1986-06-04

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the future of the CN shops in Moncton is a matter of great concern to the people of Atlantic Canada. The facility represents 1,200 jobs to the Moncton area. The loss of those jobs would have a devastating impact on the region's economy.
On April 22 I met with members of the "Save Our Shops Committee" of Moncton. They are very concerned that the Government is going to allow CN to close the shops even though the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) clearly gave his assurance last summer that the shops would not close as long as he was Minister.
The Minister of Transport has reversed himself faster than the tides in the Bay of Fundy, and the people of New Brunswick cannot understand why. The Government has made an unequivocal promise to keep the CN shops in Moncton open. The Government now has a duty to honour that commitment.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, some 15 years ago Ida Nudel and her sister liana Friedman applied for exit permits to emigrate to Israel from the Soviet Union. liana Friedman was allowed to leave and has been living in Israel for 14 years. She is in Ottawa today urging the Government to make the highest possible representations for an exit permit for her sister who is still in the Soviet Union. Ida Nudel is 55 years old now and in poor health. She lives in Moldavia, 1,000 kilometres from Moscow, and needs medical treatment. She is isolated from friends and family who have left the Soviet Union. She is the last remaining member of her family in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union, as do Canada and other countries, recognizes in the Helsinki Accord the right of people to leave for purposes of family reunification and, indeed, for any other purpose. Family reunification is an urgent humanitarian concern, and one could hardly find a better case than the one for Ida Nudel.
The NDP caucus urges that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) make representations for Ida Nudel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is considering the potential purchase of four conventional submarines. Defence Department planners are presently analysing eight designs. Their acquisition will enable our navy to enhance its ability to enforce Canadian laws and protect Canadian sovereignty. The Arctic, however, will remain virtually defenceless since only nuclear powered submarines are capable of operating under the ice pack. Nuclear powered submarines can operate in any climatic conditions and are able to be on station year round. Such a presence will enable the Government to protect the Arctic's fragile ecosystem from any hazard.
Enforcement of our laws can only be accomplished if we have a physical presence in the area. In the harsh Arctic environment nuclear powered submarines are the only safe, efficient, and cost effective means we have available to maintain a permanent presence which, in turn, will ensure our sovereignty. Therefore, the Department of National Defence should seriously consider the nuclear powered option for our Navy, giving Canada the capability of enforcing our laws in all three oceans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.

June 4, 1986


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate our solidarity with the world community our Government has made sure that Environment Week in Canada would coincide with the United Nations decreed World Environment Day. Governments, industry, community groups and associations as well as the general public are making concerted efforts this week to protect and conserve our natural heritage, for ourselves and for future generations.
Canadians have become heedful of the fact that environmental protection is everyone's business, particularly so after the incidents in Bhopal, India, the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the U.S.S.R., and acid rain or water pollution in Canada. Ever mindful of our own environment, we can show that all Canadians are quite prepared to join the world community to protect, conserve and maintain our ecology.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, a projet in my riding submitted for approval under the Job Development Program was rejected outright by the Governement. We are talking about an application for funding for a project as straightforward as home maintenance and helping the elderly handicapped do their shopping. A lot of workers, especially young unemployed workers, are available to do this work. Personally, I think it is appalling that the Government of Canada should refuse to fund a program aimed at helping these elderly citizens.
How could they reject the extremely modest budget involved because other projects "were better suited to the priorities of this region and this community"? What higher priority could there be than providing essential services for handicapped senior citizans and helping them to lead a normal and healthy life and to live in decent surrounding in their own neighbourhood?
I want to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to reconsider her decision and grant the requested funding to maintain what I would qualify as essential services.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, at the urging of the Hon. Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), trade and agriculture ministers from the world's five major wheat exporters met in Whistler, British Columbia. For the first time in years representatives from Argentina, Australia, the EEC, the U.S.A. and Canada have met to find ways of fixing what is now wrong with international grain markets.
The previous Government stood idle while the present problems were developing, but we have taken the first step in finding a means of resolving the troubles in the international grain markets. We realized that the meeting would not provide overnight solutions to all of the problems afflicting grain producers, but it constituted an important first step in deescalating the agriculture subsidies war. In addition, this meeting provided a forum for the participants to gain a firsthand awareness of each other's concerns and positions. I urge all Members of the House to support the Minister in his efforts to help grain producers all across Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, this is Environment Week. For those concerned about the environment there was the Brundtland Commission in Ottawa last week, and this week there is the World Conservation Strategy Conference and the Fate of the Earth Conference. All of these arise out of and highlight the increasing concern that, by the way we continue to subordinate the sustainability of the biosphere to short-term economic goals, we are undermining the very foundation of any and all future economies.
The record of the Government has not been good on environment issues, the sound and fury of the current Minister signifying nothing, notwithstanding. We need all those Conservatives who worry about the fiscal deficit to begin to worry about the ecological deficit, the way we are borrowing or even stealing from the potentially clean air, water, soil, and healthy bodies of the future in order to avoid changing our lives today and challenging those who have a vested corporate or bureaucratic interest in putting off the day when we act to stop pollution and to stop it now. We need the moral equivalent of war against pollution if we are to have a fully human future.
June 4, 1986



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1, 1978, after seven years of harassment and interrogation, having applied to immigrate to Israel from the U.S.S.R., Ida Nudel placed a banner outside her apartment window which said: "KGB, give me a visa to Israel". For this desperate display she was tried for malicious hooliganism and sentenced to four years of internal exile. It has been a 15-year struggle for Ida, who is known as the guardian angel for her activities on behalf of Soviet prisoners of conscience.
Ida's only living relative, her sister, liana Friedman, and Mr. Friedman are here in Ottawa today. Both Ida and liana are Holocaust survivors. Ida has heart trouble, ulcers, and may have duodenal cancer. I ask the Government of Canada to bring the strongest possible pressure on the U.S.S.R. to gain Ida Nudel's visa to be reunited with her sister liana in Israel.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, instead of depending on sponsors from outside the region, the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean announced Monday the creation of a company that will sponsor new businesses. The SOC-CREMP, which has a start-up capital of 10 million, aims to create about 50 businesses and at least 300 jobs within the next two years. The SOCCREMP is innovative because it is funded by major businesses in the region, by small investors and by the Quebec and Canadian governments.
As the Member for Chicoutimi, I am proud of this initiative taken by the people of my riding who managed to set up a local company with the support of local people. The spirit of economic renewal is alive and well in our region, and we intend to participate even more actively in the movement to create jobs which was started by the Conservative Government and which has maintained a record average of 30,000 new jobs a month, compared with 1,250 per month for the Liberals during their disastrous last Fifty months in power.



ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING CENTRES- SELECTION OF CITIES

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Speech of February 26 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said the Government was prepared to facilitate the establishment of international banking centres, or IBCs, in Canada. This is an important indication of support since any IBC in Canada will require special federal as well as provincial tax concessions for it to compete on the same footing as other such centres world-wide. The question is: why did the Government specifically designate Montreal and Vancouver as future IBCs instead of taking its usual line of letting market forces decide?
There is already considerable international financial activity in Toronto, and the related jobs and services could be disrupted or jeopardized if the Government restricts its support for the IBC concept to Montreal and Vancouver. If the Government is not prepared to extend its support to Canadian cities generally, it should not act without carefully weighing the impact on existing banking activity in other locations.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members well know that our society is aging and that this will pose entirely new challenges for all Canadians. Our veterans population, with an average age of 66, offers us a preview. The Department of Veterans Affairs is responding to the challenge in an innovative and effective way.
The Veterans Independence Program, or VIP for short, is giving veterans the assistance they need to remain healthy and independent in their own homes and out of institutions. This assistance is all individually tailored to the particular veteran's needs and it can run the range from elevating devices to Meals on Wheels, to yard maintenance. From the taxpayers' perspective, the VIP is money wisely spent because 10 veterans can be helped through the program for the cost of keeping just one in an institution. It is no wonder that many feel VIP will prove to be a forerunner of social programs to come.

June 4, 1986
Oral Questions ABORTION



DISBANDMENT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND THERAPEUTIC ABORTION COMMITTEE

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the only hospital in Prince Edward Island which still has a therapeutic abortion committee announced last night its decision to dismantle that committee. As a result-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: As a result, the women of Prince Edward Island will be denied access to safe legal abortions merely on the basis of geography. Women from P.E.I. wishing access to this procedure must now travel abroad at considerable expense, or resort to back-room abortionists, thus causing further delays and health risks. Poor women in that province who cannot afford to travel will be denied access to therapeutic abortions altogether. This development in P.E.I. highlights the inherent inequalities in present Criminal Code provisions governing abortion which make a mockery of sexual, geographic, and economic equality in Canada. Despite the fact that recent Gallup polls indicate the majority of Canadians would like the Government to ensure access to safe therapeutic abortions, the Government justifies its refusal to act on the ground that public opinion is divided.
On June 2 the Minister responsible for the Status of Women responded to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women that he would take initiatives to ensure uniform delivery of abortion services across Canada. It is time for the Government to stop waffling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On Friday about 4,000 British Columbia shake and shingle workers will lose their jobs permanently unless the President of the United States is asked by our Prime Minister to revoke that tariff.
On the same Friday, two days from now, about 15,000 to
16,000	Canadian lumber jobs will be in jeopardy if the American countervail action goes forward. Will the Deputy Prime Minister prevail upon his leader, the Prime Minister, to produce a copy of the reply that President Reagan wrote to him in response to the Prime Minister's own letter on shakes
and shingles, a letter which the Prime Minister was only too eager to publicize and wave in this House?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should know, from his rather extensive period in government, that in normal circumstances correspondence of that nature is not tabled on the floor of the House of Commons.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a former Prime Minister like the Secretary of State for External Affairs ought to know that our Prime Minister has already published his letter to the President. Why doesn't he ask the President's consent for publishing his reply?


REPLY FROM UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows: Why did the Prime Minister authorize Bill Fox, his director of communications, to summarize the contents of that letter for the press?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm the proposal the Leader of the Opposition just made-

-nor am I able to comment with any authority upon his use of 17th century French.


John Napier Turner: Lucky the name Joseph is easy to translate!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TELEPHONE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we were doing fine in our trade relations with the United States until our Prime Minister got into the act and opened up this whole can of worms. Will he prevail on the Prime Minister to call the President directly, call off the 35 per cent tariff, and block that countervail action on Friday?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the next proposition by the Leader of the Opposition will be that Canada was doing fine when it was excluded from the G-7 while he was the Minister of Finance.
As a matter of fact this country was not doing at all well in our trade relations with the United States prior to the beginning of these negotiations. If you need any verification of that you can ask any one of the thousands of Canadians in industry after industry whose jobs are threatened now by a system that does not work. That is why we are embarked on negotiations to try to put in place a better system, to provide better security and a better future for the workers of this country.
June 4, 1986


U.S. INDUSTRY'S PETITION FOR IMPOSITION OF TARIFF ON CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Secretary of State for External Affairs I just remind him that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has attended a lot more G-7 meetings than the Secretary of State for External Affairs or his leader has ever thought of attending.
1 would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Indications out of Washington this morning are that Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Baldrige, is planning to accept the petition by the U.S. lumber industry in spite of the efforts by Ambassador Gotlieb to forestall that action.
Will the Prime Minister personally intercede with the President to use his discretion to reject that petition, even though we know he was not prepared to do that in the case of the shake and shingle industry? Surely in a case where there are so many jobs and such a large industry at stake, he will intercede now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well, and should not try to create confusion among the public of Canada, that there is very little flexibility open to the administration in this case. Today in Washington in the name of Canada, Ambassador Gotlieb, after consultation with, among others, the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, the Member for Mission-Port Moody and the Member for Skeena-all of whom were involved in the representation to make sure it was as strong as possible-gave an indication that we regard this acceptance of this petition as a denial of the basic principle of natural justice. In effect it involves double jeopardy because nothing at all has materially changed either in Canadian practices or in United States law since a decision was taken in 1983 under the same procedure on the same matter.


Lloyd Axworthy: There is no doubt that we share that sentiment but the result is the same. The action is proceeding.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Government now intend to take this matter to a formal invocation of Section 22 or 23 of the GATT agreements so that this unfair action by the United States can come under the auspices of the international trading system and we can bring the full force of the international community to bear against this inequitable action by the U.S. administration?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will do everything that is open to us. We will follow every action that we think will work to try to protect the Canadian industry against this action, and indeed against the inconvenience of another long investigation that we believe would yield no result of the kind the Americans are seeking but that will cause considerable apprehension among members of the Canadian industry. I trust that we will enjoy, in the actions that we undertake, the full support of Members of the House of Commons, of the provinces and of industry and labour, as we have sought to involve them in the representations that were made this morning so that, in case there is any question about that, it is clear that Canada is speaking together on this matter in the protection of Canadian interests.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will know that Ambassador Gotlieb made two legal arguments on behalf of Canada today. In light of the actions that have been occurring on both sides of the border, will the Secretary of State indicate whether Ambassador Gotlieb also made the case that now is the time for an act of good faith on behalf of the Americans if they are serious about proceeding with free trade talks? This is an opportunity they could seize to make that case very clear on their behalf.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether or not Mr. Gotlieb made that particular point on behalf of Canada. If the Member is asking indirectly a question which has been asked directly in the House before, whether we would threaten to cut off talks that are in Canada's interest if we do not prevail on the question of this petition, the answer is no, that threat will not be made by Canada because we believe those talks are clearly in our interest, and we believe that events of recent days have demonstrated just how vulnerable this country is to the present situation and how much we are in need of a better system.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That was not the point I was making.


CANADIAN POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was simply asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs if our Ambassador made the case that now is the time for the United States to provide an act of good faith by saying, in terms of enabling free trade talks to continue, that it will not proceed with this countervail petition?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I do not know whether that particular point was made by the Canadian Ambassador today. One of the reasons we have ambassadors is that they do some of the things that the Foreign Minister is not free to do.

June 4, 1986
Oral Questions


U.S. INDUSTRY'S PETITION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of the seriousness of this petition continuing, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs willing to table in the House the documents that would portray very clearly Canada's position in making its case for the United States not to proceed with this particular initiative?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member knows that his colleague, the Member for Skeena, as well as other Members of Parliament who were involved in briefings and debriefings this morning after the visit by Ambassador Gotlieb to Mr. Baldrige, were provided with quite extensive information as to the nature of the Canadian case. Certainly, if he is unable to get that information from his colleague, I will see if I can make it available to him directly. Whether or not I would want to establish the precedent of tabling it in the House of Commons, he will understand is a matter I would want to consider.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE RELATIONS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On Monday the Minister announced Canada's latest broadside in the growing trade war with the U.S., which this Government, through its total incompetence, has created. Would the Minister explain why, only since this Government took office, Canada has become involved in a disastrous trade war involving such items as hogs, fish, wheat, steel, shakes and shingles, and even raspberries, with a country which previously respected Canada and was our best trading partner?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is well aware of the acceleration in protectionist pressures which has been taking place in the U.S. Congress over the past few years. If he is not, he should go to Washington, talk to some of the Congressmen down there and learn about it first hand.
There is no question, as my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, said yesterday, there is a trade war in the United States between the protectionist pressures and the free traders. That is fundamental to the actions which are being taken and which have been pressed upon the administration in recent years, not just actions taken by it but actions which have been forced through the ordinary course of law which is open to U.S. citizens.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT IS OPENING SECOND BATTLEFIELD IN TRADE WAR
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if there is a trade war or a tariff war or whatever the Minister wants to call it with the United States, why, when the Minister
announced reprisal actions last Monday to continue this skirmish, did he open a second front, this time with Japan, by imposing customs duty on certain products such as computer parts and semi-conductors? Why open a second front in this continuing trade war?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member understands that it is not possible for Canada to take action unilaterally against just one country. What we did during the course of our considerations leading up to the actions we took on Monday was to identify those areas of trade which were predominantly with the United States. In this particular case I believe 88 per cent of the trading was with the United States.


CANADIAN POSITION ON IMPOSITION OF TARIFFS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. If it is possible for the United States to take very specific actions aimed at particular countries, and it is possible for the European Community to do the same, why is it not possible for us in our retaliatory measures to be equally specific and precise in aiming what we choose to use as retaliation against the United States itself?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member is referring to the shakes and shingles industry. I believe 99 per cent of the imports by the United States of this particular product are from Canada. That is why the effect of its action was almost 100 per cent on the Canadian market. But I remind the Hon. Member that the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade do not allow a country to take specific discriminatory actions.


EFFECT OF CANADIAN TARIFFS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that these precise areas were chosen because they were outside GATT. So I come back to the Minister and ask him why can it conceivably make sense for us to be slapping new tariffs on Japan, France, Britain and on other countries which supply these products, and expect that to hurt the United States? Why should that kind of nonsense be permitted?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, either the Hon. Member is confused or he is deliberately trying to confuse Canadians when he says that the shakes and shingles matter is outside GATT. It is outside GATT because it is a tariff that is not bound under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. However, any response that we take in relation to the action taken by the United States in the shakes and shingles issue must be done within the rules of GATT or else we leave the trading system, we leave GATT or we will be
June 4, 1986

taken to task in front of the tribunals of GATT. That is something the Government is not prepared to do, although it may be something the Party of the Hon. Member is prepared to do.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF TARIFF INCREASING COSTS FOR CANADIAN CONSUMERS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. We have seen the unanimous reaction of industry spokesmen concerning the imposition of a tariff-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the House is reacting to the Hon. Member's holding up of a display. He knows that is not allowed. Question, please.


David Berger: Canada shot itself in the foot and did not even hurt the Americans.
How can the Minister impose a tariff which will translate into job losses in the Canadian industry and higher costs for Canadian consumers, whereas the Americans are the ones who should have their knuckles rapped?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House yesterday, protectionism is an issue on which no side can win. It costs consumers on both sides. This is one of the reasons we are in the negotiations toward a comprehensive agreement with the United States on trade. It is quite clear that any knowledgeable observer will say that it was necessary for the Government of Canada to respond in order to demonstrate our displeasure with the actions taken by the United States. That is what we did on Monday.


RESULT OF TARIFFS
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Government says it did this to express our displeasure. When an elephant walks through one's garden, one does not step on the plants it missed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Berger: I ask the Minister why we are hurting ourselves. Will the Minister not admit that the sole result of his action, his so-called reprisal, will be to increase costs for Canadians and risk our trading relations with the Japanese as well as the Americans?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member expresses concern about the possible escalation of this matter, a point with which his Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, agrees. On the other hand the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry says that it is not enough, we should have done far more, "Let's provoke a trade war".
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: I didn't say that.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Get your act together, boys. We just don't know where you're coming from.


PRICE OF HOME HEATING OIL
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whose Parliamentary Secretary told the House of Commons on April 7 that the price of home heating oil was about to drop. On May 29 in answer to a member of his own Party in the House of Commons with respect to when we can expect a drop in the price of diesel, home heating and general aviation fuel prices, he said: "In the fullness of time". When will the Minister take some action to prevent the continued gouging of Canadian consumers?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, because of the actions of this Government Canadian consumers are benefiting from lower oil prices-


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about aviation fuel?


Pat Carney: -especially farmers. In terms of home heating oil, considering the fact that this is June I think that possibly the Hon. Member should wait until the home heating season starts in order to measure the drop in prices.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will surely know from her former employment that there are people in Canada who are still heating their homes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, is the Government telling the people of Canada that it does not care about the inflated revenues which are being squeezed out of them? Is this a deliberate policy decision by the "Oilman of the Year"?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Oilperson.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I lost the thread of the question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: -as a result of the Hon. Member's accolade.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Try aviation fuel, Pat.


Pat Carney: I can only repeat the fact that the consumers are benefiting from lower gasoline prices. The price of home heating oil which is sold under contract should be reflected in

June 4, 1986
Oral Questions
next season's bills. As the Hon. Member should know, aviation fuel is also sold under contract.


IMPOSITION OF TARIFF ON IMPORTED BOOKS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, all the Government has done with its retaliatory tariff policy is to hit out at Canadians who read books, not just American literature but books from other countries as well. My question is for the Minister of Finance.
If the objective of Canada's tit-for-tat, tariff-for-tariff policy is actually to retaliate against American protectionism, how does the Minister explain that he has caused increased costs to Canadian consumers, book publishers and retailers by slapping tariffs on other nations such as France and England with which we have absolutely no bone to pick?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to a question from a member of the New Democratic Party, we have tried to identify those areas of our trade which are predominantly with the United States. I believe in the case of books it is 90 per cent in this particular tariff category. We have tried to focus the response to the United States which is obviously the object of our displeasure.


Sheila Finestone: The $26 million which Francophones spend will not cause them to be appreciative of that.


EFFECT OF POLICY ON CONSUMERS
Sheila Finestone: Here is my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister realize that the new tariff will penalize reading enthusiasts who will have to shell out an additional $2.6 million to buy books imported from France, and that such a harmful policy will cost francophone consumers, especially in Quebec? We are not talking about chicken feed, and this is an ill-advised policy.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I need not point out to the Hon. Member, but possibly I should, that there is a benefit as far as Canadian authors are concerned relative to those particular books coming in from other countries.


Mr. Shields:: Supplementary.


FINANCE
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. When will the Minister be announcing the total, absolute, and final removal of the Liberal 10 per cent Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is supplemental to the tax question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not a supplementary question. It will be treated as a separate round and allowed.


Ms. Copps:: No. He asked for a supplementary.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite aware of the measures announced on April 30 which are of benefit to the small producers in the oil and gas industry. I believe that those measures will provide something just short of $200 million worth of benefit to the industry over the next two or three years. This is a good response to a particular problem which the industry faces. We are reviewing the matter on an ongoing basis.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the recently verified widespread concern of Canadians about nuclear energy, is the Government reconsidering its position of only a few weeks ago that no inquiry into the nuclear option is necessary? Will the Government be moving soon to launch an inquiry into the whole nuclear fuel cycle in Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows that is not the position that I announced in this House. He knows that well because he was in this House when I made our position clear-


Nelson Andrew Riis: What is it? What are you going to do?


Pat Carney: -which is that I have asked our officials involved in the industry to be part of the international investigation into Chernobyl. After they find out what we can learn from that unfortunate and unhappy incident we will consider whether or not there is a basis for such a review. For the Hon. Member continually to insist that I have said that there will be no review is wrong.
June 4, 1986


STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, a Conservative promise to have such an inquiry was made before Chernobyl and therefore could be lived up to before the results of any investigation into that accident are forthcoming.
Does the Minister consider the recent statements by AECL with respect to its offer to store wastes, from mini-reactors that it wants to market, at Pinawa in Manitoba to be a violation of the promise she made to Manitoba that radioactive wastes would not be stored in Manitoba?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, that question is hypothetical. It is provided that before any sites are selected in Canada, there will be full public hearing processes. No nuclear waste will be stored in the facility that he discusses.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why did they make the offer?


Pat Carney: He is yelling across the floor with his usual grace asking why they made the offer. May I point out that no offer was made.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Development and concerns the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In January, 1985, there were 4,000 employees but today there are 2,800 and the union has been notified that next March 479 additional employees will be terminated. In the absence of the Prime Minister I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he believes this to be fair in view of the unprecedented high unemployment rate that has besieged Cape Breton Island.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there have been 1,000 new jobs in that area due to the formation of the Atlantic Enterprise Program by the Government. As a matter of fact, in my observation from sitting in this House, more has been done in the last 20 months, for that area of the country, than in the entire time I have been here.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the situation is so serious that one could conclude
Oral Questions
that the Deputy Prime Minister is either intentionally misleading the House or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows he must withdraw that and just put his question.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that but I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the facts do not say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows he should just put a question.


David Charles Dingwall: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give a directive to the Cape Breton Development Corporation pursuant to Section 99 of the Financial Administration Act to ensure that those workers are not terminated next March in view of the fact that Government policies have seen the unemployment rate increase from 15 per cent in 1984 to a high of 26.8 per cent now?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate, particularly in Atlantic Canada and specifically in that region, is at a level that does not make any of us happy and makes all of us strive to improve it. We believe that our record in improvement in Atlantic Canada is a heck of a lot better than that displayed by the Government the Hon. Member supported when it was in office. We will continue to seek that kind of improvement and job-creation activity that will ensure a secure future for the people of Nova Scotia and specifically that region.


IMPOSITION OF TARIFF ON IMPORTED BOOKS-REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will be aware by now that many Canadians, including readers and not just book store owners, are very unhappy with the Government's decision to impose a tariff on periodicals and books. On reflection, will the Minister agree to withdraw a tariff that Canadians are beginning to consider a tax on reading?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said on Monday afternoon. I took no pleasure in announcing the actions the Government would take in response to the U.S. shakes and shingles action. This is something that, as I said, was a necessary response to indicate quite clearly to the Americans that we did not agree at all with what they had done. It is very important that we make that response in order to avoid having that sort of thing happen again in the future.

June 4, 1986
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would tell us what confidence Canadians can have in the so-called decision that culture would not be on the bargaining table? Might Canadians not reasonably think that the Government has reneged on yet another policy?


Geoff Wilson: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister responsible for the post office. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, hundreds of rural mail delivery routes are currently being assessed for the possibility of closure, including four in my riding. What criteria is Canada Post employing in deciding which routes should be cut and what guarantees, if any, do rural Canadians have that they are not being discriminated against simply because rural routes are easier to close than urban routes?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to assure the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris that Canada Post Corporation is working under a mandate that was supported by two Governments. That mandate is to reach self-sufficiency. In that process it is necessary from time to time to review the operations and we leave it to Canada Post to review those operations and use the necessary means it has at its disposal as a Crown corporation, something to which we all agreed in 1981, to bring about the objective of self-sufficiency. In conclusion, I can advise the House that the deficit of Canada Post as reported by the President, Don Lander, is down to $200 million.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ETHIOPIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery today of His Excellency, Mr. Goshu Wolde, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Ethiopia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF RIGHT HON. ROLAND MICHENER
Mr. Speaker:: I also draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence of the Right Hon. Roland Michener.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

The Minister has answered many of my questions on the CN shops in Moncton by referring to the internal study being conducted by CN. Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House as to the progress of the study? How long will it be before the study is completed? Does the Minister have any advance knowledge of the contents of that study?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is hopeful that he will be seized of that particular study before the end of this month.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF LAY-OFFS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, are the lay-offs announced last Friday by CN affecting 105 workers in the area the result of this internal study? Are more layoffs coming our way? We cannot take much more.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware, as indeed are most Hon. Members, that this is the position of Canadian National Railways. It was given a mandate and it has now responded. A review of this response is presently under way and the Minister should have the results before the end of the month. I think I can assure the Hon. Member that this will be the end of it for the time being.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board regarding the current dispute with federal Government ships' crews. Does the Minister agree with the principle of parity for
June 4, 1986

workers in different parts of the country doing the same work? If so, will he tell us why he is still penalizing federal government ships' crews in Atlantic Canada by refusing to pay them the same wages as ships' crews in the West?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first I would be happy to inform the House that, following our obtaining an injunction in Federal Court on Friday, the situation has been normalized. The employees are back to work and there is no illegal strike any longer. There has been an agreement made between management and labour to sit at the table as early as tomorrow morning to resolve their differences.


DESIGNATION OF WORKERS AS ESSENTIAL AND SURPLUS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that 100 per cent of these workers have been designated essential workers, thus denying them the right to strike legally, yet at the same time a large percentage of them have been declared surplus and are in danger of losing their jobs? Could the Minister explain how it is that a worker who is essential can be declared surplus?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Think about that one.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that these workers are critical for the health and safety of the public in the operations which they pursue. In rationalizing the services, some workers may have been declared surplus. It is certainly not one of the major issues in the current dispute. As I said, talks will be resuming tomorrow morning with the union, and I have every hope that we will be able to complete those negotiations successfully as we have in the prior 64 collective bargaining agreements signed earlier this year.


PORNOGRAPHY
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Children are Canada's greatest asset. The Government must ensure that children are provided with a stable and productive environment which will allow them to excel in the adult world. Could the Minister please investigate why the booklet "Pedophiles: Lovers of Children" and the video cassette, "Little Girls ... Dirty Desires" are allowed to be imported into Canada?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly identify with the concern of the Hon. Member opposite. I would like to assure him that our Department has reviewed both of these items, and despite the
Oral Questions
titles the contents therein have not been found justifiable in terms of prohibiting their entry under the relevant tariff items. However, if there is any further change in the content, another version or whatever, I would appreciate having it brought to my attention.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment and of his Parliamentary Secretary, is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, if I could have his attention.


Erik Nielsen: You have it.


Mr. Caccia:: In yesterday's Globe and Mail a highly respected reporter writes that at least one research paper to be given at the International Association of Great Lakes Research was ordered withheld for more Government scrutiny. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House when the Minister of the Environment will stop muzzling his scientists?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is not muzzling his scientists. I think all people recognize that the Minister of the Environment has great credentials with environmental groups and is working hard with them to fulfil his responsibility. In terms of the specifics, I will take note of the question and bring it to the Minister's attention.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Minister's answer, will he please explain to the House why Environment Canada officials, who have asked not to be named, said:
-there are orders from senior management to avoid releasing information that might reflect badly on the federal Government and Environment Minister Thomas McMillan.
Can the Minister explain that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can explain it very quickly. I am sure when the Member was a Minister of the Crown he tried very carefully to make sure that information coming from officials and from the Department was accurate. The Minister of the Environment is saying the same thing.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pretty boy muzzle.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Minister is not muzzling anyone. Allegations which the Member has made are just that. They are newspaper articles and they have as much validity today as they have had other days around this place.

June 4, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Regional headquarters of the CEIC in Vancouver have been told to freeze all funding of applications under the Job Development Program until September. This is supposed to be a continuous intake program. Can the Minister, in order to alleviate the tremendous problems this has created for many applicants in my constituency and in neighboring constituencies who have made all their plans, return the funding that has now been frozen?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have already approved some $27 million in new projects for this fiscal year alone. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, under the Canadian Jobs Strategy we have some $450 million worth of projects operating all across the country.
I must say for the benefit of the Hon. Member and others that those projects continue. They continue to be funded. Moneys continue to be allocated to them. We have, through our annual budget, a plan whereby money will be spent over the balance of the year. Certainly the bulk of it will be spent during the times when unemployment is at its highest, that is, during the fall and winter months, and we want to make sure that some of that money is spent during that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Minister knows that this is a little long.


TREATMENT OF APPLICATIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that all funds have been frozen in the Vancouver region. Is she aware that $2 million worth of applications will be lying around all summer? Apparently the Minister wants to save up all the money until September, disappointing the applicants who have been told they had every reason to believe they would get funds, so she can make a big blow in September.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we try to keep on funding projects all the time. If the Hon. Member wants a list of all of the very worth-while projects that are being funded in British Columbia, I will be more than prepared to provide them to her, including a number of projects in her own riding.


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Last week our national Liberal task force was told by presidents of universities-the Minister can't hear me, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is not interested.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Another immortal comment from Copps.


Roland de Corneille: Last week our-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question, please?


Charles Joseph Clark: Help him out, Sheila.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question, please? I am waiting.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, last week our national Liberal task force was told by presidents of universities, faculty associations, and student unions, that post-secondary education is in a financial crisis, which is exactly what Chief Justice Brian Dickson said at the same time in western Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has now been something over one minute. Could we have a question, please?


Mr. Beatty:: We want to hear Sheila's supplementary.


Roland de Corneille: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chief Justice, or does he deny that students and teachers are facing such a crisis?


An Hon. Member:: Ask him to repeat the question.


Mr. Clifford:: Do you remember the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: may respond to this lengthy question, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member that we have stated on several occasions that-and I said so to the Hon. Member in parliamentary committee-we assumed education was first and foremost a provincial responsibility. Still it does not preclude the federal Government, through the Secretary of State, from maintaining close relations particularly with university councils and students associations with a view to defining more
June 4, 1986

precisely the role the federal Government might play in the education field in years to come.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was indicating to me that he couldn't hear. That is why I was so lengthy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister's Government finally going to step in above and beyond its 5 per cent solution, which is barely more than inflation, to salvage our higher educational system before it starts producing second-class teachers and second-class students, and ultimately have a meltdown-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is urging me to assume the responsibilities of the provinces, I will not do so. We know what happened when the previous Government tried something like that. What we intend to do, ever mindful of federal responsibilities-


Mr. Speaker:: With relief, it is three o'clock. Order, please. I am in receipt of a point of order arising from Question Period from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


POINTS OF ORDER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), during-


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) will resume his seat. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is on a point of order. I will recognize the Hon. Member in a minute.


Steven W. Langdon: During an exchange which took place during Question Period the Minister of Finance suggested that I was attempting to deliberately confuse the House, something at which he is much more a master than I.
Point of Order-Mr. de Corneille


An Hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, could it be made clear that the GATT provisions do permit retaliatory action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! I heard the comment at the time and had to query in my own mind whether there was in fact a breach of parliamentary language.
I did not, at the time, think there was, although 1 must say that the Minister was coming close to imputing motives, which is a breach of our rules. However, I think the Hon. Member is now coming into the area of the facts of debate on the matter which is not a point of order. Does the Hon. Member have a separate point of order?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my direct point of order is that unparliamentary language and unworthy motives have been suggested. I would ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw those-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Resign.


Steven W. Langdon: -especially in view of his inaccuracy.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thought the words used by the Hon. Minister were: "attempting to deliberately confuse the country".


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Is that all? Oh, well, that's okay. Tories are doing that every day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member has taken an imputation of motives against himself out of those words, I would ask the Hon. Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: If the House responds to the matter a disorder is created, and that appears to be what has happened. I take it that the Hon. Minister did not mean anything personal against the Member and would so indicate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to do anything that was personal. I guess I was very confused. If I imputed a motive, then I withdraw the motive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR APOLOGY
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) would care to apologize in view of the fact that my remarks were stopped in his favour because he was indicating to me he could not hear what was being said. 1 stopped several times because of that. I wish he would kindly apologize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order, please! I stopped the Hon. Member's remarks because they were long. Order, please.


Roland de Corneille: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!

June 4, 1986
Question of Privilege-Mr. Boudria


Roland de Corneille: The reason I stopped-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will resume his seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have received two notices of questions of Privilege. I must deal with them in the order in which I received them. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If you deem that I have established a prima facie case of privilege, I am willing to move the appropriate motion.
It is a long established parliamentary principle that Members of this House are to have unimpeded access to Parliament when the House is in session and that anyone attempting to obstruct this access could be found in breach of the privileges of this House. Erskine May, in his Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, nineteenth edition, states the following:
-on 6 June 1780 the Commons resolved, "That it is a gross breach of the privilege of this House by any person to obstruct and insult the Members of the House in the coming to, or the going from, the House, and to endeavour to compel Members by force to declare themselves in favour of, or against any proposition.
Mr. Speaker, this issue involved the High Constable of the City of Westminster in the year 1780.
Yesterday at 12.25 p.m. I was temporarily denied access to Parliament Hill when the RCMP escorting the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) limousine stopped the House of Commons green buses from accessing the Hill because the Prime Minister's limousine was travelling on the same roadway.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I have informed the Sergeant-at-Arms of this situation as well as the RCMP who blocked the roadway in question. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and as the custodian of the rights of Members of this House to ensure that this kind of action is not repeated.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why don't you guys shut up and listen to him.


Don Boudria: In closing, I want to remind you that similar issues have been raised in this House. On May 27, 1981, such an issue was raised by the late Tom Cossitt, M.P., and the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan)
raised such an issue on May 21, 1981, on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: rise on the same question of privilege. I will speak very briefly. It is a time-honoured privilege of Members to have free and unlimited access to the precincts of Parliament. In citation 105 Beauchesne mentions the definition of parliamentary precincts which have never been deemed to include the grounds surrounding the buildings. Once outside the buildings, security and control of access is a matter more directly under the control of the executive branch of the Government. The RCMP does provide security on the grounds surrounding the precincts of Parliament. The Hon. Member will know that security is a matter of real concern in this day and age. The RCMP are doing a very worthwhile job of providing that security.
The RCMP did not stop the Hon. Member. They stopped the bus. There is nothing precluding the Hon. Member from getting off the bus and walking-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member could have used another device or could have asked the bus driver to take another route. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is not-


Don Boudria: That's not true. Why don't you say the truth in this House. That is a bunch of nonsense. You are abusing my privileges as a Member. That's ridiculous and you know it
is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: If you do not know what you are talking about, why don't you sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: It is that kind of arrogance that gets everyone upset.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He should have floated on Ray Hnatyshyn's hot air.


Mr. Speaker:: I had hoped that perhaps at least when questions of privilege were raised in the House we could stay calmer. Has the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) finished his arguments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand this. The fact is that the Hon. Member was not prevented from carrying out his duties and responsibilities. There was a very understandable delay in terms of the bus route but, as I pointed out earlier, this is not a breach of the Hon. Member's privileges. It is an understandable and justifiable security
June 4, 1986

precaution which takes place from time to time. I would think Hon. Members would applaud the RCMP for being on the job and doing a good job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I would like to make a very brief comment in support of my colleague's question of privilege. I submit that the issue of what can be defined as a parliamentary precinct is not relevant in this case. If the precedent is that the matter of access by a Member of Parliament to the parliamentary precinct arises only when the Member is in the precinct, the whole thing does not make any sense. Surely the point in question is relevant to the extent that the Member is not permitted to reach the parliamentary precincts. If it is clear that the Hon. Member, whether he was on foot or travelling in a bus or a car, was not permitted to reach the parliamentary precincts, then I submit there has been a breach of privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: So much for your credibility.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think that the Member, in trying to reach the parliamentary precincts, should have the right to choose his means of going there. It is not the business of the guards of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to say that a Member cannot come to Parliament unless he goes there in the way they choose. This system is not based on the concept that Members should walk so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) may ride in his big limousine.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have examined the precedents because similar matters have indeed, as the Hon. Member indicated, been raised in the past. There might some day in some way be an issue relating to whether a matter is on the Hill or within the precincts, but I have examined the circumstances and requested a full report from the RCMP and the Sergeant-at-Arms. I have examined all the facts of the matter that the Hon. Member has put before me in exactly the same way that Speaker Sauve dealt with the case presented to her by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). My reaction in this situation is to find that in the circumstances presented to me I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege. However, as the Hon. Member would expect, these matters and the relationship of the green buses and Members to the precincts and exits to the Hill will again be discussed with the RCMP thoroughly.
__________________________________13961
Tabling of Documents PRIVILEGE


ALTERATION IN HANSARD
Mr. Speaker:: On a second and separate question of privilege, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a very serious matter of privilege related to a statement at page 13902 of yesterday's Hansard by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). There is a major variance between what is recorded in the written Hansard and the electronic Hansard which fundamentally changes the meaning of the statement he made. It was a matter of some dispute at that time. He was making allegations that were properly challenged, he withdrew them, and what he said has been altered in Hansard. I was very careful to check the electronic Hansard. I realize one can alter the "blues" to correct syntax or grammatical errors, but not to fundamentally alter the meaning of a sentence. That has been done in this case.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you carefully examine what is written in Hansard and compare it with the electronic version and, when you see that there has been a substantial alteration, ask to have yesterday's Hansard withdrawn and the proper correction made so that it properly reflects the record of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member gave me proper notice. I have not come to a conclusion on this matter and I intend to reserve. The Hon. Member will know that, at least to this point, the official record of the House of Commons has been the officially published Hansard. He is asking the Chair to consider a very significant matter and I intend therefore to reserve and consider it quite seriously.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, copies of the document entitled "Draft Amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act".

June 4, 1986
Petitions


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to once again present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are still concerned about the announcement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that laid off workers, after January 1, 1986, will have their pension benefits deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits. They call upon the Government to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions from residents of Canada concerned about the closure of the grounds of the Governor General's residence. The petitioners call upon Parliament to open up that decision in consultation with a group of residents who are representative of the large and growing opposition to the closure of those grounds in order that a modus vivendi be created that will satisfy both the Government and the public. The petitions are signed by several hundred petitioners.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and duty to present a petition signed by many residents of Kamloops, British Columbia. They protest changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which see pension income treated as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes. They call upon Parliament to withdraw this iniquitous provision.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present close to 10,000 names on a petition from the Province of Manitoba. The petitioners request that the major sales tax applied to gasoline at the federal level be withdrawn and that a federal-provincial conference be called at the earliest possible moment to discuss how a major reduction in the price of gasoline can be effected at both the federal and provincial level. There are 10,000 names which represents close to 5 per cent of all the drivers in Manitoba.



DECORUM IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

['Agreed.']
Mr. Chuck Cook (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, you may want to sign this one yourself. I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition from a number of residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia, including the mayors of both the city and district of North Vancouver. They pray that the
House promote the resolution of conflict in Parliament by encouraging Members to listen with greater empathy and reflection to the concerns expressed by their fellow Members, and to refrain from name calling, sarcastic put-downs, judgmental terms, and other conflict increasing language.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to check that that is in order! No, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).



John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, in accordance with the ancient traditions of this honourable House, and in accordance with Standing Order 106, to present two petitions this afternoon. The first petition is signed by a majority of the residents of what is now known as Rural Route #1, Rainy River. It calls upon this House to ensure that Canada Post continues to provide service to these isolated postal customers.
The second petition is signed by a similarly weighty proportion of the residents of what is known as Rural Route #1, Pinewood, Ontario. They, too, call upon this honourable House to ensure that rural mail customers are not deprived of the fundamental right of mail service in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no further petitions, by consent we will revert to tabling.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to petitions Nos. 331-429 and 331465.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties and I think you will find a disposition to accept the following motion by unanimous consent and without debate. It reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the document entitled "Draft Amendments to the Canada Pension Plan", Sessional Paper No. 331-7/45, laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for its introduction?
June 4, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: And there being such consent, shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain) moved:: That this House believes that the recent action by Air Canada, in suspending flight attendant Toni Corrado for 30 days as the result of her reply to questions from a Progressive Conservative convention delegate during a flight from Vancouver to Montreal, was improper and denies the principle of free speech as guaranteed in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I hope in the process of making my argument this afternoon that not only will the Government pay particular attention to the points I am trying to make, but that the Crown corporations and other agencies of this Government and all other Governments across Canada will likewise pay heed.
Canada's Charter of Rights was hailed by many people as a very progressive and acceptable move, both in its original form when the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker introduced it
Supply
in 1960 as a Bill of Rights, and subsequently when it was introduced and passed in 1981 by the then Parliament under the leadership of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
I want to point out that back in 1960 the Right Hon. Diefenbaker said:
This measure that I introduce is the first step on the part of Canada to carry out the acceptance either of the international declaration of human rights or of the principles that actuated those who produced that noble document.
Later in that decade in 1968 the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson said:
Canadians could take no more meaningful step than to entrench firmly in our Constitution those fundamental rights and liberties which we possess and cherish.
In 1981 the then Prime Minister Trudeau said:
We must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our regional loyalties there is a way of life and a system of values which makes us proud of the country that has given us such freedom and such immeasurable joy.
Article 1 of the Charter says the following:
1.	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Article 2 then goes on to describe the fundamental freedoms that we in Canada enjoy. It says the following:
2.	Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
1 want to make it clear that what I am talking about today is that fundamental freedom enjoyed by all Canadians that has not been taken away from anyone by virtue of any law being passed by Canada at the federal level. In other words, I am making the case at this point that Toni Corrado, among others working for Air Canada, or for that matter for anyone else, enjoys the right to freedom of speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is no law, as would be required under Section 1, that has been passed by this House which would in any way limit that freedom she and others enjoy.
I want to go on to point out that it says in Article 32, under the application of the Charter:
32. (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and Government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories;-
It goes on to say the same applies to the provinces. I point out that those three sections support the argument that must be made about what happened to Toni Corrado, and what could be used by others against similar kinds of things, were they to arise. Clearly, Air Canada falls within the definition of a matter that falls within the authority of the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada. Clearly that woman, like all other employees of Air Canada and other employees of the Government and its agencies, is entitled to the protection of the Charter because there has been no movement by this Government or any other Government to relieve them of that protection.
13964

June 4, 1986
Supply
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) responded to a question by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. de Jong), with regard to the incident of the disciplining of this flight attendant. The Minister said, as recorded at page 13721 of Hansard on May 28, 1986 the following:
Air Canada has no policy that prohibits public contact employees from discussing politics, religion or any other subject with customers.
Not only has Toni Corrado exercised her rights within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but she did not violate any of the requirements of employment with Air Canada.
Let me put on the record what caused this matter to be raised. In a letter dated March 18, 1986 addressed to the Hon. Don Mazankowski, P.C.M.P., Minister of Transport, Room 135E, House of Commons, the following is stated:
Dear Don:
I wish to lodge a formal complaint in regard to an attendant on our flight Air Canada No. 156, Vancouver to Toronto, March 11, 1986. The attendant's name is Toni Corrado and her official number is 57. She resides in Toronto.
I was travelling with a group of people to the Montreal convention. When she learned this she continued to complain about you and the Progressive Conservative Government and their interference during the last strike. She advised us not to let anyone east of Toronto know that we were Conservatives.
I hope that you will deal with this matter appropriately.
It was a pleasure seeing you in Montreal and we enjoyed meeting your wife.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. Donna Ford
I put to this House that nothing contained in that letter could lead anyone to believe that the flight attendant named had done other than to exercise her rights under the Charter, and neither had she breached any of the regulations governing employment with Air Canada as outlined by the Minister in the House. I think we can lay that to rest. If the complaint and the words used in that complaint were an accurate description of what took place, I do not think anyone could argue but that it in no way indicates that that particular employee had done anything but exercise her rights according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) is presumably here to defend this inappropriate action. If that flight attendant said that she disagreed wholeheartedly with New Democratic Party policy and thought that: "Ed Broadbent, Ian Deans and Les Benjamin acted inappropriately", and if she said she was not satisfied with our conduct during the strike, I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I do not believe for one moment that Mrs. Ford would have written that letter. I also do not believe that Air Canada would have paid one iota of attention to it because the complaint is so trivial.
That is why this is such an important matter. This letter was clearly sent to the Minister because it was from one Conservative to another, asking that certain action be taken to punish someone for doing something to which they are entitled. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, as I would to the
Minister if he were here, that the obligation of the Government in this regard is to assure that every Crown corporation, every agency of the Government and every Department of the Government understands the rights and freedoms that are enjoyed by every Canadian. No agency, including Air Canada, has the right according to any statute to discipline an employee for having exercised his or her legal rights. That understanding goes to the very nub of what is wrong in this case.
I do not want to leave the impression at all that I think the Minister of Transport knew personally that this was happening. I have never said that and do not believe it to be true. However, this letter is clearly both of a business and personal nature, given the reference to their meeting. Therefore, I suggest that when such a letter is sent to the Minister, his officials or personal staff should bring it to his attention. Furthermore, I believe that when Air Canada received a copy of that letter from the Ministry officials it would have automatically assumed that this letter would have been seen by the Minister-since it was addressed to him and contained personal references-and he would have authorized that it be sent to Air Canada for action. That is where the buck must stop.
When this letter was sent, it should have been pointed out that according to the information contained in the letter, the attendant named therein simply exercised her right as a citizen of Canada to be critical, pass judgment, or make comment about the actions of the Government, Parliament or the actions of individual Ministers.


Pat Carney: While on the job?


Ian Deans: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) asks: "While on the job?" Yes. Let me quote the Minister again, in case the Minister of Energy did not hear it the first time. The Minister said:
-Air Canada has no policy that prohibits public contact employees from discussing politics, religion or any other subject with customers.
Quite clearly, if there is no such policy then the woman in question did not violate any policy. If there is such a policy, it would be in violation of the Charter of Rights in any event. The Government should consider this matter, with all of its ramifications, as well as its implications.
This is not a matter for the collective agreement, nor a question of whether someone can be disciplined for violating the collective agreement. The collective agreement in no way addresses this matter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Absolutely incredible.


Ian Deans: The collective agreement does not address this matter. This concerns a fundamental right of every Canadian, whether or not there is a collective agreement.


J. Michael Forrestall: I suggest you are using an individual for another purpose. Sophistry is what it is.
June 4, 1986


Ian Deans: I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary who is blabbering on about something, and he obviously should know better, that he should try to make it clear to the Government that we did not pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it would apply only to those for whom it happens to be convenient. That was not the purpose of this Charter which hangs proudly in most offices, most schools and most public buildings. We did not say that there are five or six classes of people in Canada, some of whom have protection under the Charter and others who do not. We did not approve of disciplining people for doing things the Government does not like, notwithstanding the fact that those people clearly have that right under the Charter. We did not say that it would be acceptable to use a collective agreement between two parties at the federal level to discipline someone for doing something to which they are entitled under the Charter.
The Parliamentary Secretary should take this issue seriously because it can affect any employee in any Crown agency at any time. There is absolutely no doubt that we stated quite clearly that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only-which is the key-to such reasonable limits prescribed by law. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the freedom of speech, unless it is in violation of a law, is absolutely guaranteed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Right. You could find out the facts, but that would not be convenient to your argument.


Ian Deans: I contend that in the case of this woman there is no such law that prohibits her from exercising the expression of her views about the Government or anything else that is not prohibited. It is time the Government understood that.
This is not simply a question of a woman's battle for her job. This is a case of a 30-day suspension without income. Such a suspension means you would worry yourself sick over whether you can make your rent payment, your loan payment or whether you can afford to buy enough food. This is a 30-day suspension for criticizing the Government. We would be up in arms if this took place in Russia; but no, this is Canada. I understood that we in Canada did not take such punitive action against people. I understood that we treated people fairly.
I have seen Members rise in the House time after time to argue that it is the right of everyone, subject only to such reasonable limits as prescribed by law, to criticize the Government as they so wish. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not so long ago that the Conservative Party, when in opposition, was screaming at the Government about a man who was employed by the Government and whose responsibility it was to enforce the change to metric in Canada. He went out and spoke against that change. The Conservative Party argued, I believe quite strongly, and perhaps even with some justification, that the penalty the man had to endure was wrong. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me that what this woman did was in any way different or was as bad as what was done by a man who ultimately became a leadership
Supply
candidate for the Conservative Party at its convention when it chose its now leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
I see a double standard which I find, quite frankly, very disturbing. It is not simply a question of this woman and her rights, it is a question of whether the Government of Canada believes that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which all of us who were here supported in this House at its final point, means anything. The question is whether we believe the right to free speech is a fundamental right of every citizen and cannot simply be frittered away by the whim of someone sitting in a corporate boardroom. The point is whether that fundamental right will be upheld by the Parliament of Canada and whether the Government of Canada will insist that that right be upheld by agencies of Government.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary if he believes, as I do, that when we passed that law we intended that everyone not prohibited by law should be given the benefit of protection under the Charter, and particularly under the freedom sections, then he surely must understand that a letter of complaint of the type written cannot be used as justification for denying anyone the right to express his or her honest opinion about the actions of the Government which governs a democracy in which he or she lives.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask the Hon. Member. I believe he has been informed that the Minister of Transport is at a federal-provincial conference meeting today.


Ian Deans: No, I was not informed of that.


Pat Carney: He could have found that out by calling his office. The point has been made by the Government that this particular complaint-may I say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that it is our 10 minutes.


Don Boudria: The time belongs to the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Pat Carney: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?
This complaint was handled in a routine manner by the Executive Correspondence Unit of the Department of Transport. I would like to point out at this time that so far this year there have been 53 referrals to Air Canada. In 1985 there were 144 referrals, 1984 there were 114 referrals and in 1983, the year we were not in power, there were 159 referrals to Air Canada. Does the Hon. Member suggest that these were all from one Conservative to another or does he understand the fact that this is a routine matter handled in a routine way?


Don Boudria: You would have to be pretty naive to believe that.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the Hon. Member has lost her touch in terms of asking questions.

June 4, 1986
Supply
Let me point out that I did not for one moment suggest that all the complaints which go into the Government are from Conservatives. I am suggesting that this one was, quite clearly, because it was admitted to have been. But the problem is that not all complaints breach the fundamental rights of other people. Not all complaints touch upon whether or not the right to freedom of speech is being violated.
What has to be done is that this Ministry, and all others, have to be sensitized to clearly understand that when complaints which clearly touch upon the right to freedom of speech come in, they cannot be left simply to the whim of the individual corporation or Crown agency to make a determination as to how to deal with them. If one was going to deal with this kind of complaint fairly, what ought to have been done, if some action was needed, was to send a letter to Air Canada pointing out first that a complaint was made, and second, that under the Charter its employees have the right to freedom of speech, and third, that under the operating instructions of Air Canada there is no prohibition to exercising that right and, therefore, how in the normal course of events one should respond to this particular complaint.
It is a different matter from having arrived to catch a flight and finding the door locked and the flight gone ahead of time. That kind of complaint is quite different. If one did not like the quality of food served it would be a different complaint. However, a complaint which touches upon and violates the individual rights of people to exercise their freedom of speech must be handled differently.
[ Translation]


Mr. Valcourt:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. I certainly do not have the experience of the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party who started this debate, but I am absolutely astounded that he would have Canadians believe, while he is brandishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in front of the House of Commons, that he wants to defend those rights and freedoms when he actually wants to use the Government, the Government's executive powers, to interfere in the adjudication of a grievance involving this employee and Air Canada.
What the New Democratic Party is asking Mr. Speaker, and what the Liberal Party has endorsed by the kind of questions it has asked this week, is for the Government to interfere in a dispute, covered by a collective agreement, between an employee and her employer, and "guarantee" the employee's rights and freedoms. The same Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every Canadian may seek redress before the courts, so that our rights may be protected.
Mr. Speaker, what makes me different from a Liberal or a New Democrat is probably the fact that I have enough faith in our institutions and our laws to leave it up to the Charter and the guarantees it gives me that I can go before a real court- and not before a partisan court like the House of Commons or
the Government, the Executive-in order to deal with such a problem.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member does not understand the problem. It is a very serious problem for the individuals concerned and for other people as well. This is not just a problem for this particular person. It is a problem that concerns other people and other employees as well.

What I am suggesting is that this goes far beyond just this one incident, and it would not have happened had the Ministry responded properly in the first place. This person has been put in jeopardy by virtue of what many people consider to be an inappropriate action taken in error by the Ministry, not by the Minister, by the Ministry.
[ Translation]
Yes! Absolutely! It was a letter addressed to the Minister. It was a personal letter, certainly.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the point has been made that this letter should have received special treatment because it was a personal letter, that it was a "Dear Don" letter. I have a "Dear Don" letter here dated January 30, 1985. It states: "Dear Don, representations have been received from one of my constituents-" and the name is here "-a copy of his December 4 letter is enclosed for your information". It continues: "May I ask you to direct your officials to look into this situation. A report would be appreciated". This letter is signed by Ed Broadbent, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and was replied to by the Minister who pointed out: "After receipt of your correspondence, officials of Air Canada were contacted to obtain their response to the concerns which have been raised". Is the Hon. Member suggesting that it was improper for a Conservative to file a complaint with the Ministry of Transport but it is not improper for his own Leader to file a complaint and have it dealt with in the normal manner?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, this is ludicrous. I would like to try to get my point across. There is a substantial difference between a letter asking someone to look into whether a bridge was built, whether a road was paved, whether the food on Air Canada's flight was any good or whether a flight can be changed in order to accommodate a different schedule for people who live in the area. Of course those types of letters can be sent on immediately. However, I am suggesting that when a complaint which infringes upon the freedom of speech of an employee is lodged, then a directive should go back to the individual complaining that freedom of speech is in fact a fundamental right in Canada and, therefore, there is nothing that can be done to take it away, nor should there be.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member talks about what happened on
June 4, 1986

this flight. He was not there and I was not there. It is a question of fact to be determined by someone. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we should short-circuit the procedure under the collective agreement to have these facts established by whatever tribunal, or by whatever method is provided for under that agreement? Maybe he does not have all the facts in this matter.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to concede that it is entirely possibly that there is information that I do not have. There is information which I do have which I have not even put on the record because I did not want to get into whether one person was right or another person was right. In my opinion that is not what we are discussing today.
Let me put it this way. The letter clearly sets out the complaint. The complaint was that the flight attendant "continued to complain about you and the Progressive Conservative Government and their interference during the last strike." That was the complaint. The answer to it is simple. It is the right of any Canadian to complain about the Government's actions or the actions of the Minister. That is the answer. There need have been nothing more done about it.
I am suggesting that by not taking that action the Government made this into a problem for that young woman. It places her in a position in which she is denied the rights to which she is entitled under the law. It places the matter in a forum that is absolutely inappropriate for dealing with matters such as this.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to join in this debate. Notwithstanding the Government's protestations, there are a great many Canadians who are very concerned about what this particular issue does to their rights and freedoms as individuals. If in fact the Corrado incident on the Air Canada flight to the Progressive Conservative convention was an isolated incident we could say that it was a mistake, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) inadvertently passed along this letter which set in motion a series of events that led to the suspension of this particular airline attendant.
In fact, in the 19 months since the election of the Conservatives to Government we have seen a consistent campaign of harassment with respect to individuals exercising their right to freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am reminded of the infamous memo concerning the Buffalo Jump question.
It seems to me that when members of the Conservative Party were in opposition they were very happy to encourage those rights as was mentioned earlier. We can remember the infamous case of Neil Fraser in which the very person who was paid by the Government to promote metric made a cause celebre out of dumping on metric for all and sundry. He even took it to his platform in the Progressive Conservative leadership campaign. The Conservatives did not complain at that time.
Supply


Jack Wendele Shields: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) would not want to mislead the House. She referred to the infamous Fraser case saying that the individual was paid by the Government to promote metric. He was not. He was an employee of the Department of National Revenue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That could be a matter for debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the point is that when the Progressive Conservatives were in opposition they certainly delighted in encouraging the free speech of every citizen. Unfortunately, as soon as they were elected to government we saw a radical change in their position. I think of the Buffalo Jump situation because here is an example of an individual who was distraught when he learned of plans by the Progressive Conservative Government to cut back on programs for native Canadians. In fact, he allowed that information to enter into the public domain. In other words, he leaked a document, a document which served to embarrass the Conservative Government and force it to back-pedal on a program which would have wreaked devastation on the native community. That program, under the auspicies of the Deputy Prime Minister, was known as the Buffalo Jump program.
What was the reaction of the members of the Progressive Conservative Government at that time? Was it to be as magnanimous as it was to Neil Fraser who went on to become a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party? No. Not only did they fire the civil servant in question, not only did they terminate his services, they also moved to prosecute him. In fact, Robert Price, an ordained United Church minister and a former senior manager within the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, earned the dubious distinction of being the first civil servant ever to be charged under the Criminal Code for leaking a cabinet document. That was the first issue in which we saw a former civil servant prosecuted under the Criminal Code for the leaking of a document.


Pat Carney: We have established that you are in favour of breaking the law.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) says I am in favour of breaking the law. It seems to me that when Neil Fraser was speaking out for the Conservatives as a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party not only was he lauded and applauded but he was encouraged in the same way as a former member of the RCMP was encouraged by the Conservatives to continue leaking documents. When they came into power he was rewarded by being given a promotion. It seems interesting that since the Conservatives have come to power there is a thread of persecution and harrasment which seems to underlie all of the activites which they undertake, not only in the House of Commons but outside it as well. Let us just look to the Prime Minister. When did he fire a cabinet Minister? Was it when

June 4, 1986
Supply
the cabinet Minister did not do his job? Was it when the cabinet Minister let down the people of Canada? No. It was when the cabinet Minister told the truth, when the cabinet Minister called a spade a spade. When the cabinet Minister told the people of Canada the facts as they were that is when he was fired.
We saw the same type of harassment in the rather ridiculous situation of a delicatessen owner in the Byward Market in the City of Ottawa who decided to launch a number of sandwiches during the Sine Stevens affair. He is a great entrepreneur. In the Progressive Conservative spirit he wants to call a buck a buck. He wants to make a buck on a sandwich. He launched the Sine Stevens sandwich: one layer of turkey, one layer of hot air, one layer of baloney, all dressed, lay it away interest-free only $1.99. One would think that members of the Progressive Conservative Party, as interested as they are in free enterprise, would laud this particular entrepreneurship in the Byward Market. Instead we saw a senior Conservative lawyer prevail upon the owner of this delicatessen who himself had come from a country of persecution, a country where people were not allowed to speak out. He said to him: "Listen. You better cut off these sandwiches. You better cut off this political statement or you will find that you will be boycotted by Progressive Conservatives". 1 wish to tell Hon. Members that this particular deli owner-


Pat Carney: Freedom of choice.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre says: "Freedom of choice." It is freedom of choice. The people could have gone to the deli in the Byward Market and bought a Sine Stevens sandwich, or they could have bought a Nielsen sandwich. The turkey is a code for Neilsen. They could have bought a bologna sandwich-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I know it is difficult to call it a "York-Peel sandwich" but would the Hon. Member refer to Members by constituencies and not by names? I am referring to the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the sandwiches.
They could have been selling a Cappicola Copps Sandwich, a sandwich named after the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. This is a free country and a guy had an idea to sell a balogna sandwich for $1.99. It was not a bad deal. Instead, the Government is paranoid about this. It is the same kind of paranoia we see in the Corrado case. The letter that came from that Conservative delegate should have been thrown in the wastebasket. We receive hundreds of letters.

I am sure all Members of all Parties get letters from various sources. Had I received a letter from somebody complaining about someone else having exercised his or her freedom of
expression as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, I would have filed it away, like in the wastepaper basket. Indeed it does not make any sense that Air Canada should be expected to conduct an inquiry into the case of a flight attendant who did exercise her freedom of expression. As a matter of fact, she is not the one who began the argument with the Progressive Conservative Party delegates. She simply responded to the invitation of this delegate, Mrs. Donna Ford of British Columbia.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this is a case of harassment which reaches right into the basic rights of Canadian men and women.
Personally, I do not want to be afraid of saying anything to anybody in Canada. I should like to say what I think without fear of being harassed by the Government, or by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), or by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), or by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), because I do live in a country where I am free to say whatever I want.
I think that such freedom of expression should be guaranteed in any democratic country, but we can see that some of our rights have been eroded ever since the Progressive Conservative Party took over 19 months ago.


Mr. Rossi:: They are afraid of truth.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member is suggesting that they are afraid of truth. Quite so, they are afraid of truth, and the best evidence of this is the harassment to which was subjected the owner of a Byward market sandwich store. Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that the Conservatives should be so concerned about Byward market sandwiches. Why should one not have the right to sell whatever one wants to sell?

The same is true in the case of the flight attendant. The flight attendant herself did not in fact embark upon the discussion with the Conservative delegates. She made a lighthearted statement, joke or jest as we all do in our daily lives. I hope that when the time comes-


Pat Carney: You were there?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources asks if I was there. No, I was not there. I am recounting events as they were recounted to me through the news media and the letter sent by the Conservative delegate. In fact, I hope that the day never comes when I cannot share a little joke with my Conservative friends. I may not agree with everything the Conservative Party does. I certainly do not agree with everything the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does. However, from time to time, I meet Conservative Members in the elevator and I share friendly little jokes with them. That is all a part of living in a democracy and being a Canadian. We can fight like Hades here in the House of Commons, yet in the corridors, the elevators and on the grounds, we are all here together.
June 4, 1986

In the same way, Miss Corrado was simply doing her job. She passed out pillows to Conservative delegates. As we all know, when we go to political conventions we are in happy moods. Everyone was joking and laughing and Miss Corrado naturally thought that they were on a vacation. She asked where they were going and they said they were going to the Progressive Conservative Convention. In a humorous manner, she said: "Gee, if I knew you were going there, I would not have given you the pillows". Can you blame her for saying that she would not give pillows to people who were going to a Progressive Conservative Convention, Mr. Speaker? She was joking. She made a comic remark, but Conservative Members are showing how paranoid they are today as they shake their heads negating the joke. I am sure that the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune shot into Conservative Members by Miss Corrado will see the survival of the Progressive Conservative Party. I do not think the Progressive Conservative Party will lose the next election because of the comments made by Miss Corrado.
I have had comments made to me on aeroplanes that I would not dare repeat in the House of Commons. If I did, I would probably be named. That is a part of the business we are in. That is a part of the political job. There are people who slap me on the back and say: "Go after them, go over chairs and tables, through hills and dales". Some people support us. Others say: "You made a horse's behind out of yourself the other night when you did so and so".


An Hon. Member:: You're right.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That comes with the territory. The Hon. Member says that I am right. When Miss Corrado made the comments she made to the Progressive Conservative Party delegates she was expressing her feelings, and that is the right of any Canadian. Presumably when one signs up for a job with a Crown corporation one is not required to sign away rights as a citizen. Employees of Crown corporations are still protected by the Charter and have the same rights and obligations as every other Canadian citizen. They have the right to free speech.
I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport, who has been seen by most as an honourable and reasonable Member, did not read the letter from the Progressive Conservative delegate from British Columbia, see how offensive it was to any Canadian who believes in the right of free speech and stick it in a garbage can. The Minister should have recognized that every Canadian including Canadians employed by Crown corporations have the right to free speech. If he does not recognize that, then he must answer a question.
I have here a copy of a letter which was sent to various members of the Conservative Government signed by a concerned Canadian from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Sir
I find the notoriety surrounding the suspension of an Air Canada flight attendant very distressing. I am most concerned because in September I will be
Supply
taking a flight from Saskatoon to Toronto and am worried about what are acceptable topics of conversation with the flight attendants other than deciding what beverage to have with the in-flight meal.
Knowing that the present Government has contingency plans for all situations, could you please send me a list of acceptable topics that would not cause any repercussions when engaging in conversation with flight attendants.
I hope that you can act as quickly as possible on this request as I hate to take the three hour flight without saying anything for fear of treading on sensitive areas.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
The letter is signed by L. Wilner from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
When the Wilners from Saskatchewan feel that way, when the deli owners from the Byward Market are silenced for introducing Sink Stevens sandwiches and when an ordained United Church minister is faced with criminal prosecution for bringing to public attention a situation about which he feels so strongly that he cannot in good conscience keep silent, then we have the seeds of intimidation sown by a Government that is living in paranoia.
I believe the Minister of Transport probably passed along the letter without having actually read it. We all know that Ministers are very busy. Perhaps it was read by an assistant who made a bad political judgment. Given that a bad political judgment was made and it was the Government that precipitated this investigation by Air Canada into the comments of Miss Corrado, I would ask that the Government through the auspices of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and the Prime Minister launch a directive under the Financial Administration Act.
Government Members say they do not want to interfere in the process between union and management and the course of events which naturally transpire through a collective agreement. But their argument does not hold water when you realize it was the intervention of the Government that in the first place caused the complaint to be brought to light. I would suggest that one possible way of dealing with this matter is to have a directive launched under the Financial Administration Act, which is provided for, so that any government, and the Minister of Transport can prevail upon Air Canada. In this particular instance, given that Miss Corrado was so clearly exercising her right to free speech as guaranteed by the Charter, it is incumbent upon Air Canada to drop the complaint and to cease and desist immediately with this campaign of harassment.

And Mr. Speaker, since it was after all the Government who lodged this complaint after receiving a letter from a Tory delegate attending the party's convention in Montreal, why can't the Government now inform Air Canada directly that a directive will be issued under the Financial Administration Act to put an end to the harassment of this employee, since all she has tried to do is to stand on her own rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? We are talking about

June 4, 1986
Supply
freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right of all Canadian men and women, and I think that if we tell all employees of Crown corporations like Petro-Canada, Air Canada and all the other Crown corporations that they no longer have freedom of speech, we are creating a society along communist rather than democratic lines.
I think none of us here in the House would be prepared to suggest or support a system along communist lines that would deprive people of their freedom of speech, instead of protecting them under the Charter of Human Rights. I believe that what is involved here is freedom of speech and human rights, the freedom of all Canadian men and women, and I am sure Members on all sides of the House, Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, will support the motion presented by my hon. colleague, the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the Hon. Member although I could not follow all of her logic while she was speaking. She referred to the Buffalo Jump. I do not know what that is, so excuse my ignorance, Mr. Speaker. I wondered whether that had anything to do with Members of Parliament jumping over parliamentary committee tables. Maybe not. Maybe the Hon. Member will enlighten me. The Hon. Member, I am sure-

-has a keen sense of justice because she seeks to uphold the rights of all Canadian men and women.
At least the Member of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Deans) was decent enough to admit a few moments ago that he was not fully cognizant of all the facts. He does not know what happened on that flight because he was not there, therefore he does not have all the facts. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we should support this motion without being aware of all the facts? When referring to a Communist regime, and she mentioned somebody who had broken a Canadian law, the Criminal Code, is she really fair and equitable when she uses such incidents to argue that all Conservatives in Canada are alike, and then goes on to say that, because somebody broke the law by revealing something he was not supposed to, was taken court and found guilty of an infraction, that it amounts to suppressing freedom of expression? Why would she say that to Canadians, knowing full well that her argument does not make any sense at all? If we listen to her and take her advice, she warns us against falling under a Communist regime. But in a dispute, are Governments not expected to intervene directly in collective bargaining, the procedure chosen by both employers and employees to settle their differences? They have the resources to determine all the facts. And if ever this process should fail, does she not feel confident that, without any interference from the executive branch, our justice system can indeed uphold and protect the rights of all Canadians, wherever they may be traveling?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think that the invervention of the Hon. Member is well intentioned. The problem is that he forgot something. This whole series of events happened because of the executive branch of our Government after a letter to the Minister of Transports (Mr. Mazankowski) complained about what had been said on the plane. If he did not know, he should have known that the delegate, Mrs. Donna Ford, wrote to our Hon. Minister of Transport a letter beginning "Dear Don" to say that she had a complaint to make, and the minister was the one who referred the complaint to Air Canada. The complaint did not originate from Air Canada; it was made following the intervention of a Minister of the Crown. The complaint was iniated by the Minister of Transport.
The Hon. Members says that I do not know all the facts. It is true that I do not know everything. If the Hon. Member has all the facts, it is because his Government has told him more than it has told the public.
All that the public knows, Mr. Speaker, is that a woman working for Air Canada, a crown corporation, was suspended for 30 days after criticizing the policy of the Conservative Party because a delegate at the Conservative Party Convention sent a letter to the Conservative Minister.
Since all these events occurred following the intervention of the Minister of Transport, it is up to the Progressive Conservative Government to settle the matter. I find it unfortunate that the Hon. Member is not aware of the Buffalo Jump. Maybe it is because I did not put it correctly in French, but the Buffalo Jump was a proposal of the Conservative Government to cut back over $300 million from programs for the native people. It is only following information provided by minister Price, who is a minister of religion and not a Minister of the Crown that this was made public. He was the one who leaked out the cutback proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
Instead of invoking the Criminal Code against minister Price, I would have congratulated him for saving a program of over $300 million for Canadian Indians because, without his intervention, it would certainly have been lost. I must add that Mr. Price lost his job and was also prosecuted under the terms of the Criminal Code. Instead of taking criminal action against him, the Minister and the Prime Minister should have congratulated him for exposing the plans of a Government that wanted to reduce the budget of Indian programs.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the answer of the Hon. Member. I take it her only complaint is that the Minister, instead of taking that letter, sending it back to the lady in question and telling her to send it directly to Air Canada, he sent it himself to Air Canada. That only goes to show that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is dedicated and looks after the people who complain to him.


Mr. Nunziata:: Don't be so naive.
June 4, 1986


Bernard Valcourt: The Hon. Member would have liked the Minister of Transport to get personally involved and to investigate, which was not his job. He had to report this to the proper authorities, as he did. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that this is not a proper course to follow, that he should instead judge?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has failed to listen to my speech, because I said: Had I been in his place, I should have thrown this letter in the wastebasket. Because one does not have the right to complain about a person because he or she has exercised the right to freedom of speech. That is what this lady, Donna Ford, has truly complained about-
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Government is trying to speak from both sides of his mouth: on the one hand, as suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), we have no right to intervene in this case. On the other hand, the Government will not recognize that it is this same Progressive Conservative Governement which has started the whole business in the first place.
If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), as I had suggested to him, had thrown this cranky letter into the waste basket, there would be no problem.
That woman, Donna Ford, did not complain to Air Canada but to her great friend the Minister whose name is Don. "Dear Don", I should like to lodge a complaint. If, instead of accepting her judgement, he had thrown this letter in the wastebasket, this would have been the end of the matter.
Now, the Governement is trying to use Air Canada as a scapegoat, because it is the Conservative Government which lodged a complaint in the first place.

As we say in English, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand that it is up to Air Canada, that it is their complaint, then on the other hand that it was the Minister's rather faulty intervention which set the process in motion in the First place. He should have exercised some judgment and thrown the complaint in the garbage can, which is where it should have been properly filed in the First place.


J. Michael Forrestall: This is not really a question of freedom of speech. It is a question of whether or not there are standards to which people must adhere. There are standards which are, in fact, objectionable. When you deal with the public you cannot hide behind freedom of speech. The resolution of the problem, which is an internal matter of Air Canada, has nothing to do with freedom of speech as the Hon. Member and others would have Canadians believe. The question is whether her actions on that flight were objectionable.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I may be missing something, but I do not think anyone was complaining about the way she
Supply
positioned the pillow. I do not think anyone was complaining about the fact that she did not deliver the drinks on time. I do not think anyone was complaining about the fact that the breakfast was over-microwaved. The only complaint was that she spoke out about the Progressive Conservative Party. It seems ridiculous to me that the Government should now suggest that it is not a question of what she said, but what she did.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental question of what she did. In the complaint from the delegate to the Minister of Transport, which set the whole process in motion, there was no mention of the positioning of the pillows. It was a complaint about what she said about the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government's dealings with a specific issue. It was in fact a question of freedom of speech. If the Member can bring to my attention the fact that she did not turn the lights off at the right time, did not show the Film properly, or did not hit the proper-


J. Michael Forrestall: You are among the first to hit the roof in this Chamber when somebody even looks at you sideways.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member says that I am the first to hit the roof when somebody even looks at me sideways. Mr. Speaker, I have had insults far more grievous than the insult which was purported to have been made by Miss Corrado to the Conservative Party, and I have taken it all in absolute good faith and good humour, as is my usual custom.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I would like to begin by making a few remarks in response to the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). She is trying to say that there is constant harrassment which has manifested itself in a number of ways, and she used the example of Mr. Fraser and the metric situation. I have noticed that this Member does not worry too much about facts as long as she opens her mouth and abuse streams out. Mr. Fraser was an employee of Revenue Canada who on his own time joined an anti-metric campaign and spoke out on his own time at meetings about his opposition to metric and his reasons for it. He did not do this at work. It did not interfere with his job with Revenue Canada. We believe that as a member of the civil service he had a right to speak out on that.
I will now turn to the "Buffalo Jump program" or the Price situation. The Member failed to mention that Mr. Price was fired because he broke his oath of secrecy. That man, a Minister of the cloth, took an oath that he would not reveal secret Cabinet documents which he would gain access to by taking the oath. He was a member of the clergy. He broke the oath which he took to gain the right to see discussion documents which belonged only in Cabinet. It is my view that he should have been put in jail. If any other citizen of this country broke a sworn oath he would be put in jail. That oath had the same weight as the Canada Evidence Act. The Member did not mention that. She said that that is harrassment. She said that poor old Price did not like the disscussion paper which

June 4, 1986
Supply
was before Cabinet and, therefore, should have had the right to speak out. He did not have the right to speak out. He took an oath of office and broke it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about Mr. Woods?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member had her full 20 minutes. Would she please allow me mine? I know she does not feel too much courtesy toward this institution, but I would ask her to try just once.
The Minister stated in this House that a number of letters are received by his Department addressed to him which are forwarded to the appropriate segment of the Department of Transport. There are letters of complaint and letters of commendation received. The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) stood in this House and stated that all letters of complaint or commendation with regard to Air Canada are automatically channelled to Air Canada. I do not expect the Member for Hamilton East to respect the word of the Minister because her lack of respect for this institution is well known. I do resent, however, her very clear attempt to smear that most Hon. Member of the House of Commons.
I would now like to turn to the remarks of the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He asked all Members of the House to pay attention to the points which he was trying to make. He mentioned the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He said that all these things guarantee the right to speak out. I ask that Member and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) how they know what took place on that airplane. How does the Hon. Member know what took place in a closed meeting between the company, the employee and the union? I do not know. I know they do not know.
1 was in this House when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) stood in his place and apologized to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). He said that in no way was he trying to impugn the reputation of the Minister. Yet he stood in this House today and moved this motion and during his speech he attempted to smear the reputation of the Minister by implying, and he may not have meant it but this is the way I interpreted it-


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the second time the Hon. Member has referred to the smearing of reputations. If he will consult Erskine May, being a Member of long standing, he will realize that he is imputing motives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order raised is a point of order, no question. However, I see nothing unparliamentary in the last comments of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Hon. Member stood in his place and apologized profusely to the Minister of
Transport. He said, in effect, "Gee, Mr. Minister, I would not want you to think for a moment that I was implying anything about you or your reputation or the way you handle the Department of Transport." Yet he gets up in this House today and does exactly that, in my view. Then, of course, the old coalition goes to work. The famous member of the Rat Pack, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, stands in her place and goes right along her merry old way of smearing, smearing, smearing, and I resent that.
The Minister stated clearly in this House that he does not even see letters of complaint which come to his office; they go directly to the company, as do letters of commendation. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain know that. Every Member in this House knows that the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) do not have the time to sit down and read pitiful letters of complaint, although they may be legitimate. They are sent to the companies concerned.
Air Canada did not unilaterally suspend this individual. Air Canada, as an independent Crown corporation, called a hearing where everyone concerned was in attendance. How do the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East know how this individual treated her passengers? I do not know, I was not there. However, clearly something more than just a joking comment, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East put it, about the Minister of Transport must have taken place.
I firmly believe that Air Canada is a responsible company. It has a responsible relationship with all of its unions. They do not want to have on their hands a grievance which they are going to lose, so they must have had clear reasons for suspending this individual. I do not know if she was pleasant or if she was joking. None of us do.
That brings me to the question I have been leading to. I think this is probably the silliest waste of the time of this House of Commons that I have ever seen in the six years I have been here. I think it is hypocritical in a sense that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and his partner, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, are using this claptrap for political purposes. That is all they are using it for. I sat in opposition. I know how important it is to bring to this House of Commons important questions facing the country. What about the 8,000 people in Alberta who have lost their jobs since February?


Iain Francis Angus: Whose fault is that?


Jack Wendele Shields: Now he is going to make some noise. The Hon. Member had a whole day during which he could have talked about the economy of western Canada. He could have said that with oil prices the way they are we have lost 8,000 jobs in Alberta since February. He could have pointed out that the forecast of job loss this year in Alberta alone looked to be
50,000.
June 4, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thanks to the Conservatives.


Jack Wendele Shields: That only underlines exactly what I said, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member opens her mouth and it flies out. The Conservatives did not set the price of oil in Saudi Arabia. We did not set the world price, and she knows it. It was the Conservatives who brought in the Western Accord after the National Energy Program was imposed on western Canada. It was the Conservatives who brought interest rates down from 18 per cent to 20 per cent to the present levels. That is what we did.
As well, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and his seconder could have brought in a motion concerning farm families in my riding, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. These people have worked all their lives on the family farm and they are now on the verge of losing those farms because of low commodity prices. They could have used this day to some advantage to all Canadians. Yet what do they do? They bring in a silly item which they know full well is being treated exactly the same as any other item, whether it be a labour dispute or whatever. In this case there is a grievance procedure and the issue will be aired completely. Yet the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wants to stand up in the hope of getting the attention on TV at night so that people can say, my, "Isn't the NDP working hard for the common man". They can look at the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and say, "Oh, there is that good old girl who ran the Rat Pack and jumped over tables and chairs. Boy, she is sure fighting for the common person".


Carlo Rossi: That is one thing you cannot do, Jack. You are too old.


Jack Wendele Shields: I am telling you that I am ashamed that we are wasting time in the House of Commons when I know oil companies in my area are going broke. One company alone is laying off 200 drillers.


Iain Francis Angus: Thanks to you, Jack.


Jack Wendele Shields: You want to hear some of it? I will give you some it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to remind Members of the rule of relevance. The Hon. Member for Athabasca may, rightly or wrongly, say that another topic could have been discussed. However, we have an Opposition Day and the Opposition chose a motion which was judged proper and in order by the Chair. I ask Hon. Members to speak to the motion.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was, but I will certainly take your advice. I want to speak on the motion.
Instead of using a silly and time wasting motion, why was something not put forward which would address the problems facing Bow Valley Industries, for example? I think that would be very appropriate. We could talk about the loss of jobs in
Supply
western Canada. I wonder if anyone has taken the trouble to read that motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Did you read it?


Jack Wendele Shields: I sure have. That Member should stand in his place, Mr. Speaker, and speak if he feels that he wants to make a contribution.
Listen to the motion. It reads:
That this House believes that the recent action by Air Canada, in suspending flight attendant Toni Corrado for 30 days as the result of her reply to questions from a Progressive Conservative convention delegate during a flight from Vancouver to Montreal, was improper and denies the principle of free speech as guaranteed in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That is taking it totally. The Member for Hamilton Mountain and the Member for Hamilton East are saying that is all that happened. I do not know what happened. I will tell you this, we will all know when the grievance process goes through, which is all done in secret. The unions have even agreed that they are not going to discuss their deliberations. Air Canada has agreed that they are not going to discuss it, but it will be announced. A grievance procedure is in place, yet those Members want a Government to jump in with both feet before this process takes place. It is silly, it is absolutely silly.
I find that the opposition motion today is a deliberate attempt, in my view, by the two opposition spokesmen, to smear the Minister of Transport, his reputation and his ability as a Minister. This is done after, and I repeat this again, after the Member for Hamilton Mountain stood in his place and apologized most profusely and said that, of course, this was not his intent. It is clearly their intent to try to discredit the Minister and his Department.


John R. Rodriguez: You don't accept his word?


Jack Wendele Shields: The NDP member says we don't accept his word. Well, he says I don't accept the word of the Member for Hamilton Mountain. I say his actions speak louder than words. He stood in this House and apologized, and then today he attacks the Minister and his Department. What are we to think?
We could have spent this whole day discussing some of the issues that are facing this country, such as the fish in Cape Breton and free trade. There are a number of issues that we could have been discussing. Anything I heard today was totally destructive. Anything I heard today from the Hon. Members over there was totally out of line in this House.
We are not discussing freedom of speech.


John R. Rodriguez: You sure are.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Members are trying to make the point that that is really what the issue is.


John R. Rodriguez: That's right. What is the issue?

June 4, 1986
Supply


Jack Wendele Shields: Well, the Member asks what is the issue. He obviously has not been listening. He plugs his ears every time he comes into this House.


John R. Rodriguez: What is the issue?


Jack Wendele Shields: Colonel Blowhorn. The issue is that it is a waste of the time of the House, that is one of the issues. The issue, as I indicated earlier, is that you are impugning the motives of the Minister of Transport. I also say that it is not a matter of freedom of speech, it is a matter of a company acting on behalf of a complaint, which is within its jurisdiction. The union which represents that individual is acting on that issue also. The two of them are sitting down in a grievance procedure. When that grievance procedure is over, then we will find out the truth.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, during the Hon. Member's address to this House he referred to letters of complaint as being pitiful. I wonder if he would like to clarify those remarks. Does he believe that any correspondence from a citizen of this country in objecting to a particular procedure of the Government is pitiful? Is that the kind of attitude that that Member has and how he represents his constituents?


Jack Wendele Shields: Of course not. In response I may have used that term. I certainly did not mean to.


John R. Rodriguez: You are mixed up.


Jack Wendele Shields: Are you prepared to listen to the answer? What I was attempting to do was to point out that the Minister of Transport does not have the time to listen or to read every letter of complaint that comes in on Air Canada, CN, Harbours Board, or whatever. That was the point I was trying to make. When they come to his Department he does not even see them. They automatically go right to the Crown corporation that the letter of complaint is referring to. The Minister knows that the very competent management in CN or Air Canada or the Harbours Board will look into the complaint and answer it properly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) was quite vehement in saying that one Mr. Richard Price should be thrown in jail because he broke his vow, if I can recall his particular statement. I wonder if he could clarify to the House why his view and his Party's view of Mr. Richard Price was so different from the view they took of one Mr. Wood.
Let me refresh the memory of the Member for Athabasca. He will remember that Mr. Wood was in the RCMP feeding secrets to the Conservatives when they were in opposition. When the Conservatives were in government, to show him their gratitude, instead of throwing him in jail, as the Member for Athabasca states now, the Government gave him a promotion and appointed him to a government board. Why is it that Mr. Price should be thrown in jail for exposing a
government practice but Mr. Wood should be given a government appointment?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, again the Member does not appear to have her facts straight. Mr. Wood was not a member of the RCMP when he spoke out and gave information to the Conservative caucus.


John R. Rodriguez: Did he get a promotion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, they asked me for an answer and I am prepared to give an answer.


John R. Rodriguez: You are mixed up.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Wood was not a member of the RCMP. He had resigned from the RCMP when he came forward.
The yappy Member will not listen. I guess she really does not want to know the answer.


Mr. McKenzie:: I find it incredible that we are debating it, but on the other hand I think it will highlight just how completely and totally irresponsible the Liberal and NDP Parties are to present a motion when they do not have the facts. I am going to give you some of the facts.
I have heard probably one of the most incredible statements from the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Any time you receive a letter of complaint about a Crown corporation or a government Department you are to throw it in the garbage. It is a routine matter that started in about 1868. Any time a Member of Parliament receives a letter of complaint, he automatically forwards it to the Minister or to the Crown corporation. They make the decision as to whether or not it is a responsible complaint. You do not throw it in the garbage. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
I have investigated this case and I have got some information that I am going to lay on the Table of the House of Commons today. I understand that Air Canada has received a number of complaints about this stewardess. This stewardess wants a public debate on her case. She wants it all out in the open, so I think we should get everything out in the open. It will be interesting to hear what the other complaints were about.
One of the ladies who got on the plane had her arm in a sling and she had a back injury. She asked for a blanket and a pillow. The stewardess gave her the pillow and the blanket, and somehow after that she found out that this lady was a Conservative. So, she said to her: "If I had known you were a bloody PC, you wouldn't have got the blanket or the pillow". But according to the Liberals, people are to accept those types of statements. If people object to stewardesses swearing at them, they are against freedom of speech. What silly nonsense.
June 4, 1986

The stewardess also said: "I wouldn't be working this four hour shift if it wasn't for that bloody Mazankowski." She can say that because it is freedom of speech. What damn nonsense, you idiots.
The girl went on to say, as these four ladies were leaving the plane: "Don't tell anybody that you're bloody Conservatives when you get off the plane in Toronto." This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. These people are perfectly justified and did the right thing by registering a complaint. The Minister did the right thing by forwarding the letter. This is a lot of damn nonsense and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) wish to reply?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have been watching the antics and it is quite interesting to listen to an hon. Member give his views and watch the antics of the Member from the New Democratic Party, the little blow-hard who sits in another spot, and the other Member, the Member for Hamilton East. I wish the people of Canada could see their antics so they could understand why this motion was brought forward today. It was introduced to waste the time of the Government and to try very hard to impugn the motives of the Minister of Transport and to try to smear him and the Government. It is absolutely ridiculous and should have been ruled out of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will remain calm, notwithstanding the aggravation by the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), who really is too much. However, I hope you will recognize that this is about the fifth or sixth time he has talked about smearing the reputation of the Minister. 1 think you will recognize that that is unparliamentary because it is impugning the motives on the Opposition. I wish he would strike that particular spurious comment from his vocabulary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Member was in fact impugning the motives of a particular Member, be it the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who presented the motion, or the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), it is clearly unparliamentary.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I said that if the Member was impugning the motives, it is unparliamentary. I do not know if the Hon. Member was doing that, it is up to him to say so. I am sure that if the Member was impugning the motives, he will withdraw.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I was suggesting that the whole exercise today was an attempt to discredit the Minister of Transport and the Government and an attempt to smear the reputation of the Minister of Transport. That is my view. I am not impugning the motives of individuals. I am not attempting
Supply
to say that of the Member for Hamilton Mountain. However, that is how this whole debate is coming across to this side of the House. That is how the debate seems, even if one reads the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is satisfied. Resuming debate.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to begin by quoting the masthead on the editorial page of The Globe and Mail, which one can hardly call a hotbed of socialism. It states:
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.
I believe that was said by the Roman philosopher, Junius. Let me also quote Mr. Justice Smith of the Ontario Supreme Court who said:
There should be no presumption that the State is reasonable and curtails freedoms and rights only in cases of virtually absolute necessity.


Mr. Oberle:: That was Caesar.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was stated by a Justice of the Ontario Supreme Court.


Frank Oberle: He must have been quoting Caesar.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let me quote the Associate Chief Justice of that province who stated that:
-a constitutional document should be given a large and liberal construction. The spirit of the living tree should be adhered to.
This motion makes no mention of the Minister or the Department of Transport, but refers to the recent action by Air Canada. To be more direct, we believe that Air Canada has made a bad error in judgment and has over-reacted and resorted to what can now only amount to small-minded vindictiveness.
I will not get into the details of the case because that is not the purpose of our motion. Our motion concerns a person who broke no laws, violated no policy about expressing a political opinion when asked for it, and violated no part of the collective agreement.


An Hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister said himself that Air Canada has no policy in this area. I can find nothing in their collective agreement. When expressing her political views while on duty, when questioned-whether or not in a joking manner-she violated no rule and no company policy. She was handed a 30-day suspension, which means about $2,200.


J. Michael Forrestall: She has not been suspended yet. You know it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Disciplinary action awarded a 30-day suspension. It is now going through the second and third stages of the grievance procedure. I know that as well or better than the Parliamentary Secretary.

June 4, 1986
Supply


J. Michael Forrestall: You do not sound like it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will come to that if the Hon. Member will just wait. If she violated any company policy, then she is subject to reprimand or any other disciplinary action within reason. There is no argument about that. We are saying in our motion that Air Canada acted excessively. Whether or not the grievance is upheld, the fact of awarding a 30-day suspension violates her rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is what we suggest in the motion.
I first raised this matter in the House a week ago yesterday. I might say that over the weekend prior to that, the Thursday, Friday and Saturday, this particular flight attendant telephoned the Department of Justice, the Prime Minister's Office, the Leader of the Opposition's Office, as well as my Leader's office. In fact, Mr. Hamilton of the Prime Minister's Office returned her call from Montreal on Saturday, and at approximately nine o'clock on Saturday night a Vice-President of Air Canada returned her call. She took those steps on her own initiative.
My Leader passed this matter on to me as transport critic. I asked questions on three successive days of the Minister in order to ascertain information and facts. My questions contained no allegations, aspersions or anything else. I invariably began my questions with: "Is it true?" or "Can the Minister-?" I believe one day the Parliamentary Secretary provided us with some information, which was what I was seeking.
On the handling of the matter itself, I think the Minister acted normally and properly. We all receive letters of complaint and if we cannot get the answer ourselves, we write to the appropriate Minister or Department asking to be provided with information in order to reply. That is perfectly normal. That is all the Minister did. The correspondence unit in his office passed it on to the executive correspondence unit in the Department. That was perfectly proper and normal. The executive correspondence unit of the Department passed it on to Air Canada. All the Department requested was: "Please provide us with sufficient information to prepare a reply. Send this information to the address below, quoting our file number". All the Department asked for was sufficient information in order to prepare a reply for the Minister to send to the complainant. Everything was perfectly proper and normal. The Minister and his own staff and the departmental staff acted perfectly properly.
However, from that point on it was Air Canada's management who hit the panic button. As I said last week, Air Canada proceeded to hunt mosquitoes with elephant guns. All it needed to do was to tell the Minister and his Department to please assure the complainant that it was looking into the matter and would advise. That is all that would have been necessary. But, no, Air Canada immediately tells the girl that she is on a seven day suspension with pay pending a disciplinary hearing. At no time did the Minister or his Department,
as far as I know, and I believe the Minister, interfere directly or indirectly. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and I never inferred that in any way, shape or form. But when the Minister became aware of the kind of action taken by Air Canada, which would have been on Monday, Tuesday or even Wednesday of last week, it seems to me, someone should have said "Hold it". I appreciate that we all have trouble keeping up with our mail, and it must be even more difficult for a cabinet Minister. He cannot possibly keep track of every piece of mail which comes into his office. However, he or someone with some smarts in his office or in the Department should have been on the telephone to Air Canada last week saying: "Hold it. All we asked you for was sufficient information to prepare a reply". It is at that point that I believe the Minister could have and should have quite properly told Air Canada management that that kind of overreaction was totally unjustified.
I do not know what the politics of this flight attendant are. I did not ask and she did not say. I had two telephone conversations and met with her briefly when she was in Ottawa the other day. But I do know one thing. She is entering her fourteenth year as a flight attendant. She is what is classed as a senior flight attendant. She works mostly on overseas flights and no amateurs work on those flights, as a rule. I have had conversations since this matter became public with people who know her and work with her, even some who have supervised her, and they are all complimentary about her capacity, capability and experience. Her record bears that out. She has some reprimands on her record, but when the day ever comes that any one of us can find a perfect employee, manager, Minister or Member of Parliament, I do not think there will be anyone left on the face of the globe. She has a reprimand on her record for not wearing lipstick and another one for wearing blue panty hose. Had that been a male attendant, Mr. Speaker, that record would be clear.
She became more and more active in union affairs and vocal to the extent of being critical of the Minister because she did not agree with the Government allowing five-day trainees to act as scab flight attendants during the strike. We all knew last summer that a lot of bitterness and anger would hang on for months and months. This particular flight attendant is not any different from hundreds of others. She expressed an opinion. Goodness knows that opinion was expressed by lots of people, including other people who work for Air Canada.
As our motion says, we believe that the 30-day suspension is a violation of her right to speak and state her view, particularly when she is asked for it. There is one case I was informed about a flight attendant caught stealing who received a three-day suspension. The unevenness of the penalty fitting the crime is astonishing. But it is not the details of the case itself. That, of course, will go through the grievance procedure and it is perfectly logical that neither the company nor the union will comment while that procedure is going on. That is perfectly proper. The point is, as our motion says, that we feel that Air Canada violated her right of freedom of speech. She violated
June 4, 1986

no law, no policy, no regulation and no collective agreement. The Minister himself said that Air Canada has no policy on the expression of political, religious or any other views for employees on or off duty.


Frank Oberle: Objectionable and discourteous treatment of the customers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If that is the complaint, there is certainly no allegation of that in the letter. There is nothing else I can find in writing. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows something more than I do. Perhaps he should go to the grievance hearings.
Surely, whether it is one citizen or a group, to quote Mr. Justice Smith of the Ontario Supreme Court and the Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Supreme Court: "You must interpret the constitutional document with a large and liberal construction". This is what we are trying to say in our motion.
I know that the flight attendant's union will fight her case during the grievance hearings. If there is any follow-up action required, I know the union will fight for her. I am confident of that. Our motion does not deal with that issue. It deals with what we believe to be a bad management error in the actions taken by Air Canada and the manner in which they were taken.
There is another area currently before Members of Parliament which is in the public domain. I wish to refer to another group of people. It is a group of over 2,000 people who man ships and who, because of a bad law, have lost the right to strike. No matter which way they move and no matter what they have done, there is a situation in which over 2,000 government employees have been without a collective agreement for many months. As it is entitled to do under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Government can designate certain employees as essential to public safety and welfare. In this instance the Government has designated the whole group of them as essential. The union, as it is entitled to do, filed objections with the Public Serivce Staff Relations Board. However, as long as the negotiations are broken down and as long as objections are before the Public Service Staff Relations Board the matter cannot proceed to conciliation. Thus the union then withdrew its objections. They received a recommendation from the conciliation board in terms of a majority report. The union has accepted this while the Government refuses to do so. As a result, there were some wildcat walk-outs a few days ago. What other choice did these people have? Even the judge who handed down the injunction, Mr. Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, said:
Doubtless those incidents do evince frustration in regard to the plight in which the defendants find themselves vis-a-vis statutory provision which, without undue exaggeration, can be termed draconian.
I wish the judge had gone even further. I wish that he had struck down this bad law so that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Government would have to bargain collectively in good faith.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, the Government, just like the Liberal Government before it, pays employees in eastern Canada up to $2,000 less than it pays those who work in western Canada. Where is the equality of treatment for performing the same job? Where is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Where is this measure of equality of treatment in the workplace? What the devil is going on? These people work for the same Department performing exactly the same job and they cannot strike.
In closing, and in reference to the incident concerning the Air Canada flight attendant, I wish to quote the words of a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Mr. Justice O'Leary, who said:
The right to organize and bargain collectively is only an illusion if the right to strike does not go with it. The main reason that the right to organize and bargain collectively is assured employees is that they may effectively bargain with their employer. To take away an employee's ability to strike so seriously detracts from the benefits of the right to organize and bargain collectively as to make those rights virtually meaningless. If the right to organize and bargain collectively is to have significant value then the right to strike must also be a right included in the expression "freedom of expression", and I conclude that it is.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking the House to agree that the management of Air Canada and not the Minister or the Department of Transport has in fact violated this person's right to freedom of speech, particularly in light of having been asked for her political opinion and having given it.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and pose a question to the Hon. Member. How does he square the facts with the remarks he made in the House on May 27 in referring to this incident when he said:
-who was suspended apparently as a result of a request by his executive correspondence group-
That is in reference to the Minister's executive correspondence group. How can the Hon. Member say that when the facts are clear that the employee has not been suspended and will not be suspended until the grievance process has been exhausted in support of the original decision? As the Hon. Member knows the executive correspondence group is a departmental unit. It is not within the Minister's office. The executive correspondence group simply requested a response from Air Canada.
The Member said that the person involved in the dispute with Air Canada is basically facing dismissal after 13 years of service. The facts are clear that that is a complete exaggeration of the circumstances. The decision at the first level of the process was a suspension. There has been no suggestion whatsoever of a dismissal, and the Hon. Member knows that. Can the Hon. Member explain the following comment which he made in the House on May 28:
Does he appreciate that Ministers of the Crown cannot be allowed simply to forward the whims and personal letters from Tory delegates to Crown corporations?
The facts are that the Government believes everyone has the right to express his or her opinion. The Hon. Member goes on to say that this was an unjustified decision. On May 29 the Member said that if the decision is unjustified, then due

June 4, 1986
Supply
process allows for the appointment of a third party arbitrator mutually agreed to by both parties who can render a decision. That is the union way. That is labour law.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it should never have gotten that far in the first instance. Just now in my speech, and last week, I pointed out that the Minister did nothing improper, and neither did his executive correspondence group. I read what the executive correspondence group was requesting. After that the issue should never have gone any further.
I remind the hon. gentleman that when one is facing a disciplinary hearing, one is faced with everything from being found innocent up to and including dismissal. That is what an employee is faced with when one is taken out of service, as the company called it. That is the same as a suspension. Up until the completion of the disciplinary hearing the employee faced everything from being rendered totally innocent to dismissal. That is what I said. I believe that if this matter had not been raised in Parliament, she would have been dismissed. I hope that I am wrong in thinking that. However, from what I know of the operations of some of these management types from a great many years of experience around here, that is why I feel that way.
I have made it perfectly plain and clear that this should never have got to the point of being a disciplinary action in the first place. That is when the Minister should have called Air Canada and should have said: "Whoa, this is a bad management decision. If you wish, call her in, get her side of the story, reprimand her or something like that, then that is fine". To go to these types of lengths-


An Hon. Member:: What lengths?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: She has been given a 30-day suspension as a result of the disciplinary hearing. The matter should never have gone that far in the first place.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me that there is an inherent principle involved in the motion of which the Hon. Member spoke throughout his dissertation and it has to do with the violation of certain rights. According to the motion, in this particular case it is the right to freedom of speech. I wonder if it has occurred to members of the NDP that people in Canada also have a right to privacy.
The first exposure I had to this particular case occurred when I was watching television one night. I saw the airline stewardess being interviewed in the presence of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). The atmosphere was charged with emotion. The airline stewardess was all choked up. The interviewer explained how much this person had been hurt by public exposure of the incident. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, in a parental way, reached over and held the lady's hand and said: "You poor child, don't cry". They were all looking around to see who it was who had perpetrated this intrusion on this person's privacy. It had never
occurred to the lady who was interviewing the airline stewardess that she, the Leader of the NDP and the producers of the program were the ones who had organized public exposure of this minor incident. Now we have turned this House into a place where grievance procedures are heard.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has any feeling of remorse for having perpetrated this injustice on this lady. Is there some kind of reward handed out by the NDP or some kind of hall of fame for heroes who permit themselves to be exposed, lipstick, pantihose and all, in the House of Commons? Do members of the NDP think that they are doing a service to the country, the union movement and the collective bargaining process? If they do think that, I would like the Hon. Member to explain why.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was there in my Leader's office at the time and I want the hon. gentleman to know that it was that flight attendant's own wish to come here. She is not the kind of person who runs around yelling, screaming and hollering like the Hon. Member and me.


Frank Oberle: Who phoned the CBC to say: "Let's get this lady out there, lipstick and all"?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: She said she would be available to answer questions and as a courtesy, my Leader's office notified the media, and I am sure the Hon. Member's office would do the same thing.
I would like to tell all Hon. Members that for a total of 11 years, people in Saskatchewan have been afraid to speak, afraid to take part and afraid to express opinions because they work for the provincial Government. I can recall a Liberal Premier of Saskatchewan yelling that he was going to go after the Public Service and Crown corporation employees with a meat axe. Thousands of people were afraid to speak out when asked if they supported the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or the NDP. When asked if they would like to put signs up on their lawns, they said: "Yes, but I don't dare". In fact, during the federal election campaign of 1984, I had to advise some provincial and federal civil servants not to put signs up for me or anyone else because they live under this kind of fear.
The action taken by Air Canada is the same kind of attack. It breeds fear and suspicion in the minds of its employees. It frightens them out of speaking out when they are entitled to speak out and denies them fundamental rights. That is what this all boils down to. I wish my hon. friends would see the point of the motion put by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The point is that Air Canada has acted improperly and that is what this motion is trying to say.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments in today's debate. My hon. colleague just said that Air Canada acted improperly.
June 4, 1986

I support the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) which says, and I quote:
That this House believes that the recent action by Air Canada, in suspending flight attendant Toni Corrado for 30 days as the result of her reply to questions from a Progressive Conservative convention delegate during a flight from Vancouver to Montreal, was improper and denies the principle of free speech as guaranteed in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the wording of the motion, but unlike the Hon. Member for Regina, I am not prepared to condemn Air Canada out of hand. I am inclined to think there are certain aspects and certain facts we do not know, and before condemning the Crown corporation in such a cavalier fashion, just like that, I want to know all the facts. I would like to know exactly what happened.


Bernard Valcourt: Exactly!


André Ouellet: Unfortunately, the only facts we have at this time are, that a letter from a Mrs. Donna Ford was sent to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), complaining about what was said by a flight attendant on an Air Canada flight. The Minister released this letter, in which it is obvious that the sender is a friend of the Progressive Conservative Party, at the very least, if not a personal friend of the Minister. The fact that she addresses him as "Dear Don" obviously implies that she is on friendly terms with the Minister.
The second fact we know is that the correspondence section of the Minister's Office sent the complaint to Air Canada. We have no idea how such complaints or exchanges of correspondence between the Minister's Office and Air Canada are handled.
And the third fact we know is, that Air Canada suspended the flight attendant.
And finally, the fourth fact we know is, that Donna Ford, according to the Toronto Star, seems to be very pleased with the flight attendant's suspension, since, and I quote the Toronto Star:

Donna Ford, a member of this central British Columbia community's Tory riding association, answered with an emphatic "No," when asked whether she felt sorry for air Canada employee Toni Corrado, 38, of Metro Toronto.
It is clear that this Progressive Conservative supporter seems to be absolutely untouched and feels no sympathy for the airline employee who has been suspended. The article goes on to say:
-Ford said yesterday that the reaction "is not my problem. I left it up to Air Canada.
If she wanted to leave it with Air Canada, why did she not write to Air Canada in the first place? If I have a problem with my luggage at an airport, I do not call the Minister's office nor do I write a letter: "Dear Don". I talk to Air Canada employees and I try to solve my problems with Air Canada. There is a gentleman opposite saying something that is totally wrong. I would like in other circumstancs and in another place
Supply
to make sure that he knows the facts before saying things incorrectly.


Mr. Greenaway:: You should know the facts before you make a statement like that.


André Ouellet: The reality is that the lady wrote to the Minister on a first name basis. If Air Canada receives a letter like that, the implication is that the Minister wants Air Canada to act.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


André Ouellet: That is where the problem begins. Unfortunately, it is most regrettable that Air Canada has treated this memo from the Minister's office as an order to suspend the employee.
I was listening to remarks made by Conservative Members, who used to be the great defenders of collective bargaining. Some years ago when they were on this side of the House they were pushing for legislation to curtail the right to strike being given to employees. They were pushing for actions to curtail the fundamental rights of employees and they were pushing to do away with collective bargaining in many instances. It is strange and surprising today that they are all hiding behind the due process of collective bargaining to explain the suspension of Toni Corrado. They are being unco-operative in this instance. Clearly if the Minister was ready to send the first note to Air Canada, he should be ready to send a second note and indicate to Air Canada that it should forget about this regrettable incident. I say this because I cannot blame Air Canada without knowing all the facts. Maybe there are other factors unknown to us. If there are, surely it is the responsibility of Air Canada or the Minister to have the facts made known, otherwise it creates an impression that the Government is trying to impose its will on Crown corporations as we have seen the Government impose its will on government employees and even on private entrepreneurs.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but relate this incident to a series of other incidents which have occurred in recent weeks and months and which show how far this Conservative Government is prepared to go in its attempt to intimidate people who do not belong to the Party or do not share its views.
Remember the case of Radio-Canada reporter de la Grange against whom legal action was taken because he had quite properly served the interests of all Canadians by showing them how easy it was to by-pass the airport security system.
So how was Mr. de la Grange rewarded for rendering this service to the traveling public? The Government took this reporter to court for doing nothing more than his job, for while doing his job he happened to ridicule the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said himself shortly before that-

June 4, 1986
Supply

In terms of airport security, Canada is second to none.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is true.


André Ouellet: A few days later, journalists showed very clearly that the security at airports, one targeted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), is a farce and there is, in fact, no security.

Mr. de la Grange is being prosecuted because he embarrassed the Government. The flight attendant has been suspended because she dared to tell publicly to an Air Canada passenger what thousands of Canadians already know, that this Government is incompetent and rotten. Because she had the courage to say publicly what many people think, she has been suspended.


An Hon. Member:: She must be a Liberal!


André Ouellet: Third, how could an important lawyer of the Conservative Party in Ottawa threaten Mr. Andre Vertis who manages a store on the market and who was selling what he called Tory sandwiches? As we know, Mr. Vertis was selling the"Sinc Stevens Sandwich".


Bernard Valcourt: You must have eaten a lot of them.


André Ouellet: When this sandwich, which contained "turkey, baloney and hot air", was publicized, some Conservatives felt offended and threatened this store operator on the market by telling him that there would be retaliatory action against himself and his business if he continued to embarrass the Government. Such intimidation was totally unacceptable. Indeed, here is what I read about it in the newspaper The Citizen:

I must express my dismay with Sinclair Stevens and Conservative lawyer Stuart Hendin not only for Mr. Stevens' recent embarrassing resignation but also with the Tories apparent lack of humour. I was shocked to learn from the article "Tories turn up heat on political sandwiches" (May 17), that Mr. Hendin imposed threats against Tibor and Andre Vertis, the co-owners of the Budapest Delicatessen, unless they removed their now-infamous "Sink Sine Sandwich Special."

Mr. Speaker, that is a third event which, together with the others, shows clearly the truly totalitarian attitude of these Conservatives who dislike criticisms.
Finally, I will mention the firing of Mr. Robert Price, this civil servant who had the courage to make public a document showing clearly that this Conservative Government was lying concerning the Indians of this country.


Bernard Valcourt: He had broken the law.


André Ouellet: Well, because he had the courage to make public a document to help Indian and Inuit groups in this country, the Government has fired him. If the former Liberal
Government had fired all those who had deliberately leaked secret documents, there would have been hundreds of cases such as this.
But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party is a party of tolerance and, at the time it was in Government, it never used strong armed tactics to gag civil servants and stop them from acting according to thier conscience. I find, therefore, the Toni Corrado incident regrettable, and I cannot help linking it to a whole series of provocative actions taken by this Government to muzzle its civil servants, to stop them from telling the truth to the Canadian public, because it is anxious to hide its bad decisions and policies from the Canadian public.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Papi-neau (Mr. Ouellet) would not want to leave the Chamber . without correcting one or two of the observations which he just made. He suggested that the Minister should send a second note to Air Canada. The fact is that the Minister did not send a first note so he cannot send a second note.
I wish the Hon. Member for Papineau would take note that the attendant in question is not suspended. She is at work. There is an appeal process taking place. I think it is incumbent upon us, as the former Minister mentioned in his remarks, to wait until we know what the facts are before we make judgments.


André Ouellet: Because of the interpretation system, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary did not quite understand my remarks. I did not say there had been a second note, what I did say was that I hoped the Minister would send a note to Air Canada officials and ask them to forget the whole thing. The office of the Minister sent a first note, the correspondence section of the office of the Minister sent the letter along with an explanatory note. So a first note was sent to Air Canada. Now I would like a second note to be sent. I am not saying that one was sent, but I hope there will be a second note in which Air Canada will be told to forget this deplorable incident.
As to whether the flight attendant was suspended or not, the fact is that the decision was made to suspend her for 30 days without pay. The appeal proceedings will eventually confirm the suspension or lead to the decision which we hope for, namely that the suspension will be cancelled. But it would be a lot better and a lot more courageous on the part of the Minister-whether he likes it or not, he is the cause of this problem-if he would simply tell Air Canada: Forget the incident, drop this review process, cancel the suspension.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) that not the Government but the Town of Mirabel is suing Mr. de la Grange. That is quite different.
June 4, 1986

Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member for Papineau very well. I think he should have refrained from taking part in this debate because he is a Parliamentarian who knows the procedures of the House. He has been a Minister. He should have refused to get on the bandwagon with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on this motion. Mr. Speaker, 1 am truly appalled, that is the only word for it, because after all, we do not have that many Opposition days. These days are an opportunity for the Opposition to raise matters of importance. Not so! They have decided to hold a shamelessly partisan debate at the expense of Mrs. Corrado. Because the point here is ... they all sound terribly virtuous, but are they practising what they preach? I have a question for the Hon. Member. The Liberals and the New Democrats are doing all this at the expense of this young woman, Mrs. Corrado. They are indulging in petty politics, because they are certainly not interested in rights and freedoms. I say that as far as freedom is concerned, we all have our rights and freedoms in Canada.
And this is a regulation of a Crown corporation that the Liberals themselves set up twenty years ago when they were in power. I am referring to the regulations of our Crown corporations that prohibit this type of disparaging remarks about a Government. We must respect the Government of Canada. If employees of all Crown corporations started criticizing governments right and left, it would be a mad house.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Hon. Member is as follows: Why isn't he speaking today? An important opposition day and what do the New Democrats... Pornography, child prostitution, those are the important topics. Eight thousand jobs were lost in Alberta as a result of the National Energy Program. That is what you should talk about on Opposition Days. Come up with some constructive ideas instead of playing politics at the expense of a young woman who admitted she had not expected to be the subject of a debate, and who is embarrassed at having her name used in this way.
Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. Member that the choice of the debate today is very important. The New Democratic Party decided to use the incident involving Miss Toni Corrado to speak about the principle of free speech garanteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I find it quite shocking that the Hon. Member, independant-ly from the party line, would not at least feel some solidarity with this flight attendant who earns a decent living and who is the victim of oppression. Is the oppressor Air Canada or the Conservative Government? I do not know. I did not have the opportunity to check the records in detail. However, I find it shocking that a woman of some thirty years old, because she told someone on a plane that she found the Conservative Government incompetent, would now find herself suspended without pay for 30 days. It seems to me that this is like using an elephant gun on mosquitoes.
Supply
The Hon. Member should instinctively defend all the women who are oppressed or in a difficult position in Canada, because we know how difficult it is for women in Canada to obtain equal pay for equal work and how difficult it is for them to be respected and recognized in the workplace.
Here is a case of a working woman who is being mistreated because she had the misfortune of making a political comment.
I would have liked the Hon. Member to defend this woman instead of playing petty politics.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, a number of misunderstandings have come out in this debate. The idea that it is trivial that we should be discussing freedom of expression is absolutely disgraceful. The Minister for the "underfunding of science" suggested that the NDP or this woman was looking for publicity. That is also preposterous. Both of those ideas are absolutely preposterous.
In fact, Ms. Corrado did not want to make this a public case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn McDonald: Before calling the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) Ms. Corrado called the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) Office. If the matter had been taken seriously, she would have been quite happy to withdraw all public attention from it. There would have been no public scandal about this matter if action had been taken. It is quite clear that this has resulted from the incompetence of the Prime Minister's Office in not recognizing the importance of freedom of expression. The Government is in this embarrassment because the Prime Minister's Office did not recognize it as important.


Frank Oberle: You are the only one embarrassed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we allow the Hon. Member to continue with her statement please.


Lynn McDonald: No one was seeking publicity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn McDonald: A flight attendant was looking for justice. She was looking to exercise her right of freedom of expression. She went through the normal channels and was denied that right. She went to the Prime Minister's Office, the Office of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), and the Office of the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent). When she was unable to get any action from the Prime Minister's Office, she then went public. She tried the other avenues. She was not seeking publicity, she was seeking justice and exercising her rights under the Charter.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot help saying that what our colleague just said in this House is quite true. That

June 4, 1986
Supply
employee used every possible means to make sure her case would be examined peacefully. I find it absolutely amazing that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) did not immediately grasp the serious nature of the case and did not act. If someone erred in his office, in the correspondence section, he should have acted immediately and informed Air Canada not to consider that letter, that correspondence between his office and Air Canada as an instruction from the Minister's office to suspend or fire that employee.
Since he failed do so, and the employee was suspended, I believe the Minister of Transport now has an overwhelming responsibility towards that employee, who has been in my view unfairly suspended for the slight offence of telling the truth to the Conservative Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway).


A. Daniel McKenzie: Now we will hear the truth.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, generally I preface my remarks-


Iain Francis Angus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, let me point out to you that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) made some reference to hearing the truth. I ask that you request that he withdraw that statement.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Sit down!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I never heard a thing. I can read the "blues" and report.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was not worth hearing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I never heard that. The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin in debate.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have been here only for the last hour but I have never heard such drivel. I agree with my colleagues, I think the House of Commons has hit a new low this afternoon. This is the subject matter you people want to bring up in the House of Commons when we are supposed to be busy with economic matters and everything else-


Lynn McDonald: Charter of Rights.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Charter of Rights? With rights goes responsibility. That stewardess-


Iain Francis Angus: Flight attendant.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Flight attendant. Her job is to treat people in a professional and polite manner.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: She did.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: That is her responsibility. No one said she cannot speak, but she certainly has a responsibility to people.
The reason I wanted to speak this afternoon for a few minutes is that the integrity of people in my riding has been called into question. I want to tell Hon. Members that the five women on that plane are probably five of the nicest women I know. I have known them for at least 20 years. They are highly regarded in my community. They do not go out looking for fights. They got on that airplane at 12 o'clock midnight to go to Toronto and Montreal. They asked for pillows and blankets. From that point on they were berated by this flight attendant, and it was a very sad situation. Air Canada has a world-wide reputation for good service. I think it just recently won an award for it. Surely to goodness it has the right to discipline a member of its staff who, with all respect, it appears has really overstepped the bounds. To turn this House of Commons into a grievance forum I think is just not right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Every citizen has a right to approach Parliament.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: This matter is going through the proper process and I am not going into the details of what I have been told about what happened that night because I respect the grievance process. I have counselled the people in Williams Lake to say nothing because it would jeopardize the grievance process. Mrs. Ford has been blamed for writing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). She never asked me where to write the letter because she thought that was the place to write the letter. She happened to have met the Minister last fall at a dinner in Williams Lake. The other reason she wrote to him was that the flight attendant was so abusive about the Minister.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It did not bother the Minister.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: It was for those reasons she wrote the Minister the letter. If she had known that the proper procedure was to write Air Canada, she would have done so. She felt a certain sense of outrage. I think everyone has the right to complain without having to fear they are going to be dragged into a forum like this. This is a very sad day, and I feel as a Member that I have to stand up and say-


Sheila Maureen Copps: "Dear Don".


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I think we have letters on file from the Leader of the NDP to the Minister of Transport saying "Dear Don".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So have I. A very nice fellow.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: He is a nice fellow. The letter of complaint was not that strong a letter but it went to his office and right through to Air Canada, as it should, for action to be taken. I think the proper action has been taken. There is a grievance and an appeal process. It is a sad day when citizens cannot complain about someone who is cranky or not giving good service in the civil service.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Swearing.
June 4, 1986


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No one said they cannot complain.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Well, you are making a big thing about it. It is just not right to drag this in here under the guise of freedom of speech. As this thing unfolds in the proper forum there will be all kinds of evidence from people other than my constituents that will corroborate the action taken so far by Air Canada.
I ask Hon. Members to think very carefully before they ever again bring a motion like this to the floor of the House. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has something to do with the way people were being treated on board an airplane. We have all been exposed to the odd flight attendant who has treated us rather badly. It is not a very pleasant experience. These people were on their way to a convention. They did not want a drink when they got on the plane, they wanted to go to sleep. It is pretty sad-I do not think that Hon. Member has ever taken the "red eye special". I suppose she probably rides her motorcycle wearing her leather suit back and forth across Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have taken the "red eye".


A. Daniel McKenzie: Don't pay any attention to her.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: No. My point is, once again, that these are good people. They went down to Vancouver to come across the country on the midnight plane. They took a lot of abuse from a flight attendant.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No problem.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: They reported it. Now you are dragging in this red herring of freedom of speech.


Ian Deans: There was no complaint about abuse.
Supply


Lorne Everett Greenaway: This thing should never have gotten on to the floor of the House of Commons. The Hon. Member's judgment is very poor, to my mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a short question or comment, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the women in question and I do not doubt for a moment that they are the finest in Canada. I am prepared to accept that.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: They are.


Ian Deans: No one has hinted or suggested otherwise.


Frank Oberle: Why are you dragging their names into the House of Commons, then?


Ian Deans: Oh, don't be ridiculous.


A. Daniel McKenzie: You are being ridiculous.


Ian Deans: In the letter sent to the Minister but filed with the ministry there was no indication that the flight attendant subjected anyone to any abuse. It did not say anything about swearing or abuse. All it said was that she had expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Government of the day. That is all the letter said. She is entitled to do that, surely to God.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, June 5, 1986