Madam Deputy Speaker:

I have the honour to table the report of the Information Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, pursuant to section 38 of the Access to Information Act.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) this document is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.

Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table, in both official languages, the third annual report to Parliament on the state of Canada's forests. The year 1992 will be remembered as a year of transition and an important threshold in the history of Canadian forestry.

In March 1992 the many different groups with an interest in our forests finalized a new national forest strategy. A broad coalition of Canadians signed a new national forest accord. In June I announced the selected

sites for a nation-wide network of model forests which will be extended internationally. The work carried out in these model forests will provide an invaluable stimulus to the development and practice of sustainable development in Canada's forests.

It was also a year of change in markets for forest products as consumers became increasingly concerned over the environmental implications of their purchases.

Finally, 1992 will also be remembered as the year that saw the issue of global forest management assume a new profile on the international stage. These topics are all-important features in my 1992 report to Parliament.

The report also includes updates on the series of economic and environmental indicators developed by my department to objectively measure the progress being made by Canada's forest community in improving environmental quality and economic productivity.

The report presents new information on the national forest account, which balances the additions and the depletions made to our commercial forests over the last 10 years. The data in this account is very encouraging and underlines our progress in revitalizing our most important natural resource.

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.

[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June 3, 1993

Routine Proceedings

Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.

This report recommends that the government engage a private sector auditor to audit past oil and gas production from the Indian lands. It also recommends that the Auditor General do a value for money audit of the federal government's management of this aspect and that the federal government quickly adopt the amendments to the oil and gas regulations already negotiated with the First Nations.

Finally, it recommends that the federal government and the First Nations negotiate an early resolution of the issue of transferring control over oil and gas resources and/or revenues and that those negotiations be based on the principle that with control goes responsibility.

As this is probably the last report of the standing committee in this session I would particularly like to thank the members who have participated for their excellent work and the support that they have given to the committee.

Also I would like to thank the clerk, Mr. Stephen Knowles, and the researchers who have helped so much in the preparation of this and other reports.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the special joint committee on Bill C-116, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of public office holders, to establish a conflict of interests commission, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The special joint committee reports that Bill C-116 should not be further proceeded with.

I was the chairman of the joint committee studying Bill C-43 last winter and spring. That committee reported to the House last June. The unanimous report of that committee included a draft bill. The essence of that report was disclosure. The government received the report and the committee felt that the government understood the report.

Unfortunately Bill C-116 is a confusing bill that attempts to resurrect Bill C-43. The committee unanimously believes the philosophy contained in Bill C-116 and Bill C-43, indeed the nature of the bill in total, is so wrong as to create a situation where the committee unanimously recommends to this House that Bill C-116 not be proceeded with.

Mr. Boudria:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This is perhaps one of the most unusual committee reports that the House has been seized with in a very long time.

I would like to take the opportunity to indicate that members of the committee from all sides of the House were unanimous about this bill. I want to compliment all members from all political parties and in both Houses who worked on this unanimous report for the thorough work they have done.

At the staff level we were fortunate to have the highest calibre of experts we could get. In no way do I or anyone else who sat on this committee hold any member of the committee responsible for the demise of that bill. The situation that we are living with today is an unfortunate one, given the years that have been spent on this issue by many members of this House.

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-126, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, in both official languages.

This is the anti-stalking legislation which also makes changes that give more protection to children. There were half a dozen changes made at the committee, all of which strengthened the bill.

%

*

June 3, 1993

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-85, an act respecting the control of psychoactive substances and their precursors and to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (money laundering) Act and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, with amendments, in both official languages.

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, relating to a study of elderly abuse.

The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the ninth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

In this report the joint committee reaffirms its firm opposition to the grant of individual exemptions from the application of subordinate laws without express authorization from Parliament. This practice was last denounced by our committee in 1977 as being both illegal and subversive of constitutional government.

The adoption of this report was prompted by the apparent renewal by the executive of its claim to have the power to dispense with the application of subordi-

Routine Proceedings

nate legislation in favour of individuals or in specific circumstances. That authority can only expressly be granted by Parliament.

The report refers to two cases in particular: a provision of the Income Tax Act regulations and the 1990 Kemano completion project guidelines order.

The committee also expresses its firm disagreement with the recent obiter dicta in a ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal which appears to endorse the executive's claim to have such a power of dispensation.

I am disappointed at the apparent lack of attention of that court to the constitutional principles outlined in our report. They are the rule of law, the supremacy of Parliament and the express prohibition of such exemptions in section 12 in the 1689 Bill of Rights, which is a corner stone of our Canadian Constitution.

I also have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. In this report the committee recalls that in its response to a 1987 report by the joint committee, the government had undertaken to introduce legislation to retroactively validate certain otherwise invalid proclamations issued under section 4 of the Indian Act.

The joint committee wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it continues to regard the proclamations as illegal and that the undertaking given five years ago by the government remains unfulfilled.

We find it regrettable that the matters raised in the sixth report remain unaddressed and would express the hope that the government will in the near future and without the need for further action by the committee introduce legislation to retroactively validate these proclamations and questions.

[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by dozens of residents of the city of Niagara Falls.

Government Orders

These residents are concerned about the problem of child poverty and its debilitating effect on children and on all of society.

They ask this Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000, and I certainly agree with that.

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):

Mr. Speaker, the first petition I have the honour to present is from petitioners who ask that child care deductions be deductible from income tax, particularly for families with special needs children and especially for single parent families.

Some children with disabilities require special facilities and services and these can be extremely costly. These petitioners believe, as I do, that the current laws are unfair, insensitive and can be deemed discriminatory.

They ask that these be reviewed and they hope that the government will do so. I think it is a laudable request.

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition. The petitioners ask that the indexing of seniors' pensions reflect the needs of that age group. They indicate that indexing does not reflect those people's financial needs at this time. They find that often seniors who receive pensions, even with the supplement that is available to them, live in poverty. As you know, many seniors live below the poverty line. They say that many seniors are in a critical situation due to lack of income.