoral district of Pembina.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Walter Van De Walle, Member for the electoral district of Pembina, introduced by the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Hon. Don Mazankowski.
Mr. Speaker:: I think there would be a disposition in the House to extend the Oral Question Period. Accordingly, we will now commence the Oral Question Period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in Question Period both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration denied Government knowledge of the contents of the Forget Commission report. The Prime Minister said:
-our only involvement was mentioned at the time of the Budget Speech on May
After 24 hours' consideration is the Prime Minister prepared to inform the House today that, contrary to yesterday's statement both his office and senior members of his Cabinet have been briefed on the contents of the Forget Commission Report, including those recommendations that were made public yesterday?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said yesterday: aside from the information apparently released in some minority reports that were reproduced in the press, there has never been any disclosure of information whatsoever at that level. And I am not sure I know what the Hon. Member is referring to.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Minister's desire to say nothing is a luxury the country cannot afford. The Minister and the Prime Minister know that the Forget Commission has been very careful to keep the Minister and the Cabinet informed of its recommendations. Why has the Government, by its silence, lent its support to a program that will reduce UIC by $3 billion; would cut fishermen's benefits entirely, Mr. Speaker; would cancel federal short term job-creation projects, and would seek to increase the welfare burden already been borne by provincial Governments? Why is the Government by its silence allowing that program to go forward?
October 15, 1986


Benoît Bouchard: Yesterday, I said I thought it was a shame to make such allegations and exploit people's insecurity. There never was an information or briefing session at the Prime Minister's Office or anywhere else regarding the Forget Report. This is a complete fabrication, and it is one more example of a situation being exploited to make Canadian workers insecure.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister digs himself in much deeper than he can possibly imagine. Let me ask the Minister directly will he not acknowlege that even as we speak in this House senior officials of his Department at his instruction are today preparing a detailed government response to a report that both he and the Prime Minister claimed this date they have not seen?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot ask for a paper on a report I have yet to receive. I do not have a single document in my possession. I repeat before this House: I do not have a single document referring to the Forget Report in my possession.


MINISTER'S ROLE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday, he and the Prime Minister said that they had not been informed of the recommendations in the Forget Commission's report. Could the Minister confirm to the House today that a meeting was held with Mr. Forget in the middle of August, and second, that he has ordered two officials of his department to prepare the reply to the report, and third, that last August in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Minister informed Cabinet Members at a meeting of the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I did meet Mr. Forget. As a new Minister, I have met many other people as well, and I fail to see why I should not meet Mr. Forget, when I meet other people for the Department. But as far as putting up with the Hon. Member's fantastic fabrications, that is something else again!


RESPONSE TO FORGET REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, first of all, will the Minister deny that Mr. Forget informed him of his intentions, and second, will the Minister confirm that Messrs. Wyman and Carin have been ordered by the Minister to prepare the reply to the Forget Report's recommendations, yes or no?
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said yesterday and again today: I do not have a copy of the Forget Report. I cannot ask people to reply to or deal with a document I do not have. I cannot ask people to comment on a text that isn't there. Again, I repeat before this House: I do not possess a copy or any contents of the Forget Report. I cannot ask my officials to comment on the report because I don't have it.


PAYMENTS IN ATLANTIC CANADA
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject matter. The Minister has just referred to anxieties of people and suggested that the Opposition has raised problems of anxiety for people in Canada. My question is directly related to that. A news report which appeared yesterday suggested some $3 billion was going to be cut from payments going to unemployment insurance recipients. I checked that and obtained precise figures from the report, not from the newspaper, which suggested, for example, that $620 million would be cut in Atlantic Canada alone. Will the Prime Minister allay the anxiety of Atlantic Canadians and say that $620 million will not be cut from payments to UIC recipients in Atlantic Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we gave an answer yesterday and we are going to repeat exactly the same thing today.
The Hon. Member referred to certain reports; once more, the Minister of Finance said the following in his speech:
I want to emphasize that we are not undertaking the review with an objective of reducing federal contributions to the unemployed.
Wherever they are coming from, the Atlantic provinces, the central provinces or the western provinces, we will not reduce the contributions to the unemployed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister.
Yesterday, he used the term "contributions". My question is this: Can the Minister assure the House that the Government has no intention of reducing the contributions to those who now receive unemployment insurance benefits?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is going into the details of reports which no one has and of recommendations which I have not seen myself. I cannot comment on something which is not there. It will be

October 15, 1986
Oral Questions
there on November 30 and we shall make our comments at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: It is the Minister who is leaving feelings of anxiety.


LEVEL OF PAY-OUTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister who will be visiting Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in the next, couple of days. Will he relieve the anxiety of Canadians in those provinces at least by assuring them that there will be no reduction in the level of unemployment insurance pay-outs? Will he give them that assurance without qualification? That would remove the anxiety of people in that part of Canada.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that appears to be essentially the same question which has been asked before. Not having received a copy of the report, not being privy to the information quoted with such certainty by my hon. friend, I can only point to the firm statement made by the Minister of Finance in April when he said: "I want to emphasize that we are not undertaking this review with an objective of reducing federal contributions to the unemployed." I think that is pretty clear. In light of that, my hon. friend, being a reasonable man, would want us to wait for the Royal Commission report before beginning any debate or dialogue on alleged portions thereof.


ALLEGED BRIEFING OF CABINET COMMITTEE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and I would like to give him the chance to tell the truth to this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that all Hon. Members know that Hon. Members of this House are expected to tell the truth. Comments which lead to the suggestion that that is not so do not help us at all. I ask the Hon. Member to put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister did not respond to the question by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. The Prime Minister said yesterday that "Our only involvement was mentioned at the time of the Budget Speech". Does the Prime Minister deny that there was a briefing of the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet on this very issue, the sum and substance of the Forget Report, when he chaired that meeting in Newfoundland?

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat once again what I said earlier. I can neither receive nor give any briefing on
something which I do not have. I said yesterday and I am repeating today that I have received no copy of the Forget report as there will be no such report until November 30. You may have copies of minority reports, but I do not.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any briefing on something which does not exist.


FORMULATION OF RESPONSE TO REPORT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Does the Minister deny that Mr. Ken Wyman, the Assistant Deputy Minister in his Department, has been appointed to chair a committee which is presently formulating the response to the Forget Commission, which response is as a result of briefings in which the Minister, other Ministers of the Cabinet and officials in his Department were involved?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is pure speculation.


PAY-OUTS IN ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow-up on the question asked of the Prime Minister by my Leader. The Prime Minister is going to Atlantic Canada this week. Will he confirm to the people of that region that the level of pay-outs to Atlantic Canada will not be reduced by the Government as a result of the Forget Commission?


Benoît Bouchard: Will there be any reductions following the Forget report? First, we are going to wait and see what recommendations the Forget Commission makes in its report under its terms of reference. This commission was asked to assess our unemployment insurance system. Our Government had enough courage to face this problem. The Members on the other side had always refused to undertake any study or to create any commission to look at unemployment insurance. This Government has done so. We shall wait for the recommendations, and we shall then see what should be done. However, we must first receive those recommendations.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the final recommendations are, is the Government willing to make a commitment to Atlantic Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 15, 1986


Rodney Edward Murphy: Regardless of what the final recommendations are, is the Government willing to guarantee the people of Atlantic Canada, where there are high unemployment rates, that there will be no reduction in the level of payments to that section of Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: I may not have as much experience in this House as the Hon. Member, but I do know one thing, and that is that, normally, before commenting on any commission report, we have to wait for the report to be tabled. Then is the time to make the appropriate comments.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Revelations continue to come forward about the mess in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the Manitoba region. What swift and decisive action is going to be taken with this Department, responsible for a road project on an Indian reserve in Manitoba, which should have cost no more than $300,000 and ended up costing considerably more than $1 million?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that last week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced that there was an RCMP investigation into various allegations which had been circulating with respect to the operations of the Manitoba regional office. Further to that, I am advised that discussions have taken place with the President of the Treasury Board with a view to undertaking a complete and comprehensive review of all financial operations of the Department's regional office in Manitoba.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to know why the Government is moving so slowly in dealing with gross inefficiencies in this Department when the Prime Minister himself knows, as do I, that many Indian communities in the country live in abject poverty.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, who is a fair-minded individual, would want to reconsider that comment. Indeed, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development moved very quickly in terms of initiating an RCMP investigation. He is moving very
Oral Questions
quickly with regard to the comprehensive review of the financial operations which he is now undertaking.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, on June 26, 1985, the then Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion received a letter from Texas lawyers indicating that the Government of Canada could be sued for millions of dollars for suspect deals made by de Havilland. Internal departmental memos show this same knowledge. Why was this information, which was so important to its deliberations, kept secret from the Regional Development Committee reviewing the de Havilland sale in 1986?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, no information was kept secret regarding this transaction. I wish simply to remind my hon. friend that we made sure, when we disposed of the de Havilland Corporation, first, to keep the technology in Canada, second, to assure job security for Canadians, and third, to maintain an aerospace industry in Canada. That is what really matters to Canadians.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO COMMITTEE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Government made certain that it kept contingent liabilities of over $140 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! The Hon. Member has indicated that he wishes to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Hon. Member to put the question.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With this six months' prior notice to the Department of the information which I have indicated, why did the Department not bring that information forward to the inquiry by the Regional Development Committee? Does the Minister not feel at this stage that he has to give-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Steven W. Langdon: -this House an apology for that dereliction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! It seems to the Chair that that is almost exactly the same question as the one the Member already asked. I invite the Hon. Member to reconsider and put a question which is not just a repeat of the first question.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your admonition, but if the Minister refuses to answer-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!

October 15, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York Centre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATION'S UNDISCLOSED LIABILITIES
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and is about the undisclosed liabilities which have landed on the backs of the taxpayers of Canada rather than being the responsibility of Boeing, the purchaser. Does the Minister know of any other debts? What is the total of such liabilities that may now be owing by the taxpayers of Canada on contracts made by de Havilland before the takeover?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I should be embarrassed to raise this question if I were the Hon. Member opposite. De Havilland had cost Canadian taxpayers over $1.2 billion, on top of some $1.6 million in future commitments. We have made sure to reduce the liabilities of the Government of Canada, again for the sake of maintaining job security and an aerospace industry in Canada. That is what a Government that takes its destiny into its own hands is all about.


AMOUNT OF LIABILITIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this policy of stonewalling must be considered unacceptable. Why can the Minister not answer a straightforward question about undisclosed liabilities? Does he know about them now, and what are they?

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Again, Mr. Speaker, no information concerning this issue was withheld in any manner whatsoever. It was fully provided by the Minister in January, 1986, when he appeared before the Committee of the House which was looking into this transaction.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. When the Conservatives were on the opposition side of this House they promised the people of Canada that if they formed the Government they would move rapidly to allocate 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product to scientific research and development. Today we learned from the head of the NRC that in the last two years its staff complement has been cut by 400 and that he was announcing today a further
cut of 200 in the next couple of years. Why has the Government reneged on the promise it made before the election?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member fails to recognize that while the National Research Council is perhaps the most important instrument in research and development which the Government has, it is not the only instrument. The Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in industrial assistance grants, through agreements with the provinces, and through tax expenditures. We are well on the road to achieving the targets that we set.


PERCENTAGE OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT ALLOCATED FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that Dr. Polanyi who received the Nobel prize today has criticized the former Government and, I am sure, will criticize this Government for its failure. Presently we are at 1.3 per cent of GNP. The head of the NRC said today that we have to wait until the deficit has been substantially reduced before the Government moves to attain the goals it promised. If so, what percentage of GNP for scientific research will we see before the Government moves?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is a new phenomenon that a Government would not rely entirely on spending targets but would identify targets that would serve the country well in terms of the research that needs to be done and the priorities which must be pursued. Perhaps I could take this opportunity on behalf of all of us here to congratulate Dr. Polanyi and point out to the House that Dr. Polanyi is indeed a recipient of some of the Government's-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laurier.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. We learned this morning that the National Research Council will have to cut 200 positions by next April. Again, this Government which does not give a damn about consequences is eroding our national competence in the field of research and development. My question is this: What is the rationale behind the Government's decision to slash programs that are essential for job creation, as well as the health and survival of the Canadian industry?
October 15, 1986


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps the Hon. Member was rising because he wanted to apologize for the misinformation he has spread in the House over the last couple of months-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Minister to answer the question as best he can.


Frank Oberle: As the Hon. Member's prediction that the IRAP grant would be cut by $60 million proved to be absolutely false this morning, so will he have to come to grips with the reality that there will be no lay-offs at the NRC. The 200 persons who will be affected by the reorganization will find placement in new assignments and new priorities that the NRC has identified, together with the Government.


David Berger: The NRC has had to cut 200 positions to save face for that Minister.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, if the Government's purpose is to support the development of technology and jobs, why has it cut the budget of the NRC by 30 per cent in the past two years? Why has it frozen the funding for the granting councils and why has it cut practically every other manner in which the Government supports research and development?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member gets very emotional. It is true that the NRC, like the Government and other government agencies, is rationalizing its operations in light of new priorities. The net result of the reorganization in the NRC over the next few years will be an increase not only in person-years but a significant increase in the budget allocations as well.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Bearing in mind the Government's interest in environmental protection, improvement for the western economy, and the enhancement of Canada's balance of payments, what action is the Minister undertaking to encourage the use of low sulphur coal in the industrial heartland of Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of a major federal-provincial task force report released on August 20, 1986, which said in effect that it did not make sense for the Government of Canada and the country as a whole to be encouraging the importation of high sulphur content coal from the United States when low sulphur content coal is available from western Canada with all the attendant environmental and economic advantages in displacing the American coal. Unfortunately, I cannot just press a button and redress the imbalance, but to the extent that the federal Government can do anything about the problem, we are acting on it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Given the continuing uncertainty about the Government's announcement of aid to Prairie farmers, will the Minister give a guarantee to Prairie farmers that they will know how much they will get from the Government, in what form they will be receiving it, and when they will be receiving it, before the Saskatchewan election next Monday?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have been giving Canadian grain farmers guarantees since the Throne Speech. We have every intention of making good on that guarantee. The fact is that a billion dollars will be placed in the hands of Canadian farmers.


REQUEST THAT DETAILS BE PROVIDED TO SASKATCHEWAN PEOPLE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, given that this program arises out of the needs of Conservatives in Saskatchewan in the first place, will the Minister guarantee that the people of Saskatchewan will know the details I have asked for before next Monday, so they can make a judgment about whether Premier Devine was levelling with them?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, whether or not this program was prompted because we have one or two provincial election campaigns going on in the country, is simply beside the point. Had it been an essential factor, we probably would have acted unilaterally and probably would have been in a position to do so. However, the fact is that we did not act unilaterally. We consulted the provinces. Give me an opportunity to speak with the farm leaders tomorrow and we will be in a far better position to apply the program correctly, fairly, and equitably across the country.

October 15, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION ORDERING REFUND TO BELL CANADA SUBSCRIBERS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, after a six-month open and democratic review of Bell Canada's profits, including 302 public interventions from interested parties, the CRTC ruled yesterday that Bell Canada subscribers are entitled to a refund for telephone overcharges. My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Will she assure telephone users that she will not deprive them of this overdue refund by overturning the CRTC decision, and that she will not take with one hand what the CRTC in all fairness has justly given with the other?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. I believe that the CRTC decision will be welcomed by all subscribers of Bell Canada services. I may say that the Commission found that because of the improved economic climate in this country since the Government took office-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -because of lower interest rates, because of productivity gains, and because of increased employment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


BELL CANADA PROFITS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Minister acknowledges that Bell Canada is a profitable, well managed corporation. It is a public monopoly subject to CRTC regulation. I hope she will agree that profits of that nature-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask that the Hon. Member put her question.


Sheila Finestone: Will she agree that profits of that nature should be returned to subscribers and should not fatten the pockets of the shareholders of Bell Canada Enterprises?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to read the report of the Commission. It said that $206 million in excess revenues had come into Bell Canada and recommended that $20 be reimbursed to each residential customer and $60 to each small business. Certainly this is very good news today as far as people who use Bell Canada services are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member wants Ministers to answer in a full way. However, I would ask Ministers to refrain from quoting or referring in extensive detail to the
reports that form the subject matter of questions. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could shorten the answer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the Consumers Association of Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Yes or no!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for London East.
 * *


BANKRUPTCIES
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Many suppliers are the real victims in too many bankruptcies. With respect to the Government's upcoming legislation on bankruptcy, can the Minister assure the House that suppliers will enjoy the same benefits that suppliers in Quebec now enjoy, namely, that they will be able to repossess goods they ship to a debtor 30 days before the appointment of a receiver?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct. This is a problem area under active examination by the Government prior to our making recommendations to Parliament for amendments to the Act. We are looking at the Quebec experience. We are hearing representations from the small business sector for which the Hon. Member is speaking in this instance. Hopefully, we will be able to bring forward recommendations for changes in the Bankruptcy Act in the near future.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On January 23, 1986, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House:
Our stance toward SDI research is rooted in the need to conform strictly with the provisions of the ABM treaty.
Will the Government reconsider its support for Star Wars now that President Reagan has turned down an arms control deal precisely because it required strict compliance for 10 years with Article V of the ABM treaty?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 15, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the position of the Government as set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What he has said and what we have said since then is consistent with the position that he established. If I may say so, it is consistent with views held by previous Governments.


RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN BY UNITED STATES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in view of that answer will the Prime Minister tell President Reagan that Canada will not support Star Wars research outside the laboratory because it violates Article V of the ABM treaty which states, and I quote, "Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components-"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because of research being carried out by the Soviet Union in similar areas, we have indicated that research into this area is prudent. However, such research must be consistent with the provisions of the ABM treaty.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Will you tell the President that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The President of the United States was so advised by the Government of Canada as recently as last week.


Mr. Caccia:: How?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is aware of our position and our ongoing interest and concern in this area.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last Friday the Premier of Saskatchewan told Saskatchewan farmers that they would receive some $457 million as a cash deficiency payment from the Government of Canada. Will the Minister stand in his place today and confirm that commitment by the Premier of Saskatchewan? Or is this loan guarantee just a carrot held out to the farmers of Saskatchewan until after the election after which they will be told the thruth?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, just let me say that this is not a loan guarantee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask Hon. Members when they put their questions not to impugn the integrity or the truthfulness of other Members in the Chamber. I am sure that the Hon. Member did not mean to do that. I ask Hon. Members to realize that when some words are used it is incumbent upon the Chair to rise. I ask the Hon. Minister to answer the question.
Oral Questions


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I thought that my answer would certainly clarify the Hon. Member's concern that this is the largest single aid package ever delivered to Canadian farmers in the history of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE PROVINCIAL ELECTION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us, yes or no, whether there will be $457 million for Saskatchewan? Will it be a deficiency payment? Finally, will it be announced before the election in Saskatchewan? Yes or no to the above. It is quite simple.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it may be very simple from the viewpoint of the Hon. Member who leads me to believe that he does not have a complete understanding of the nature of Canada. There is no question about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: If we were selecting simplistic solutions, then perhaps I could answer the question with a yes or a no.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: For the past four years, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Hatching Egg Producers has been seeking its official recognition as a national marketing board for hatching eggs from the Minister of Agriculture to whom I am directing my question. That dossier had been submitted to the Cabinet's sub-committee on International Trade. In view of the need for egg producers to have this problem settled urgently, does the Minister intend to provide good and positive news on this issue in the near future?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my colleague obviously knows that it is not proper for me to indicate at what stage a piece of legislation or a question is before Cabinet. However, let me indicate to the Hon. Member that it has been the position of this Party since 1976, is the position of this Party today, and will remain its position, that the producers themselves will determine what system of marketing best suits their own needs.

October 15, 1986
Oral Questions CO-OPERATIVES


TASK FORCE REPORT-GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for co-operatives. A year ago today in the middle of another Co-operative Development Week I asked the Minister when the Government planned to respond to the report of the National Task Force on Co-operative Development. I repeat the question today. When does the Government plan to release its response to A Cooperative Development Strategy for Canadal


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is in the final stages of preparing that response. I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It gives me a chance to pay tribute to all those people who belong to co-operatives since this is Co-operative Week. Co-operatives are a very significant sector of the economy. They have had a good year. I thank the Hon. Member for giving me a chance to put my remarks on the record today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENCOURAGEMENT FOR CO-OPERATIVES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, given the promise in the Speech from the Throne for measures to assist co-operatives, does the Government plan to create an agency that could foster co-operatives in the same way that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has encouraged and financed co-operative housing?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that for me to answer his question would be to prejudge what in fact the Government will finally do.
I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be working with the co-operatives to see that they have as many opportunities as possible to be a part of government programs. Additionally, when programs are being developed we will ensure that cooperatives have as much chance as other sectors of the economy to have input into policies as they are developed. That will be our aim and, hopefully, it is what we will achieve when we announce how we will deal with the task force report.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister has stated on several occasions that the federal Government supports a fixed crossing between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick provided, of course, that it is economically feasible and environmentally sound. The Minister is aware
that there are three proposals by private companies for such a crossing. Will the Minister tell the House today if the Government intends to carry out an environmental impact study on those three proposals? If so, will the study will be carried out by a reputable and independent private company?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should correct one small part of the premise of the Hon. Member's question. The federal Government has not taken a position on the principle of a fixed crossing. However, it has received three unsolicited private sector proposals for the building of such a fixed crossing, all of them contemplating private sector financing. We will soon have to come to grips with those unsolicited proposals in connection with which, I can assure the Hon. Member, and through him Islanders themselves, every relevant environmental impact assessment will be conducted. Islanders themselves will be consulted on all aspects of the matter.


EFFECT ON NORTHUMBERLAND FERRY SERVICE
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will be aware that there was some concern on the part of residents from eastern Prince Edward Island that, if there is a fixed crossing to the province, it will affect the Northumberland ferry service. I wonder if the Minister could allay those concerns and indicate that, if there is a crossing from PEI to New Brunswick, the Government will continue to provide support to the Northumberland ferry system between Wood Island, PEI, and Caribou, Nova Scotia.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is entirely speculative and hypothetical because there has been no decision to adopt any one of the three proposals that have been made, unsolicited, as the Minister of the Environment said. Those who use the Northumberland ferry system have nothing to worry about. If any decision is ever made that might have any reference to that service, I can assure the hon. gentleman that those people would be the first to be consulted.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the United States has announced that it will be deploying more air-launched Cruise missiles in 1986 than is permitted under the SALT II treaty, will the Government of Canada tell the United States that, in compliance with the SALT II treaty, Canada can no longer test the Cruise missile, the very means the United States will use to violate SALT II?
October 15, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have often called upon the parties to observe requirements of SALT II. Imperfect though it may be, it represents an important area of general agreement and all countries would hope that both sides would respect it.


CANADIAN POSITION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, given that the United States has announced that it will violate the treaty and will use the very instrument it has asked us to test, will the Government, in accordance with what the Prime Minister has just now said, point out to the United States that we cannot and will not test the Cruise missile so long as the United States intends to violate SALT II?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not share my hon. friend's interpretation of what may or may not transpire. That is not our reading of the intent.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment. When may we expect a decision on the use of Canadian low sulphur coal in Canada?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Mines, the Minister of Transport and myself are trying to formulate a decision or response to the task force report which was released on August 20, 1986. I hope that we will be able to make some sort of preliminary decision on the whole question of displacing American high sulphur content coal with low sulphur content coal from western Canada before very long, perhaps before the end of the year.


GAS EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a single question to direct to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy. Perhaps he might be aware that some American companies-


An Hon. Member:: There he is.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Sorry, he moved. I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Oral Questions
Is the Minister aware that some American companies have refused to take volumes of gas they are supposed to have taken through the pre-build of the Alaska Highway Pipeline and is he prepared to take up with the American Government the seriousness of this situation considering that the American Government, in order that the previous Canadian Government would approve the pre-build, almost guaranteed that those gas volumes would be taken by American companies?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the issues raised by the Hon. Member, we are monitoring the situation and, in due course, should any action be required, we will certainly act.


PATENT ACT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In answer to a previous question I asked the Minister, he indicated that he did not believe Canadian consumers would be charged any more money for the cost of drugs as a result of amendments to the Patent Act. Could the Minister then advise the House whether or not-


An Hon. Member:: He's not here.


Neil Young: He was here a minute ago. I must have scared him off.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: According to Statistics Canada, Mr. Speaker, the profits in the insurance industry have increased 142 per cent over the past six months because of the increase in liability insurance premiums.
My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he going to assume his responsibility and make public immediately the findings of the investigation requested last January by the Official Opposition?

October 15, 1986
Tabling of Documents


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and report it to the Minister.


INSURANCE COMPANIES' PROFITS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, then I direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that last fall's liability insurance crisis was little more than a $1-billion sham generating windfall profits and that it was therefore a conspiracy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course 1 do not agree with the premise of the Hon. Member's question. However, I will take both questions as a representation and will have the Minister report back to the Hon. Member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, copies of the Government response to the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Emloyment and Immigration on family reunification.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table in both official languages the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table in both official languages the technical notes pertaining to Bill C-l 1, an Act to amend the Income Tax
Act which initiates pre-payment of the child tax credit. These notes are intended to assist Members of Parliament, taxpayers and their professional advisers.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE-FAMILY REUNIFICATION
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to present to the House and to the Canadian public the Government's response to the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration on family reunification.
At the suggestion of the Government, the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration examined ways to speed up processing of family class applications. I would like to commend the excellent work done by the committee and particularly the collective effort that has been shown by Members of Parliament from all three Parties under the distinguished leadership of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). The members participated in well over 100 committee meetings. Three full weeks were taken up in visiting immigration centres in Canada and posts abroad, as well as holding meetings with both immigration officers and potential and recent immigrants. The members received a clear feeling and understanding of those areas where the quality of service had not been acceptable.
I would like to reflect particularly on the quality of the report. The committee has provided me with a series of recommendations on how to provide service that is quicker, more courteous, fairer and, especially, more humane. I believe that a new era has begun for sponsors and for their relatives. Emphasis has been placed on improved training for immigration officers and an attempt is being made to provide services in the language of a client's choice. The Government understands the frustrations that have been felt by those who have participated in our immigration process. With our response, we are prepared to do something about those frustrations. Recommendations 5 to 10, which involve the creation of new categories of assisted family members, are perhaps the most exciting and far-reaching recommendations.
Unfortunately, because the House of Commons rules require a response within 120 days, there has not been sufficient time to consult with the provinces and the private sector organizations, which is necessary before developing the details of a major change of this kind. Those discussions have begun, and hopefully they can be brought to a successful conclusion. Most of the other recommendations have either been previously implemented, or are in the process of being implemented.
October 15, 1986



Through its response, the Government will be providing improved service in Canada for sponsors of immigrants belonging to the family group. From now on, it will be easier to complete a sponsorship application form because the people concerned will be encouraged to complete those forms themselves. The waiting period for an interview for sponsorship purposes will be greatly reduced. Moreover, a better service will be made available to immigrants abroad following a more efficient control of records as well as improved medical procedures.
If the time allows it, early in the New Year, I hope the Committee will be anxious to review the progress made as a result of our response.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased to have the opportunity so early in my term of office to table in this House a paper indicating not only the commitment of this Governement to improve the quality of life but also the result of a fruitful dialogue between members of all parties in this House.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, as the critic for my Party on immigration matters, and as a member of the Standing Committee, I am pleased to respond to the Minister. Let me say at the outset that I commend the Minister for at least having the detailed analysis on a recommendation by recommendation basis. That is certainly something that lacked such detail under his predecessor. However, I do not think that the ambitious remarks noted by the Minister will be translated into the affirmative responses to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration.
It should be well noted that the stimulus for the committee report came from that most frustrating aspect of immigration practices and regulations in this country, as articulated by Members from all sides of the House, namely that Canadians were unsuccessfully able to sponsor their relatives, or if they were, there were great delays in the system, in some cases as long as two, three, and even four years. We have individual cases that go undocumented and unresponded to by our immigration officials abroad for up to periods of one year. Therefore, the question before the committee was how do we enable the system to facilitate the requests generated from Canadians here in Canada for the successful application of their relatives and loved ones throughout the world?
On the basis of the three corner-stones of the recommendations, the Minister has failed to adopt those recommendations as outlined by the committee.
First, the recommendations of the committee said basically that if we are to speed up the system in relation to family assistance applications there has to be a reallocation and a redesign of the classifications into priorities. The first priority is spouses and dependants; the second is parents with dependants, siblings and non-dependent children, as well as people who wish to adopt children who have been left homeless and
Statements by Ministers
without parents. Therefore, we gave a priority listing that would ensure that the immigration officials processed applications on a priority by priority basis relating to those classifications. I regret that the Minister has not chosen to embrace that recommendation.
As well, we suggested that points should be increased to those immigrants who have family members in Canada. We said basically in our report that if we are to take seriously the fact that an immigrant, or potential immigrant, has family in Canada, then we should elevate that consideration to the same points level as education, or having a job. Let us admit that having family members in Canada counts culturally, socially, and financially, and that such a person coming to Canada can expect support financially, culturally, and socially. Therefore, the Canadian state would not have to provide those services. The Minister, once again, did not accept our recommendation of giving additional points to those people.
The second recommendation was to shift resources throughout the world in relation to demand, and how that is being triggered in this country. That is to say, there are more demands being placed on the system in India and Hong Kong today than there are in Great Britain, yet there are more resources in the more traditional parts of the world. The Minister and the Government know that you control the flow of immigrants and the number of applications by the number of resources provided.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to close off his remarks as quickly as possible.


Sergio Marchi: My last remark under the third corner-stone is, since the family class is the most important aspect of the immigration program, as articulated by the report, we do not think it should be undermined by any other segment of the program. Unfortunately, that is happening. A good example is the entrepreneurial program, where immigration officials abroad in Hong Kong and the Philippines, which I visited, are shifting personnel away from family class processing to meet the entrepreneur-


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member has made his points. I am sure the three corner-stones were noted by all Members in the House.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Minister on his timely report, his timely response to the committee's report-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: And if the Liberals would shut up, I have a few more points to make.
Although it is a timely report, and although he covers a good deal of ground in a very encouraging way, there are four serious gaps in his report. Some of them have alrerady been touched upon. I want to point out that in his failure to give any

October 15, 1986
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
support to the idea of improving family reunification immigration, as suggested in recommendations 5 to 10, the Minister suggests that the new point system will allow for perhaps half of what might be asked for by the relatives. He does not say that exactly, but that is what he implies. The facts are the opposite, and the Minister should know that between 1982 and 1985 both family class and assisted class immigration declined. In 1986, if we project from the first half of the year, it will have declined more disastrously than in the years before. The new point system is a failure from the point of view of family reunification.
Secondly, Minister suggests that there might be some meetings between the Health and Welfare officials and Immigration officials, and the committee. In fact, that is only an extension of the stonewalling that Health and Welfare did for six months, from January to June. While we were studying the report that Parliament asked us to study, Health and Welfare refused, even at the request of the Chairman, to allow us access to the manual which provides the rules under which Health and Welfare have increasingly over the last few years rejected family members and assisted relatives. In fact, the Government itself in the spring in its report towards equality, page 28, tells the public that that manual is available on request. That is false. The manual was not available to the committee during that six months of study. The promise of consultation carries no conviction whatever on the part of those of us who have experience.
On the matter of the posts abroad, it is patently obvious that what the Minister says in reply to Recommendation 48 is not in accordance with the facts. The resources are not distributed according to the volume of applications, successful or unsuccessful. The refusal of the bureaucrats to budge from the positions they have adopted in the past several generations is the main hindrance to family reunification at present.
Finally, on the matter of the entrepreneurs, it is a fact, as was pointed out and reported by my colleague months ago to the committee, to the benefit of the Minister and his predecessor, that staff has been transferred. Notwithstanding all the remarks the Minister makes about priorities being observed according to statute, staff has been transferred away from family reunification. It is a fact that entrepreneurial applications take several times as much staff time as family applications do normally. He can pick one example here and one example there to match them off, but he knows that he is twisting the story by hair-splitting and by doing that. In fact entrepreneurs by definition, having hundreds of thousands of dollars and being business people, are accustomed to paying for the service they get, such as for a visa, while families, being mostly poor, cannot. The Minister has obscured that fact-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.
[ Translation]


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 101,1 have the honour to introduce the Fourth Report of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians in both officials languages.


PETITIONS
Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by some 5 000 residents of my constituency who oppose Canada Post's decision to close down the Norwood Grove Station.

My constituents wish to express concern that the actions of Canada Post will substantially lower the quality and efficiency of postal service in the Norwood area.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 120 residents of the Province of New Brunswick who are concerned about the closing of the CN Rail shops in Moncton and their sale to General Electric.
They call upon the House to postpone the decision to close the shops until the workers have had an opportunity to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport.



CANADA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT


Neil Young: for leave to introduce Bill C-224, an Act to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, this Bill would provide opportunities for public involvement in the making of regulations to set maximum permissible levels for contaminants and other
October 15, 1986

substances in drinking water. These regulations would apply to both public and private water systems.


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

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the other House Leaders concerning a special order of the House to set up the memberships of the various Standing and Standing Joint Committees. If Your Honour would seek unanimous consent of the House, I think the following motion would be agreeable:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of the House, the Standing Committees and Standing Joint Committees shall be composed of the following Members:
The list of Members is rather long. There is a detailed list of the membership of each committee. I have given the other two House Leaders copies of the membership. If it is agreeable, I would ask that the motion be printed in Votes and Proceedings as if it had been read.
As well it would be necessary to put the following motion:
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the formation of the aforementioned Standing Joint Committees and that the Members to serve on each of the said Committees on the part of this House will be as contained in this Order;
And within 10 sitting days following the adoption of this Order the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each Standing Committee whose memberships are contained in this Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion to the effect that the list be considered as having been read. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions DISARMAMENT

['1 wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, the sitting will be extended by 13 minutes this day.']
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask you to seek unanimous consent of the House so that I might move the following motion:
That this House endorses the Government's support of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, emphasizes the relevance of Article V of that Treaty to the failure of the superpowers to reach an agreement at Reykjavik, and urges the Government to appeal directly to President Reagan to abandon his plan to test and develop SD1 technology in space since such action would be in complete violation of Article V.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). Is it the pleasure of the House to give unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the motion of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). The Government did not see fit to approve the motion. I wonder whether the Government House Leader would consider having a discussion among all three Parties to see if there is acceptable wording for a joint resolution of the House relating to the matter of the arms control discussions to be held in Geneva and the question of SDI testing.
If we sat down and worked out something, I am sure the full impact of a resolution from the House would have major influence upon the outcome of the discussions in that it would represent the Canadian point of view from all sides and all spectrums of the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is not in Ottawa at the present time. I think he will be returning today or tomorrow, and I think I can say that he will be responding to the larger issue in the course of the next few days. That may enlighten the Hon. Member and the proposer of the motion.



Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 15, 1986

Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, the sitting will be extended by 13 minutes this day.