1986-01-31

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: According to news reports, Mr. Speaker, the Haitian Government was overthrown this morning and the former President for life has left his country for an unknown destination.
This incident comes on the heels of several weeks of disturbances and violence during which many people were killed. For the time being we have no idea who will lead the new Government, but we can already express the wish that the beginning of a new era in that country will spring from chaos.
Canada's Haitian nationals can attest to the repression and lack of respect for human rights which prevailed in their country of origin. They can also confirm the extensive poverty and misery which have been the bane of Haiti, a country where the unemployment rate hovers around 60 per cent and where three quarters of the people cannot even read.
Hopefully the Canadian Government will support the Haitian people in their quest for the most basic rights and will do its utmost to ensure the security of Canadians in Haiti, many of whom are working on development projects.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it was with regret that 1 read the article in The Globe and Mail this morning which indicated that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce intended to appeal the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board with regard to granting Visa workers a first contract.
1 regret the decision of the bank, recognizing it has the full legal right to do what it is doing, but it is another example of the banks, the Bank of Commerce in particular, doing everything they can possibly do to deny the rights of their workers.
There has been case after case after case where the Canadian Labour Relations Board has ruled against the bank for intimidating its workers, for denying them basic justice, and for using management to intimidate workers when they have wanted to join a union.
Visa workers, who have been out on strike for many, many months, used their right to go to the Canada Relations Board to ask for a first contract, something which every person should be allowed to have, but the banks are fighting this request.
Considering the very dismal record of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which has lost numerous cases in dealing with its workers, I think the House should be appalled and should express a very strong message of sadness, regret, and disgust with the behaviour of the bank.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, in just a few short months the Native Business Summit will take place at the Metro Convention Centre in Toronto. To be held over five days in June, the summit will feature four separate business conferences aimed at building growth in major sectors of the native economy. This summit marks the first such endeavour aimed at exploring opportunities for the expansion and development of new markets for native business.
The summit is aimed at Canada's top business and Government executives. Each of the four conferences will focus on a major area of native business concern. On Monday and Tuesday, June 23 and June 24, separate conferences on housing and real estate development will be held concurrently. The final three days of the summit will be given over to the first ever International Congress on Native Finance and Trade.
The importance of technological development will be a major theme throughout the summit activities. The chronic problem of making native business more competitive, given geographical, technological and financial constraints, will be explored.
A number of major speakers are being invited to participate, and native business delegates are expected from the United States and other countries. Organizers are planning for over 1,500 delegates to be in attendance at both the conferences and the trade show.

January 31, 1986


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should look at the Canadian economy in its proper perspective. The information produced last week by Statistics Canada clearly shows that our economic growth rate was nearly six per cent during the last three months of 1985.

Our gross domestic product rose .7 per cent in November, following a similar gain in October. It was the eighth consecutive month in which real output grew. The November gains were attributable to strong growth in construction, manufacturing, and trade. Capital goods industries experienced a great month as their output climbed 1.7 per cent. Manufacturers of machinery and equipment raised their output by 3.2 per cent. A surge in home building pushed construction growth up 2.7 per cent. "There is continuing strength everywhere in the domestic economy", indicated the Conference Board of Canada, and the board described these numbers as "absolutely fantastic".

The central theme of the Speech from the Throne in November 1984 was economic renewal. The Government is on the right track.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REVERSE DECISION ON KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to deplore the fact that the activities of the Katimavik program have been stopped.
Katimavik was the only program providing periods of training for young people between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one. These periods were an opportunity for them to think for themselves, to take on responsibilities, to turn their lives around and discover the values of solidarity and personal initiative.
I see the demise of Katimavik as a distressing example of the Conservative Government's anti-social concerns. There is a prevalence of economic concerns at the expense of socially-oriented considerations, and this is a part of its program the Conservative party failed to reveal to the Canadian people during the last election campaign.
It is ridiculous to consider Katimavik in terms of the cost and benefit to the Canadian people, in other words, in purely economic terms. Katimavik was, until yesterday, undergoing a scientific assessment by the Department of Secretary of State.
We have not had a chance to see the results, and now the Conservative Government decides to end the program.
I believe the decision announced yesterday is unacceptable. As a result, many opportunities for young people who have no other alternative today than welfare and unemployment insurance have disappeared.
I therefore ask the Government to reverse this decision.


CHILDREN
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) announced a major missing children research project in my riding of Edmonton East as a first step in dealing with the serious problem of missing children. The project, in co-operation with the Edmonton police, will bring together community groups, Governments, and the private sector to improve methods of prevention and investigation for locating missing children.
Missing children is a serious problem of which we should all be aware. We should all be dedicated to finding new avenues to reunite these children with their parents. While it is recognized that the jurisdiction for this problem remains under provincial and local authority, the federal Government has committed itself to contributing to the solution.
We have established a central registry on missing children which will be linked to every police department in Canada. The Minister has proposed the establishment of a Canadian information centre on missing children for the exchange of information about effective programs and the co-ordination of efforts across Canada. The Government has also proposed a national missing children's day in recognition of this ongoing problem. We also have suggested a national conference at which experts can discuss better ways of responding to this national tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) should be commended for his commitment to missing children in the quest to find effective measures to prevent this serious problem.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Edmonton, and again on a CBC Radio interview this morning, Mr. David Devine, Chairman of the Public Affairs Committee of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, roundly condemned Canada's present Income Tax Act. In a notable display of professional objectivity, Mr. Devine
January 31, 1986

stated that the Income Tax Act "creates far too much work for chartered accountants" and, moreover, "fosters a climate of suspicion". The Income Tax Act is a crumbling ruin of a legislative instrument, a morass of verbiage, quagmire of confusion overlaid with the successive swampy layers of years of Liberal amendments which were inequitable, inefficient and, to a large degree, incomprehensible.
The Government must not allow this sad tradition to continue. It must seize the spirit of Tax Probe 86 and give Canada an Income Tax Act that even an ordinary lawyer or accountant can understand fully, and the ordinary taxpayer can believe is fair.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Real Estate Association reported yesterday that the real estate industry, helped by lower interest rates and an improving economy, had a record sales year in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, 1985 was the best year ever for the Canadian real estate industry, with 247,658 residential transactions. That is up 27.1 per cent from the year before, according to figures from the multiple listing service. Total sales, including residential, commercial and industrial properties and land, amounted to $280.3 million, an increase of $60 million. Sales were particularly strong in Halifax, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kitchener-Waterloo, and in Calgary.
In my home city of Calgary construction cranes, once a common site on the Calgary skyline but gone in recent years, are returning. Housing starts and prices are rising for the first time since 1981, and a growing shortage of top-drawer downtown office space is convincing developers to revive their projects.
The value of building permits issued last year was $478 million, 20 per cent more than the $400 million in 1984.
According to Ed Wernick, an independent Calgary analyst, renewed confidence in the oil patch has sparked a real estate recovery that is expected to continue for at least two years.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today the Government is closing the deal to sell the de Havilland Aircraft Corporation to Boeing. It shows how proud the Government is of this transaction that the Minister responsible has left the country, the closing is taking place in secret at a law firm somewhere in the city of Toronto, whose identity the Government is refusing to reveal.
Oral Questions
This is a tragedy today for Canada's economic sovereignty because in this closing Canada is losing a piece of its future. Now, I am not saying anything against Boeing. It is a competent, shrewd company that makes an excellent product, and it has made a very good deal. What I regret is that starting today a big part of the decision-making about the future of the aerospace industry of this country will be made in another country, the United States.
We had an opportunity with that company, with its worldwide reputation, with its excellent line of products, to continue to expand and become a healthy, competitive international company which could hold its own anywhere in the world. From the evidence that was made clear before the committee, the Government made no real effort to keep this company in Canadian hands. I am not a socialist and I am not against seeing the company sold. I am not anti-American-


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, we were advised by his office that the Prime Minister was to be here today and we have questions that we need to put to him affecting the Government, arising from the admission of the Deputy Prime Minister. I suppose I will put my questions to the Deputy Prime Minister but 1 do so with reluctance because only the Prime Minister can answer these questions. I would like him to convey to the Prime Minister that as a result of the-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let's suspend it.


John Napier Turner: We are tempted to suspend Question Period, as a matter of fact, until the Prime Minister comes in. I will yield for the moment and ask the House Leader to contact the Prime Minister and get him here to face what we have to put to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will be happy to recognize the Right Hon. Leader later on in Question Period if he rises again. I now recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I would like-I will defer to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa will know that it is the practice-

January 31, 1986
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Where are you hiding him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


ACCESS TO LIBERAL CAUCUS DELIBERATIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I too am deeply disturbed to find that the Prime Minister is not here. I acknowledge that Hon. Members on the other side have made the point that, from time to time, all Hon. Members are absent, but under the present circumstances, and since I am informed that his office did say that the Prime Minister would be here on a profoundly important matter, all I can do is express the deep regret of the Opposition and the people of Canada on this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister since what is involved has everything to do with his present responsibilities as Deputy Prime Minister and as a member of the Privy Council. Considering that the Deputy Prime Minister has on record acknowledged that some years ago he had direct access to what was being said in the Liberal caucus and did so every Wednesday, and did not inform the Speaker at the time in order to have the alleged incorrect wiring corrected, and given that the Privy Coucillor's oath has everything to do with the character of the Member, does the Deputy Prime Minister think such activity is compatible with being a member of the Privy Council and the Cabinet of Canada?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, over the 28-plus years that I have been in this place, this matter has been raised with each successive Speaker, from Speaker Macnaughton through the Speaker Lamoureux, Speaker Jerome, Speaker Sauve, and Speaker Francis. On each such occasion the Speaker dealt with any current concerns such as those that were raised yesterday and are being raised now by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. You, Sir, gave your assurance yesterday that measures were being taken to meet those concerns. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the matter is properly within your jurisdiction and not that of the Government.


OATH OF OFFICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that answer is totally unacceptable. The Deputy Prime Minister is a member of the Privy Council and knows what that oath entails. When he was asked to be a member of the Cabinet by the present Prime Minister and was sworn in, did the Prime Minister ask him if there was anything in his past in terms of activities as a Member of Parliament about which the Prime Minister should be told before the Deputy Prime Minister was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council?


Erik Nielsen: Of course he did, Mr. Speaker. That is the practice of any Prime Minister who is worth his salt. My response to the Prime Minister, when he asked me that question, was the same as it is to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, that is, I have never done anything illegal or improper in my life, except being convicted once for going through a stop sign.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary question concerns the adjective "improper", which the Deputy Prime Minister has just used. Does he consider that a Member of Parliament, who would systematically listen in or obtain information on a regular basis about what other caucuses are doing, in a process which would now be deemed to be illegal-does he consider this was appropriate activity for a Member of Parliament and for a man who was to become Deputy Prime Minister, and for him not to inform the Prime Minister of Canada that he had done that? Is that the proper kind of thing for a Member of Parliament to do?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the innuendo and allegations made in the preamble of the question put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party are absolutely false. They are simply not true.


John Edward Broadbent: Innuendoes cannot be true or false.


REQUEST THAT DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER CONSULT PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in view of his admission of repeated and regular eavesdropping on the Liberal caucus-


An Hon. Member:: Not true!


John Napier Turner: Yes, that admission was made-whether, over the weekend-because we cannot put the question to the Prime Minister today, but we will face him here on Monday-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: One way or another!


John Napier Turner: -one way or another-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -he will discuss with the Prime Minister whether, in view of conduct that is considered by most fair-minded Canadians to be unethical-


An Hon. Member:: Immoral!
January 31, 1986


John Napier Turner: -and which was later declared by Parliament to be illegal-in fact, a criminal sanction was put on it-


Mr. Andre:: Never!


John Napier Turner: Yes, it was-conduct which affects the rights of every Member of this House and affects the privileges of this House, if he will discuss with the Prime Minister whether he should stay in the Government, because it goes right to the question of integrity and confidence in our national Government. That is my question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: You're a pinch-hitter.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -I think there has been some suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Your Prime Minister is gutless!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He knows full well that the Prime Minister has been on the floor of the House of Commons on a daily basis-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We do not comment with respect to absences of any Member of this House. However, I think it is important to understand that the Prime Minister has been here, and that yesterday he responded fully and frankly to every question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -that was asked of him by Members of the Opposition.


Mr. Frith:: If he has no better sense in the House than that, tell him to step down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply want to say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, with respect to the question he put, to understand that this matter took place over 25 years ago. The question is whether or not Members who somehow do-


Ms. Copps:: Systematic eavesdropping!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -to quote the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, something in an improper way, should be qualified for Cabinet.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sit down!


Mr. Caccia:: Answer the question.
Petitions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, in a rhetorical manner, what about Privy Councillors who make public disclosure of confidential and secret documents, contrary to the Official Secrets Act, which was the case with his own members when they had a press conference with respect to cabinet confidences.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the Hon. Government House Leader that some days are more important than others. My friend, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, came back from Vancouver to be here this morning, and I came in from Chicoutimi, because we consider this issue to be important-the Prime Minister does not!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: And we are leaving until he comes back!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Boo!


Mr. Kilgour:: Babies!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Your Prime Minister is a coward!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What a bunch of cowards you guys are!


Mr. McDermid:: Take your balls and go home!
[Editor's Note: Whereupon all members of the Opposition withdrew.)


Mr. Speaker:: Question Period. Oral Questions. The Hon. Member for Calgary West?


Mr. Hawkes:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Question Period. The Hon. Member for Kootenay-no?
Order, please. Question Period: Oral Questions.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, January 30, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
10348

January 31, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Deans PRIVILEGE


John V. Nunziata: I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is seeking a question of privilege arising out of Question Period?


John V. Nunziata: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. We, as Parliamentarians, are entitled to ask the Government of the day, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who heads that Government, questions which are relevant to the governing of this country. The Prime Minister gave an undertaking that he would be here today to answer questions arising out of the conduct of his Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
I would submit to you, Your Honour, that my privileges as a Member of Parliament have been affected because I have not been able to put questions to the Government relating to the conduct of the Deputy Prime Minister who holds the second highest position in this Government. 1 would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, refer the whole matter of the conduct of the Deputy Prime Minister relating to his use of conversations arising out of a Liberal caucus meeting, or several Liberal caucus meetings, some time ago, to the Elections and Privileges Committee so that we will have an opportunity to ask proper and appropriate questions which go to the very root and core of this Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member quite properly makes the point that he has the right in Question Period to ask questions of the Government, as do all Hon. Members of the Opposition. That, I take it, is exactly what we went through.
The Hon. Member may not know that the Government, at least in the system as we have it, is a collegial system of cabinet responsibility. In fact the Hon. Member is absolutely correct, that questions are put to the Government to be answered by the Government. That is what we have done.
1 cannot see that there is a question of privilege involved in what the Hon. Member is saying. I have a feeling that what he has done is that he has mixed two possible questions of privilege, but I took it he was rising on the question of the availability of the Government to answer questions as his question of privilege, since that is what he began with. And since we have had questions put to the Government, and since the Government was here to answer questions, I do not see that there is a question of privilege.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on another point?


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That we proceed to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain would mind letting me clarify for myself whether that motion is in order. In some cases such a motion is in order but I am not entirely clear whether it is in order on a point of order.


Ian Deans: I did not rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, then I should not have recognized you.


Ian Deans: You recognized me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that if the Hon. Member checks the "blues" he will find I recognized him on a point of order, assuming that is what he was rising on.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: May I express my dilemma to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain?


Ian Deans: You do your checking. Okay.


Mr. Speaker:: Because I did recognize the Hon. Member on a point of order. If that is not what he was seeking, then 1 do not know on what basis I could have recognized him otherwise. May I check with the Clerk, please?
With respect, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain will know that I had presented the Clerk of Petitions' Report and had received a notice of a question of privilege. I have heard it.
There is nothing before the House until I indicate that we are at the Presenting of Reports stage. Threfore I recognized the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on a point of order because I assumed that was why he was rising. I cannot accept his motion under a point of order. There must be a substantive matter of something before the House for him to be recognized on other than a point of order. The Hon. Member is now rising on a point of order?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are rising on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Since the Speaker was receiving petitions, as he says-I am only going by what 1 heard-then stopped to hear a question of privilege, it is not unreasonable to assume that what was before the House was temporarily stopped in order that a question of privilege could be heard. My rising was then on the matter which was before the House prior to the question of privilege being raised.
The question of privilege does not stop the proceedings, but interferes with the proceedings. In actual fact we are still dealing with the matter that was before the House because

that matter had not been terminated and 1 moved, quite properly so, that the House should now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the sincerity with which the Members puts his argument. Normally we end Question Period with my statement in regard to petitions that were introduced the day before. I rose simply to do that. There is not a proceeding before the House at that time until we get to some matter under Routine Procedures.
It has always been our custom to hear questions of privilege or points of order that Members may wish to raise arising out of Question Period before we do that. It is on that matter that I recognized the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).
The Hon. Member will know that normally other Members may have questions of privilege or points of order they wish to put at that time. Until we get to a matter, I cannot accept a motion, with respect.
I recognized the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on a point of order, as is our custom, at that time. If he was not rising on a point of order, in fairness he should have informed me that I had improperly recognized him because I did specifically recognize him on a point of order. Therefore, since I gave the floor to the Member on a point of order, I cannot accept a motion as a result of the Chair recognizing him on a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees. Tabling of Documents. Statements by Ministers. Petitions. Introduction of Bills. The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) on a point of order.


Mrs. Browes:: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I wish to present.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It's too late.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ian Deans: We passed that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre seeks the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Petitions.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Not today.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There not being such consent, introduction of Bills will continue. Introduction of Bills.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 426.


SIGNING OF PETITIONS BY ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Cassidy: Are there any regulations, legislation or administrative rules which prohibit or limit Canadian Armed Forces personnel in Canada from signing or sending petitions to Parliament and, if so (a) has the Government sought legal opinion as to whether such restrictions are constitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (b) are changes contemplated to such restrictions and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, Article 19.10 and Section 3 of Chapter 19 deal either generally or specifically with this matter.
(a)	The regulations have been carefully considered in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
(b)	QR&O's and CFAO's are periodically reviewed in the light of changing government policy and legislation.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.