1986-12-09

Mr. Speaker:: I advise Hon. Members that I have several rulings to bring before the House today. The first that I intend to deal with are questions of privilege raised a few days ago by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), one on November 6 and the other on November 21.



RELEASE OF INFORMATION BY MINISTER PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION IN HOUSE-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER

["I said yesterday that I also had prepared a ruling in response to the motion of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).", 'On November 6, during a discussion on a point of order relating to petitions, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud\'homme) drew to the attention of the Chair that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) was apparently quoting from the "blues". The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis reminded the House of the long established practice that the "blues" are not to be quoted in debate and that the only official report, the House of Commons Debates or Hansard, can be quoted.', 'The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that thanks to television and modern technology, we can now play back a speech or comment, have it transcribed and use it in debate later on the same day.\nThe Chair is pleased to inform the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis that our customary parctice was observed by Hansard; the blues of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) or the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) were not provided by Hansard to the Parliamentary Secretary or to any other Member. In fact, as we can read at page 1149 of Hansard of November 6, during the discussion in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary did not say that he was quoting from the blues.', 'In reviewing this matter, the most recent statement by the Speaker on the use of the "blues" in debate that can be found dates back to December 2, 1976, and that is just before the advent of television in the House of Commons. Speaker Jerome reaffirmed the practice that "blues" should not be quoted in debate. The logic for not using the "blues" in debate is obvious. The "blues" are the reporters\' notes and often are edited to become the official report. It would not be reasonable to admit into debate galley proofs that tomorrow may indeed be different in their final form. As your Speaker, I feel bound by this practice and will continue to remind Hon. Members to refrain from quoting from anything but the official report of the House.\nThis ruling, however, leaves the House in a difficult position: it is possible for Members to obtain electronically what was said the same day and to use quotes from the electronic medium in debate without identifying them as part of the official report. The dilemma for the House is the following: is the Chair enforcing a practice that has become technologically outdated? By enforcing an outdated practice is the Chair encouraging Members to do indirectly what they are not supposed to do directly? Furthermore, the average Canadian\nDecember 9, 1986', 'citizen with a video recorder, receiving the House of Commons television signal, can obtain for himself or herself an instant play-back of what was said and by whom. While Hansard remains the official record of what was said, the 24-hour delay in its publication no longer satisfies the demand for information by a growingly impatient and technologically literate population.\nConsequently, the Chair firmly believes that while maintaining the rule against the use of the "blues", it is however time for the Standing Committee on Procedures and Elections to review the question of the "blues", their distribution and the relationship between the official Hansard and what has come to be known as the electronic Hansard. My predecessors have often requested such a review and, while tempted to do so, I have decided that I ought not to dictate to the House on this question for it is a very important one and I look forward with anticipation to some early direction from the Standing Committee and the House on this matter.', "I want to thank Hon. Members for their comments, and especially the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), because this is a very important question. I also hope that the Chair's invitation to have this very important question considered in committee will meet with the approval of the Members of this House."]
Mr. Speaker:: Members will recall that following Question Period of November 6, 1986, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rose on a question of privilege regarding remarks made outside the House by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) in relation to a Bill not yet then introduced. While the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap had not provided the Chair with the required notice pursuant to Standing Order 20(2), I undertook, nevertheless, to study the matter carefully, review our precedents and return to the House with a ruling.
I have now had an opportunity to review our precedents in such cases and have found no previous Speakers' rulings which would support the case made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. The role of the Chair when dealing with a matter of privilege or contempt of the House is only to establish that a prima facie case exists. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap will know that Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 57 states that: "The Speaker's jurisdiction does not extend to words outside the House".
Since no precedents could be found on this point, I referred to the general definition of acts or conduct which consist of breaches of privilege as described at page 143 of Erskine May's 20th Edition:
It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for contempt being in its nature discretionary.
Certain principles may, however, be collected from the Journals which will serve as general declarations of the law of Parliament. It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
In light of this reference in May, the Chair is unable to conclude that the conduct of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as reported by the Hon. Member, has
in any way impeded or obstructed any Members of the House in the discharge of their duty.
Furthermore, the House heard the Hon. Minister's explanation as it is reported at page 1147 of Hansard of November 6 as follows:
-that except for members of the Opposition who were briefed this morning, no one else has been given a copy of the Bill and there was no intention that anyone else get a copy.
I must, therefore, rule that, although the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap may have a complaint or a grievance about statements made outside the House by a Minister of the Crown, a prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege has not been established.



Mr. Speaker:: I shall now deal with the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on November 21. I would first like to express my appreciation of the great care with which the Hon. Member presented his complaint and the conscientious research which he undertook in the preparation of his case. This was very helpful to the Chair.
I think it would be useful to reiterate the tests which the Chair must apply to a complaint before declaring that a prima facie case of privilege has been established. There are a number of questions which may be applicable depending on the nature of the complaint. Has the freedom of speech of an Hon. Member been menaced or called into question? Has an Hon. Member been obstructed in any way in the fulfilment of his or her parliamentary duty? Has any attempt been made through bribery or other corrupt means to influence an Hon. Member in an improper way? Has an Hon. Member been subjected to harassment, threats, abuse, physical violence or any other form of molestation in relation to his or her parliamentary conduct? Has the House as a whole been brought into disrepute through the action complained of? Finally, what evidence exists which might suggest the possibility of an affirmative answer to any of these questions? Obviously the Chair can only find that a prima facie case has been established if there is evidence to base it on.
[DOT] (mo)
The basis of the complaint of the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap is an allegation that an American citizen, by some means which do not appear to have been established, obtained prior knowledge of the contents of Bill C-22 before its introduction in the House. In the course of his presentation he

December 9, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Prud'homme
referred to two United Kingdom precedents and a complaint raised in 1983 by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) relating to an incident which took place here in Canada. The cases referred to all concerned budget leaks. The U.K. cases were based on established facts. In one case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged that he had committed an indiscretion and resigned. In the other, an investigation established that an impropriety had occurred and a Minister resigned in consequence. Incidentally, neither of these cases was dealt with by way of a question of privilege. In the Canadian case, Madam Speaker Sauve found that there was no basis for a question of privilege. Budget secrecy was a matter of convention and not a matter for the determination of the Chair.
To return to the case before us, the Chair must first determine what the facts are and, second, whether those facts constitute evidence of a prima facie case of privilege. The Hon. Member's case is based on certain comments made by a former President of the United States Parmaceutical Manufacturers Association in the course of a television interview. The Hon. Member made it clear that he was not implying that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) had revealed the contents of the Bill to the gentleman in question, and the Minister himself stated emphatically that while various consultations had taken place he had at no time been in contact with anyone in the United States. It therefore seems to the Chair that incontrovertible facts are lacking.
I must also make reference to the contribution of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who suggested that under our new Standing Order 1, the Chair is no longer bound by established precedents relating to matters of privilege and that, to quote his own words, it is open to the Chair: "to extend the definition of privilege to new areas". It is important, though, that we do not confuse privilege with procedure. In matters of procedure, the new Standing Order 1 possibly enlarges the scope of the House in determining procedure in unprovided cases. The limits of privilege, though, are laid down by statute. It is not open to the Chair to extend the definition of privilege. This could only be done by legislation and would involve an amendment to the Constitution. I must therefore rule that no facts have been presented on which a prima facie case of privilege could be based.
I think it is appropriate for the Chair to remind all Hon. Members that these kinds of incidents do cause grave concern among Hon. Members and I believe it is a good reason why extra special care should be taken, especially by Ministers, to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House do not in any way get out in the public domain and cause concern to Hon. Members and often to Ministers as well.
I want to thank all Hon. Members who participated in the debate on both motions of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and I hope the comments that I made will be helpful to all Hon. Members. I thank them.


DEBATES &quot;BLUES&quot;-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: I said yesterday that I also had prepared a ruling in response to the motion of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).

On November 6, during a discussion on a point of order relating to petitions, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) drew to the attention of the Chair that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) was apparently quoting from the "blues". The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis reminded the House of the long established practice that the "blues" are not to be quoted in debate and that the only official report, the House of Commons Debates or Hansard, can be quoted.

The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that thanks to television and modern technology, we can now play back a speech or comment, have it transcribed and use it in debate later on the same day.
The Chair is pleased to inform the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis that our customary parctice was observed by Hansard; the blues of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) or the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) were not provided by Hansard to the Parliamentary Secretary or to any other Member. In fact, as we can read at page 1149 of Hansard of November 6, during the discussion in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary did not say that he was quoting from the blues.

In reviewing this matter, the most recent statement by the Speaker on the use of the "blues" in debate that can be found dates back to December 2, 1976, and that is just before the advent of television in the House of Commons. Speaker Jerome reaffirmed the practice that "blues" should not be quoted in debate. The logic for not using the "blues" in debate is obvious. The "blues" are the reporters' notes and often are edited to become the official report. It would not be reasonable to admit into debate galley proofs that tomorrow may indeed be different in their final form. As your Speaker, I feel bound by this practice and will continue to remind Hon. Members to refrain from quoting from anything but the official report of the House.
This ruling, however, leaves the House in a difficult position: it is possible for Members to obtain electronically what was said the same day and to use quotes from the electronic medium in debate without identifying them as part of the official report. The dilemma for the House is the following: is the Chair enforcing a practice that has become technologically outdated? By enforcing an outdated practice is the Chair encouraging Members to do indirectly what they are not supposed to do directly? Furthermore, the average Canadian
December 9, 1986

citizen with a video recorder, receiving the House of Commons television signal, can obtain for himself or herself an instant play-back of what was said and by whom. While Hansard remains the official record of what was said, the 24-hour delay in its publication no longer satisfies the demand for information by a growingly impatient and technologically literate population.
Consequently, the Chair firmly believes that while maintaining the rule against the use of the "blues", it is however time for the Standing Committee on Procedures and Elections to review the question of the "blues", their distribution and the relationship between the official Hansard and what has come to be known as the electronic Hansard. My predecessors have often requested such a review and, while tempted to do so, I have decided that I ought not to dictate to the House on this question for it is a very important one and I look forward with anticipation to some early direction from the Standing Committee and the House on this matter.

I want to thank Hon. Members for their comments, and especially the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), because this is a very important question. I also hope that the Chair's invitation to have this very important question considered in committee will meet with the approval of the Members of this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report on the Seminar on U.S. Legislative Elections held in Washington, D.C. and Charleston, South Carolina from November 4 to 8, 1986.


RAILWAY ACT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act, I have the honour to present its report to the House with an amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 106, I have the honour to present a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions. In the petition the people of Snow Lake, Flin Flon, The Pas, Thompson, and Leaf Rapids, all communities within my riding, express their opposition to the federal Government's decision to change the Patent Act which they believe will increase prescription drug costs to many Canadian consumers and restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy prescription drugs.
In their petition the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of constituents from the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, which says that the changes the federal Government wishes to make in the Patent Act as it applies to pharmaceutical products will increase the price of drugs for Canadian consumers. These changes will also prevent many people from buying the drugs they need and will have a particular impact on people whose condition requires the continuing use of drugs. These changes will lead to higher costs for provincial health insurance plans and are another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the United States as part of the free trade talks, to the detriment of the consumer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have also several petitions dealing with the fact that the Government has imposed the tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. The tariff has little negative affect on the publishing industry of the United States yet it penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and culture. Rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries with respect to free trade negotations.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. It is signed by about 750 of my constituents who want to communicate their dissatisfaction and disappointment regarding the impeding closure of Saskatchewan's only cadet

December 9, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
camp, Saskadet, situated at Round Lake, Saskatchewan. These constituents rely on this camp for their cadet training. They humbly call upon Parliament to request the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) to consider the possibility of keeping this camp operable.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition from a number of Canadians in which they express their concern about the changes proposed by the Government with respect to the Patent Act. These people indicate they are worried that the price of drugs will increase as a result of the proposed changes. They are therefore calling on Parliament to reject these proposals.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege today, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to table a petition signed by residents of Luceville, Saint-Anaclet, Saint-Gabriel, Mont-Joli, Rimouski and a number of other communities in the riding of Matane in Quebec, who support the efforts of the Opposition to prevent the passage of amendments proposed by the Government that will lead to an increase in the price of drugs.


John Edmund Parry: I have another petition signed by residents of Red Lake and surrounding communities in my riding. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to discourage limitations on competition in the oil and gas industry and ensure that Petro-Canada passes on lower oil prices to its consumers.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my third petition this morning is signed by residents of Truro, Shubenacadie, Great Village and several other communities in Nova Scotia. The petition calls upon the federal Government to reject changes to the Patent Act which will lead inevitably to higher drug prices for Canadians.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my fourth petition is signed by residents of Calgary, Lethbridge, Edmonton and other communities in the Province of Alberta. The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that all low level training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base cease and that negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base cease. They are very concerned, of course, about the hunting and way of life of native people in that particular area.


John Edmund Parry: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed mainly by residents of
Toronto. I am glad to be presenting this petition on a day when we are debating the situation with the Post Office because the petition calls upon Parliament to prevent the spread of the so-called super mailboxes as a substitute for door-to-door delivery.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of eastern Canadians from Atlantic Canada who protest the Government's intention to proceed with the amendments to the Patent Act which will result in increased prescription drug prices to Canadians.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to draw to your attention that on December 5, at the close of the day, the Acting Speaker said the following at page 1853 of Hansard'.
I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) that he is unable to be present in the House on Monday, December 8, 1986, to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' Business. Accordingly, 1 am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Since notice will thereby be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended, and pursuant to Standing Order 39(2) the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
I raise this matter because I noticed, in recalling the vote yesterday, that the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) was in fact in the House at the designated time for Private Members' Business. I also recall that immediately following, the Government moved to extend the hours of the sitting. Immediately, once that had taken place at second reading, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was the only person to rise to speak from the Government benches. He moved that the question be now put which brought the extended hours to an end.
It seems to me there may be a case to be made whereby the Government might have misused its powers and the time of Private Members' Hour to manipulate the business of the House to allow just that to take place, to allow the Government to extend the hours to complete second reading of the Bill which had simply been introduced for the first time at second reading that day.
It seems to me a potentially very serious question has been raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it from what the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said that he is raising an important matter but he is not making any sort of charge
December 9, 1986

against the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). I only want that clarified because the Hon. Member for Peterborough is not here at the moment. I would not want the Hon. Member who is speaking now to continue without the Hon. Member being able to hear what might be said. I take it there is no charge against the Hon. Member for Peterborough.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention on that very important point. Indeed, I was simply raising an observation as to the way business had been conducted in the House. We were informed at the latest moment yesterday that the Hon. Member for Peterborough was unable to be here to introduce and debate his Private Members' Bill. I noticed during the vote that in fact the Hon. Member was in his place at the designated time. There seems to be some inconsistency here, particularly when one considers the proceedings of the House that took place immediately thereafter.
On a point of order, I ask that Your Honour give some consideration to this matter. As the Standing Orders now require, when notice is given the day before, Private Members' Hour is simply eliminated and the business of the day continues. This allowed the Government to bring in its members to call for extended hours and then used that time to eliminate any further debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-23.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has the point of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I see there are other Members rising to speak to this point and I think I should probably call upon the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because we do not want to delay the debate on the opposition motion any longer than members of the Opposition have already delayed it with their petitions.
First, I wish to point out that the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) had the courtesy to advise the Chair and the House that he would be unavailable at 5 p.m. yesterday to move his motion. I know that my colleague was not reflecting upon the Hon. Member's absence from the House at that time. However, it seems to me that he has every right to say that he cannot be here at 5 p.m. and then come in at 6 p.m. or 6.15 p.m. and vote. The point is that he gave notice that he would not be here at 5 p.m. I do not think that he in any way abused that right by being here at 6.15 p.m. to vote.
The second point I wish to make is that the Hon. Member himself was the one who initiated the action which dropped him to the bottom of the list. As the Chair stated: "Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence". So the Hon. Member made the decision himself to have his order of business dropped to the bottom of the list.
Having said those things, I want to specifically reject any suggestion that the Government in any way was trying to
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
manipulate the business of the House or in any way manipulate Private Members' Business. We have made it a very firm practice not to become involved in Private Members' Business. That is an hour in which Private Members bring forward their own pieces of legislation and motions. I reject that argument categorically.
I point out that the complaint seems to be revolving around the extension of hours. I also point out that no member of the Opposition saw fit to participate in the debate after the motion with respect to the extension of hours was agreed to. Obviously, there was no Government participation in the dropping of the motion; the Member decided to do it himself. There was no manipulation. When the motion with respect to the extension of hours was agreed to, members of the Opposition saw the wisdom of our legislation and allowed it to go to committee on division.
I do not think there is really any point of order. We feel that when Private Members' Hour is not proceeded with that the business of the country should go forward. That is simply all we did.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the last sentence spoken by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is subject to some controversy. I do not think and I do not believe that when Private Members' Hour is vacated it should automatically become an hour in which to discuss Government business. I have said that before in the House and I will say it again. Private Members' Hour should and would in my opinion be much better off if kept at that, Private Members' Hour, and not be given back to Government Orders. In fact, I have a motion on the Order Paper today calling for exactly that. I am calling for a change to Standing Order 43 which would give private Members of the House that one-hour period which is set aside four times a week and in which they are allowed to debate their issues.
The question the Parliamentary Secretary raises with a straight face-and God knows I am not accusing him of anything-is somewhat doubtful. The Hon. Member is a gentleman and I believe him when he tells us that the Government has not been manipulative. The Government profits from the fact that it is given the time when a private Member cannot be here to move his motion. In my opinion that is regrettable. It is something which has to be changed. Our present Standing Orders are provisional and will expire at the end of this month. If the Government wishes to extend them into January then it had better come to grips with this important issue.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have but a short intervention to make. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to indicate in his reply that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) had said that the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) was here to vote at six o'clock or some time thereafter. If Your Honour would take a look at the Hansard of yesterday at page 1894 you would see that it indicates that the Hon. Member for Peterborough was

December 9, 1986
Order Paper Questions
here to vote shortly after five o'clock and that he obviously could have been available to introduce his Bill at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard the interventions of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and other Hon. Members. The Chair takes note of the strong recommendation put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) concerning the question of the loss of Private Members' Hour. I am not entirely sure that the Chair can assist Hon. Members in any ruling, but I will give the matter some consideration. I am, of course, as I think any Speaker would be, extremely concerned about consideration that Hon. Members must give to the rules and to the fact that some of them are provisional. I think it would be advisable if all Hon. Members took careful note of what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has said.
With respect to the specific complaint of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, the Chair will consider his comments and return to the Chamber in due course. As I have said, I am not sure there is very much that the Speaker can do about the situation.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I add one item to that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary because the Chair is basically benevolent. I would not want to leave this as a precedent for inviting Members to reargue a case. As I understand it, the Hon. Member has an additional point.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I only bring it up in the interests of being helpful. It seems to me that when we discuss a matter such as this the question of dropping a particular person's motion is one thing, but how to substitute another person's motion is something else. If Your Honour looks at the Projected Order of Business for today it is noted that on Thursday the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has a motion or a Bill. The thinking at the time was that we could not move Thursday's matter forward to Monday because there might be Hon. Members who would want to speak to that matter on Thursday who would have scheduled their time accordingly. Similarly, Friday's motion has the same consideration. We did not want to bring it forward because it would disrupt the way in which people might be organizing their time to make comments on a motion. That is the reason we did not have a solution. I suggest it is something we will want to look at.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the additional information. I will consider the matter.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5 and 7.
1.	What was the total cost to the Government of the March 17-18, 1985, visit of the President of the United States to Quebec City?
2.	Did the Government sponsor on March 17, 1985, a gala evening at the Grand Theatre de Quebec in honour of the President of the United States and, if so, what was the (a) total cost (b) amount paid to all performers who took part in the event?


Philip Derek Lewis: 1. Approximately $2.6 million. 2. See reply to question No. 7 answered this day.


[Stage Direction]
1.	Was there a gala performance held in Quebec City on March 17, 1985, in honour of the visit to Canada of the President of the United States and, if so, who was responsible for approving the gala and how many persons attended?
2.	Was the protocol office of the Department of External Affairs consulted as to which Canadian dignitaries and officials of Canada should be invited to attend and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Were any Canadian dignitaries and officials of Canada that protocol required should be invited to attend such events, ignored and, if so, what were their name and titles?
4.	Were there any Members of Parliament or Senators invited to attend the performance and, if so, what were their names and party affiliations?
5.	What was the total cost of the performance?
6.	(a) What were the costs involved for the hiring of the performers (b) were accommodations, meals and travelling expenses part of their contracts and, if so, what was the cost for their accommodations, meals and travelling expenses?
7.	What were the rental costs for the Grand Theatre de Quebec and associated services and which department absorbed the costs?
8.	What amount did CBC charge for the production and the televising of the event?
9.	Were any groups of Canadians represented at the event and, if so (a) what were the names of the organizations and their representatives (b) were there any Government costs involved and, if so, what were they (c) what criteria were used to define which organizations should be invited?
10.	Were there any official arrival ceremonies held in Quebec City and was the RCMP involved and, if so (a) how many officers in ceremonial dress were involved and how many were women (b) were all of the officers from Quebec City and, if not, what mode of transportation was used to bring them to Quebec City (c) what was the cost to the taxpayer for the officers in salaries, meals, accommodations and transportation?
11.	(a) What was the cost to the taxpayer for the security involved in the visit (b) were all such costs absorbed by the Solicitor General's Department and, if not, for what reason (c) did the costs also include security provided by provincial, municipal or private organization officers?
12.	Were any limousines leased or rented for the visit and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the cost for each and what was the name and address of the supplier?
13.	What was the cost for food for each luncheon held during the two day visit?
Mr. Boudria: [ Text]


Mr. Malepart: December 9, 1986

14.	Were any Canadian wines served at the luncheons and (a) if so, what were the brand names and what was the cost to taxpayer (b) if not, for what reason?
15.	Was quail and/or caviar served at any of the luncheons and, if so, what was the country of origin and the cost in each case?
16.	Were any services supplied to the press during the two day visit, including meals and accommodations and, if so, what was the total cost to the taxpayer?
17.	Were Government aircraft used to transport Ministers and/or Members of Parliament to Quebec City and, if so, what was the name of each individual and what was the cost to the taxpayer?
18.	Were any costs involved for travel and accommodations for public servants, Ministers or Members of Parliament and, if so, what were they?
19.	What were the costs, for all of the events, incurred by the (a) Department of Public Works (b) Department of the Solicitor General (c) Department of External Affairs (d) Department of Transport (e) Department of Supply and Services (/) Department of Communications (g) Prime Minister's Office?
20.	Were the press kits for the Shamrock Summit prepared by the Prime Minister's Office and, if not, were they prepared by an outside firm and, if so, what was the name of the firm and the cost to the taxpayer?


Philip Derek Lewis: 1. Yes. The Government approved the gala performance which was attended by 1,559 persons.
2.	Yes.
3.	and 4. It would not be proper to name those present or not without their consent. It is customary for such events that Canadian dignitaries, Senators, Members of Parliament and Canadian officials be invited.
5.	See Parts 6, 7 and 8 below.
6.	(a) $90,453. (b) Yes, included in Part 6 (a), but not available separately.
7.	$185,906.88. The rental cost was paid by the Department of External Affairs and the Privy Council Office.
8.	$421,843. excluding amount in Part 6 (a).
9.	No.
10.	Yes. (a) 100-member guard of honor in ceremonial uniform. None of the honor guard members were women.
(b)	No. All the honor guard members were from RCMP Divisions in Ottawa and were transported to and from Quebec City by charter bus.
(c)	Transportation, $2,460; meals, $2,325; accommodation, nil; Salaries, in accordance with RCMP policy, members assigned to this duty were compensated at a double-time overtime rate. Members had the options of accepting direct payment or time off in lieu of payment. It would be difficult to determine precise dollar cost paid in salaries since members were from various units in the Ottawa region and because this information is not computerized totally.
11.	(a) and (b) Security planning and operations for this visit were matters of federal jurisdiction falling under the control of the RCMP. RCMP expenditures on the March,
Order Paper Questions
1985 visit of President Reagan to Quebec City amounted to $1,011,496.
(c) Participating police forces (other than the RCMP) absorbed all their own costs, as the duties performed fell within their respective mandates. The visit was confined to venues within Quebec City and close co-operation was therefore necessary with the Sillery, Quebec and Ste-Foy municipal police forces. Quebec provincial police force members were engaged in labour negotiations in March, 1985, and provided no security services during the presidential visit in accordance with a directive from the Quebec provincial Government.
Private-sector security organizations were not involved in providing security during the President's visit.
12.	Yes. (a) Seven, (b) Total cost, $8,149.10. Samson's Limousine, Montreal, Quebec.
13.	Two luncheons-$49,167.51.
14.	Yes. (a) Chateau de Charme 1982-cost included in Part 13 above, (b) Not applicable.
15.	No.
16.	A media centre and two press rooms were provided at a cost of $136,153.16 including $569.50 as hospitality expenses.
17.	Yes, five Government aircraft were used to transport Ministers at a cost of $13,997. The aircraft were reserved in the name of the following ministers:
The Right Hon. M.B. Mulroney
The Right Hon. C.J. Clark
Hon. Erik Nielsen
Hon. John Fraser
Hon. J. Kelleher
18.	Yes, information not readily available.
19.	(a) Nil, except for Part 18. (b) $1,011,496.00. Also, see Part 10 (c)-Salaries, (c) $746,068.95 except for Part 18. (d) $8,005 except for Part 18. (e) Nil. (f) Nil, except for Part 18. (g) $724,638.86.
For an approximate total cost of the visit, see reply to question No. 5 answered this day.
20.	No. The press kits were prepared by CUIO. However, four outside firms were contracted to provide printing and related services.
York Advertising	$ 1,011.50
Quorum Graphics	385.00
Albion Decal	268.95
Forever Plastics	5,165.65


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.

December 9, 1986
Supply


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 32? I have a reply.


Ms. McDonald: 1.	Were the Expenses of the visit of the former Minister of National Defence to "Tiffany's" in Lahr in November, 1984 paid for out of public funds, either by the Minister's office or the Canadian Armed Forces, or paid for personally by the Minister?
2.	Is it the policy of the Government to pay for expenses incurred in such establishments for travelling politicians and public servants?
3.	Are the services of prostitutes and escort services allowable deductions as business expenses for taxation purposes?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions asked by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), we would advise as to Question No. 1 that neither the Minister's office nor the Department of National Defence has any record that the former Minister of Defence paid out public moneys during his visit to Tiffany's in Lahr in November 1984.
The reply to Questions 2 and 3 is as follows: in light of the above reply by the Department of National Defence, it should not be necessary to answer these parts.
I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Cyril Keeper: That this Elouse urge the Government to require Canada Post to forego the 2 cent postal rate increase planned for the new year, to reject the planned closure of hundreds of rural post offices, to reconsider the decision to replace door to door postal delivery in new suburban areas with super post offices boxes, to reconsider the ongoing reductions in urban postal services, and furthermore, that the adoption of this motion shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the Government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by making note of the fact that the motion before the House shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the Government. This is something that has come about as a result of efforts at parliamentary reform and to make this institution more
relevant and more able to have an impact on the policy and decision-making processes of the Government without getting locked into partisan positions.
This motion offers an opportunity for all Hon. Members from all Parties to have their say about the postal service. It offers an opportunity to send a message to the post office and to the Minister responsible for the post office about how Canadians feel about the postal service in a way that is explicit and clear without calling into question confidence in the Government.
I invite all Hon. Members, not only members of the opposition Parties but also members of the Conservative Party, to give very serious consideration to this motion. Not only will the motion not call into question confidence in the Government but it is a votable motion so it offers an opportunity for Hon. Members to stand up and be counted.
I turn now to my comments with regard to the postal service itself. The policy that is being followed now with regard to postal service, Mr. Speaker, is a disaster. It is a disaster because it is asking Canadians to accept less service at the same time as they are being asked to pay more for it. In my view, we must go back to square one and find a new direction for the Post Office to take. We must establish a policy that will result in measurable improvements in service rather than the present policy which will result in a deterioration of service and a plan that promises a continuation of that trend.
I would like to touch on three aspects of the Post Office, Mr. Speaker: first, postal rates; second, postal service; and third-


Mr. Holtmann:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has referred to you as Mr. Speaker. I would like him to take a good, hard look at you to see that you are not a Mr. Speaker but rather a Madam Speaker.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. friend takes as much concern for exactitude with regard to postal policy as he does with regard to decorum in the Elouse. We will find out later on in the day where he stands, Madam Speaker.
To reiterate briefly, I would like to touch on three aspects of the postal service which clearly indicate that we are dealing with deterioration in postal service and that the policy that has been proposed is a disaster. I want to touch on postal rates, on service and on consultation.
With regard to postal rates, the Post Office has asked us to approve of an increase of two cents in the first-class rate. There are a number of alternative ways to respond to this request. First, we could simply say yes; we could tell the Post Office that the sky is the limit and whatever the Post Office wants in the way of increases in rates, it can have because it has earned it. On the other hand, we could say no, never; there is never any justification for an increase in postal rates because we are already paying too much. I know that many people feel that way. However, there is a third alternative and that is to
December 9, 1986

have a rational basis on which to judge requests for postal rate increases. That is what I wish to suggest.
The Post Office and the Minister responsible for the post office have asked for an increase in first-class rates of two cents for this year and they have also asked for increases in other rates about which they have not yet told us. They will only tell us about that when it is too late to put a stop to the process.
The Post Office has said that it wants to tie postal rate increases now and in the future to inflation and to something called uncontrollable costs. I would suggest that postal rates be tied to quality of service and measurable improvements in service. Over the last few years, people have seen a drastic deterioration in the postal service. They are fed up with continued requests to accept a deterioration in service at the same time they are asked to pay more for the service. This has been the trend for some time and needs to be reversed.
One justification for a rate increase is the Post Office deficit. We used to call the deficit a public subsidy for postal service. In the last couple of years it has been relabelled as a deficit, a negative term. The plan is put forward as a way to eliminate the deficit, but it will not. It will again relabel it as a subsidy for specific services and add that in when determining whether the Post Office has balanced its books or not. Even though the Post Office is claiming it will eliminate the deficit, if you closely examine the plan it will not.
Commercial rates are not adequately examined in this plan. They will go up by a greater percentage than the first-class rate, but the plan does not acknowledge that they start from a lower base and will therefore remain drastically lower than first-class rates. We have to ask whether or not commercial rates can make a greater contribution to Post Office revenues. Then there is the question of the rate for periodicals and weekly newspapers. That rate is subsidized and this plan throws a cloud over those subsidies. It raises concerns about whether or not the publishers of those periodicals will remain viable.
I now want to move directly to the question of service. How long does it take to get a letter? What is happening to rural service? Whether it goes across the country or from Winnipeg to Vancouver, people are fed up with having to wait a couple of weeks for a letter to be delivered. We constantly hear complaints about aggravating delays. The plan promises on-time delivery. For example, mail will be delivered in urban centres within a couple of days. There are standards for intercity and interprovincial mail. However, these standards simply water down existing standards. They allow more time for mail to be delivered and the Post Office can then claim a higher percentage of on-time delivery. Performance reports put out by the Post Office itself indicate that these standards held out as a new level of performance have in fact been met in the past. This is simply an attempt to put a new face on an old and inadequate service.
Supply
As to rural mail delivery, the people in rural communities are up in arms over this issue. They are worried silly about reductions in service. Last weekend I was in Thunder Bay and visited some of the smaller communities in that area. The people there are dependent upon mail for their sense of community. Small businesses depend on the mail for delivery of parts or other equipment. The Post Office plan projects a continuation of the reduction in rural service and closure of rural post offices. The people affected want this stopped. They want a recognition of their right to equal and adequate service. They are shocked that the Post Office, backed up by the Minister, is planning to introduce these so-called supermailboxes into rural areas. Instead of having mail delivered to the lot line or the home, people will have to put up with these supermailboxes which have been found to be inadequate in urban areas.
Then we have the question of the red mailboxes disappearing from city streets. People now have to travel greater distances to deposit their mail. People in suburban areas are angry at the discrimination involved when their neighbour gets door-to-door delivery and they have to put up with these superboxes.
We have a continued reduction in service, a deterioration in the quality of that service, and at the same time an increase in rates requested in the plan presented by the Post Office to the Government. The Post Office should be retreating from this plan but it has already been approved.
How did this plan come about? What was the process? It was developed behind closed doors and that is one of its major failings. Every time we point this out to the Government, the Government in turn points to the Marchment Commission Report. It says the Commission went across the country and asked people what they thought. However, the inadequacy of that response lies in the fact that when Marchment went across the country he did not have the Post Office's projected plan so he was unable to consult specifically. He could not ask the people how they felt about this specific plan or that specific plan and whether they had any comments on it. There has simply been no public involvement in the development of this plan. It would have gone ahead but for the fact that when the Minister presented it to the Government caucus they revolted, and quite legitimately. They said there was no way they would stand for this kind of reduction in postal service.
The Minister sent it to committee. Unfortunately the committee has limited its activities to questioning the President of the Post Office. It has failed to have other witnesses appear before it or to travel across the country so that ordinary Canadians could tell the Government what they think of the plan of the Post Office. The plan was developed behind closed doors, and we see the result.
I should like to round out the picture. Postal services have been inadequate up to this point in time. Its plan is a disastrous one because it intends more of the same. Its intention is

December 9, 1986
Supply
to ask us for increased postal rates, not only the two cents highlighted in the newspapers but annual increases and increases tied to inflation and to uncontrollable costs. The President of the Post Office admitted before the committee that he was looking toward a 40 cent stamp. That was only his estimation. What will it be in reality by the time the five year plan is up? The Post Office has a series of other increases in rates which has not been shared with us. We do not know the full implication of the cost increases to pay for the Post Office which Canadians will have to bear. The tragedy is that the Government is asking us for increased postal rates at the same time as it is asking us to put up with continued reductions in service.
The reductions in service are so drastic that people in rural areas are up in arms. They are saying that they will not allow them to sabotage the service upon which they depend, a service which is part of community life. Urban people are saying: "Stop discriminating against us; stop imposing supermailboxes upon us". Canadians in general are saying that they want reliable mail service. They want their mail to arrive on time. They want to use the Post Office rather than use couriers.
In conclusion, the plan which Canada Post has presented and which the Government has supported until now calls for increased postal rates and continued reductions in services. This spells disaster for ordinary Canadians. It is time Parliament sent a message to the Government that we will not put up with such an approach to postal services. They must go back to square one and completely rethink their plan.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to make a few comments at this point. I should first like to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) for presenting his motion. It is a very timely debate in that many Canadians are concerned about the level of service of the Post Office and the direction in which the Government appears to be taking it. I also thank him for raising the matter in this particular manner. It allows government Members to vote on how they feel about the Post Office and the role it plays without being forced into a situation of casting a vote of nonconfidence in the Government. That is a very important distinction. It is a distinction which the people in charge of parliamentary reform deliberately set out as a new direction which could be taken by Members of Parliament. We are no longer forced to vote strictly along party lines. On days such as this, we will be able to vote according to what we believe should be happening without reflecting upon government actions.
I have a question for the Hon. Member. After his extensive travels to all parts of Canada on behalf of the NDP caucus, what does he believe to be the essential concern of Canadians; is it rapidly increasing costs of the postal service, or is it that service is deteriorating and people no longer have faith in Canada Post to deliver their mail in an appropriate length of time?


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the primary concern of Canadians is in the area of deterioration in service. People want the Government to take a serious look at the Post Office and redesign it so that they receive their mail on time and receive equitable service. They want the Government to work out a plan to fund the service. However, they want the Government to acknowledge first that the Post Office provides a service and that it is the Government's job to design it in a way that the Post Office can deliver the service. They also expect the Government to develop ways to finance the service. They are not satisfied with the Government's attitude that all we need to do with the Post Office is balance its books; that it does not matter what happens to the service in the process, as long as the books are balanced. The Government has a greater responsibility. It must ensure service at the same time as it ensures adequate revenue in order to support it.


Felix Holtmann: Madam
Speaker, I rise today as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Government Operations to address the motion of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). At the outset I can do nothing but condemn the action of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Felix Holtmann: I will deal with the reasons for condemning the motion today. It is quite obvious that the Hon. Member has no respect for the House. A week ago a similar motion was introduced and they filibustered it. It was a total waste of an opposition day. They came to the House with a similar motion, presented petitions, and talked about every other thing so that they did not have to bring forward the motion. That is what they did last week. What kind of action is that from an Hon. Member from Winnipeg? What purpose was there in such action? On the basis of that alone, we must condemn the action of today.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I enjoy the vigour of my hon. friend's comments. However, I wonder if we could have a little guidance on whether or not it is entirely parliamentary for the Hon. Member to indicate that I have no respect for the House. Perhaps that is carrying the rhetoric a little too far.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) would agree with the Chair if it were to remind him to talk on the motion before the House today, not on events which happened last week.


Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, I will try to refrain from further comments on that particular issue.
I should like to deal with the Canada Post Corporation and how it became such. Let us think about that for a minute. In the past there were tremendous disruptions in the postal service. Before I was a Member of the House there were strikes or disruptions, sometimes every eight months. There
December 9, 1986

were many problems. I suppose members of the New Democratic Party take one side, that is, the side of the striker. They never think what cost that might put upon Canada Post or who should pay for it.


John Edmund Parry: There has not been a strike in the corporation.


Felix Holtmann: That is right. They have supported Crown corporations, and now the Hon. Member is almost condemning a Crown corporation. One must wonder, even with regard to the Canada Post Corporation, on what side of the fence Members of the NDP sit. In this case they condemn a Crown corporation. They also condemn us for doing away with some of them. However, with regard to Crown corporations in Manitoba, they are thinking of closing some of them down themselves. Did you know that, Madam Speaker? The New Democratic Party Government in Manitoba is thinking of closing some post offices because they are losing money, not making money.
It is difficult to understand from where the Member is coming. He says that we should condemn the proposed 2 cent increase. If the Canada Post workers went on strike tomorrow I would like to know where the Member thinks Canada Post could get the money to pay a 5 per cent increase, if that is what they went for. Where would the money come from, other than going to the people of Canada telling them to pay a little more for stamps? From where does the Hon. Member think the money will come? He, though, would be standing on the workers side. He would be saying: "We don't care where it comes from, just give them the money."
In the last five to 10 years the federal Government under the Liberal regime deficited everything. Everything was deficited, deficited and deficited until we ended up with a deficit of about $180 billion. I would like the Hon. Member to know that when people voted for a change in 1984, they voted for us to get the deficit reduced. That is why both opposition Parties were left in shambles with only 70 seats. Let me remind the Hon. Member that we are acting as prudently as we can in trying to help Canadians achieve something for our future generations. We do not want to leave them with a tremendous burden.
We know that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre went on a one-man crusade from coast to coast on behalf of his Party. Sometimes there were only five people at his meetings. I do not recall once reading about this great crusade. Further, the Member who has proposed the motion sits on the Standing Committee on Government Operations, and rather than bringing forward the positive suggestions he has gained from this one-man crusade he condemns. We have heard him say: "I hate those supermailboxes." But he does not suggest how they could be fixed, he just condemns them. I think I once heard his leader say "What the Government ought to do-", but I have yet to hear the Member say what
Supply
Canada Post ought to do. All we hear is condemnation and that is opposition mentality. The New Democrats will be in that position for a long time because they do not know how to think offensively and positively.


Mr. Nystrom:: We know how to think offensively.


Felix Holtmann: Where is the New Democratic Party's plan for Canada in every area, Madam Speaker? Where is the New Democrats plan for the Canada Post Corporation and where are their plans for Canada? Where are they? Do you know when they will come out? They will come out about two months before the next election. The New Democrats will have a think tank and will have a moral victory on their plan which will be the most exciting thing that Canadians have ever heard of. We will be waiting, waiting and waiting for this wonderful plan.
Today we are debating a motion. We have powers to do something because the Minister referred Canada Post's problem to the committee and the Member from Winnipeg North Centre sits on that committee. He has the option of giving direction along with his other colleagues. Since the committee has sat, we have had 57 Members who have brought forth points of view. That is democracy in action.
We have been asked to report to the House and to bring forward some substantial ideas. But the Member from Winnipeg North Centre could not wait. Today he had to bring forward something of his own thinking, part of which is to condemn the proposed 2 cent increase in postage. He does not know from where Canada Post will get more revenue tomorrow. Then, "we will improve service". In nearly every area in which there will be some change in Canada Post, he suggests that we stop it. He has never provided an alternative plan, which is typical of the Member's Party. His Party has no alternatives. All the New Democrats want to do is condemn. They condemn the Government today just because that is opposition thinking.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The people of Canada do too.


Felix Holtmann: I do not know whether the Member knows what is going to happen tomorrow. He is hoping that he can find something else that he and his colleagues can condemn our Government for. When you get right down to it, Madam Speaker, he has not fooled a lot of Canadians. His one-man team from coast to coast on behalf of his Party did not bring forth one substantial recommendation, not in this House. The Member for Winnipeg North Centre is the official postal critic for his Party. The critic from the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) set forth a tone and a problem. The Member from Winnipeg North Centre followed right behind him. He is not sure who he should follow anymore. This kind of action does not bring forth good thought for the committee, the committee of which I am in charge. The Member is charged to act responsibly. Our committee intends to bring forward some recommendations to this House. I

December 9, 1986
Supply
cannot divulge what they are because we have yet not completed our work, but we do intend to do something, Madam Speaker.
We are looking at the Canada Post Corporation, and in committee Members of this House have expressed concerns and problems about the Corporation. But why not deal with them in an intellectual way and make recommendations? I have told Members and even mentioned to the press that we intend to be a sort of watchdog over this Crown corporation through this committee. Our mandate is to look at the workings of Canada Post Corporation. The mandate does does not say that just because we are going to report to the House that we will stop doing that. For the Member for Winnipeg North Centre to suggest everything is all over is wrong. Goodness gracious, Madam Speaker, this is not the intention at all.
Here we are operating under new rules with a new mandate, yet the Member decides that this is an ideal time, the second time, to bring forward a motion to this House on an opposition day concerning Canada Post. I thought when we started today that the New Democrats were going to filibuster again. They brought forth petitions. I know that we should not get too close to those kinds of concerns, Madam Speaker, so let me continue.
There have been problems. Things started with pigeons hauling mail around at one time, if we go back to Galileo days or earlier. No two people from coast to coast in Canada have always received the same service. I have never had mail delivered to my door. I am sure that most of the people in this House have not had door-to-door delivery if they come from rural Canada. As changes occur from time to time we cannot expect the same service. Canada Post becomes more modern with new devices, new technology and electronic mail, which in some ways is like the railways. We are abandoning some railway lines because it makes sense to do so. Some post offices will have to close. It is the reality of life. At one time in my riding we had a thriving community of 250 people. This community now has six houses and I believe 19 residents, but it still has a post office. The costs are tremendous. That service could be changed. We perhaps need to look at where new trading exists.
These things have been discussed in committee by the Member from Winnipeg North Centre and the Member for Gander-Twillingate. They know the realities about changes coming forward. They realize that, but I think they also want to demonstrate in certain areas that there are concerns. Nothing else was asked than to allow the committee to do its work. But that could not happen today. That could not happen last week. We had to start with this proposal today. There is no sense to it. When the Member talks about stopping the proposed 2 cents increase, I guarantee that the Member and his entire Party would stand behind the unions if they asked for a 5 per cent increase. I do not know the exact number of the employees in the Corporation. He would stand behind them and say, "go for it, we are brothers". However, they
would not determine who should pay for it. He is suggesing that the Minister should deficit it again. What is $150 million to the Canadian public? I think they were up to a $300 million deficit for the Canada Post Corporation because no common sense prevailed. That must stop. The Canadian public is demanding that we stop that type of action.
We will continue to hear Members of Parliament before our committee. I have denied no Member the right to come before the committee and express his or her views. Some may say I am not doing my job right, but I believe that Members of Parliament should have the right to express their views before committees. That is the way I like to run the committee and that is the way I will continue to run it on all subjects.
In conclusion, we cannot support this motion at this time as it is ludicrous. We want to allow the committee to do its work rather than allowing a one-man opposition day to do the work.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my hon. colleague. I will not attack his rhetoric. He compared the closure of post offices to the closure of railway lines. He said that some post offices would have to close. He gave as an example of a community of 6,019 residents which still has a post office at a tremendous cost. Can the Member tell us the name of that community? Can he tell us how much that post office costs? In addition, how many post offices across Canada would he like to have closed? The president of Canada Post was forced to admit before the committee that several hundred post offices would close with no alternative put in place.
The Member spoke about fixing up the supermailboxes. Is he endorsing the use of the supermailbox in suburban communities? Is he endorsing the use of it in rural areas to substitute for lot line service, which is what Canada Post is planning? Does the Member endorse that for his own riding?
The Member spoke about the committee being a watch dog. If he wants the committee to be a watch dog, why has the committee closed the door after the horse is out of the barn with regard to postal rate increases? The majority of the committee is pushing this resolution and has decided to report to the House. This gives Canada Post a green light on its postal rate increase. If the Member is serious about the committee being a watch dog, why not continue the hearings until we get to the bottom of postal rate increases rather than allowing the Post Office to go ahead with them?


Felix Holtmann: The community I used as an example was Sandridge, Manitoba, which had nine boxes at a cost of $6,800 and had revenues of $280. That post office was closed after consultations with the postal people in Winnipeg and myself as the Member of Parliament. We found the result of that closure to be very satisfactory for the people of that area. I have not received one letter of dissention on that. The next post office was only five miles down the road and the people were going there every day to buy their groceries anyway. That is one example of many.
December 9, 1986

The Member asked how many post offices I would like to have closed. I suppose the former Government would have closed none and had the taxpayers of Canada pay for them all. The attitude of that regime was "who cares?". However, I believe that we must find areas in which we can efficiently and fairly bring the service into reality. It made sense to abandon the railway when no one used it anymore. However, in the meantime it did not cost the Government millions of dollars to keep it open, so-called when it was not very efficient. There are alternate methods of transportation. The roadbed was used and that is working in some areas.
With regard to the supermailboxes, a great deal of concern was expessed by members of the committee. The Member for Gander-Twillingate has had a green box at the end of his road for 30 years and he never complained to us about it. I do not know whether he has ever written a letter. He may want to comment on that. I bet that a superbox would be better than the old ones in certain areas if the repairs which we have asked for are done.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, my question with regard to the superbox had to do with the substitution of superboxes for lot line service, for the delivery of mail to homes in rural areas. That is in the plan which the committee is now considering. The Hon. Member has said that he wants to have those boxes fixed up. Is he endorsing the use of those boxes as a substitute for home delivery in rural areas?


Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, there is not a lot of home delivery in rural areas. I do not know where the Member toured. However, there are green postal boxes falling over on a lot of little corners in rural Canada. They have been there for 30 years. I suggest that the supermailbox is at least superior to that. That was a question asked by many members of the committee. We discussed at length the fact that the supermailbox should be repaired in order that it could replace and function better than the green mailboxes. Otherwise, there would be no point in installing them. We have been assured that the repairs will be carried out to make them secure. Time will tell whether that will be done satisfactorily. That concern was certainly raised. I have no doubt that the committee will address that issue in its report to the House, but I cannot state that that will be the case.


Mr. Fretz:: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) for his wonderful address. He drew on his vast experience as a committee chairman and shared his information with us. He did an excellent job. I appreciate his tremendous insight into the problems which Canada Post is experiencing. I had the privilege of sitting in the committee for a couple of hours this morning and observing the fine job he did of chairing the committee.
I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member. As he knows, the NDP voted with the Liberals and Conservatives to create a Crown corporation called Canada Post. At that time the Government was seeking self-sufficiency for Canada Post
Supply
in five years. Given the Hon. Member's vast experience in this area, will the Hon. Member tell us why the NDP has changed its mind?


Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that question directly in terms of what the Party does with its posturing to become more popular in Canada. They try many things, and I suppose that they hoodwink the Canadian public from time to time. I urge the committee member from the New Democratic Party to use the committee to effect change for the Crown corporation. I believe that this is a very viable solution under the new rules and mandate we have been given. There are problems with Crown corporations but we have a mechanism to deal with them. I believe the way in which we have been proceeding has been most effective and will continue to be so, even as we go on to other realms with our witnesses.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). There is one minute left.


Mr. Tobin:: Madam Speaker, I simply want to say to the Hon. Member who just spoke that he indeed has been fired up and eloquent today. He has given a very rousing, effective defence of an almost impossible Government posture. I do not agree with what he said, but I at least admire his spleen in trying to defend the Government.
The Member is chairman of the committee that is considering this whole matter and making recommendations to the Government. Notwithstanding all that he said today, can he give me as a Member of Parliament representing rural Newfoundland in this country an assurance that people in rural Newfoundland will continue to have rural postal service? When he asks rhetorically, "who cares", I tell him that I care. I tell him that rural Canadians who have minimal Government service care, and we want his assurance as chairman that indeed rural service as we now have it will be continued, as recommended by him and his committee. Will he give us that assurance?


Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, I welcome the question by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). I wish he had attended our committee hearings.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am not a member of the committee.


Felix Holtmann: I indicated before that it did not matter if you were a member of the committee. The Member raises a very valid point that is not only expressed by him, but by other Members from all Parties. He asks if rural Canadians will still get postal service. I can assure him that I do not think any of us in the House would not want them to have postal service.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will we?


Felix Holtmann: I am sure you will have postal service.

December 9, 1986
Supply


Brian Vincent Tobin: Rural postal service?


Felix Holtmann: I am sure you will have rural postal service.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Madam Speaker, it is rather interesting to listen to the chairman of the committee. This morning, beginning at nine o'clock, he chaired a committee that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said on Friday really holds in its hands the future of postal service in Canada. Urban and rural Canadians are concerned about the Post Office and are wondering if they will be able to get mail any longer.
Canada Post has gone with total mechanization, automatic postal machines and automatic post office boxes. I suppose that Canadians actually believe that there will no longer be human beings handling the mail. We have seen the "super-duper mailbox" or the "super-blooper" mailbox, or "superflop" mailbox, as we call it.
The Conservative Government has awarded more money this year and next year for new capital expenditures to that great Crown corporation of Canada Post than ever before in its history. The Government is providing for new capital expenditure for machines, but there is no expenditure for people. I suppose that is the source of funds to purchase the 30 new Chryslers at headquarters the other day. I suppose that is the source of money to purchase the 43 cars for the executives at the headquarters of Canada Post. The money is certainly not to hire the letter carriers and make sure that the mail is delivered door to door. It certainly is not to pay the salary of the postmasters or postmistresses in rural Canada, some of whom work half time, quarter time or even less.


Mr. Forrestall:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interfere with the flying rhetoric, but the Hon. Member's point with respect to the purchase of cars is a very serious charge. I have taken it upon myself to check into it. I know the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House, so I would remind him that it is in fact an erroneous piece of information.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair believes that is debate rather than a point of order. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary has put this on the record, he may want to discuss it further later today.


George Baker: You are absolutely right, Madam Speaker. There is a longstanding rule in the Chamber that one does not question a Member's accuracy on a particular point, whether it is true or false.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: In order to correct the record, let me say that I assume that General Motors made quite a gift to Canada Post recently.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thought it was Chrysler Corporation. You better get it straight.


Mr. McKenzie:: This afternoon it will be Ford.


George Baker: The fact of the matter is that when the Conservative Government was elected two years ago it said that Canada Post would break even and become self-sufficient. Under this glorious Government, Canada Post is shutting down rural Post Offices. In the last six months, 48 Post Offices bit the dust, mostly in western Canada and, of course, in Conservative ridings. There were seven Post Offices in Atlantic Canada, two of which closed in Newfoundland recently.
Let me give an example of what Canada Post does. Its officials went door to door and told residents of a place called Country Road in Newfoundland, about four miles from Bay Roberts, that their post office will be closed but they will have a free post office box for a year, four miles away in Bay Roberts. Of course, the people assumed that they had to accept this decision. This is gradually happening across the country.
I might say that neither post office was closed in my riding, nor was one closed or slated to be closed in the riding of the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). However, post offices are being closed on the east coast, south coast and north coast of Newfoundland.
There are 5,221 post offices in rural Canada, 3,521 of which are up for privatization in the future. According to the postal plan, 1,700 will disappear either through amalgamation or replacement with a combination of franchising and supermailboxes. You can see, Madam Speaker, what a drastic change has been made in Canada Post recently with this postal plan which was approved by the Conservative Cabinet in October and announced in the House in November.
The Minister responsible for Canada Post and the Prime Mininster keep saying, well, you know, the House of Commons Committee will have a look at the postal plan. But, Madam Speaker, they approved the postal plan in Cabinet in October of this past year. They were the ones who said that for all time in Canada there will be no more door-to-door mail delivery. Suppose a person decides to build a house in a subdivision in Ottawa or Toronto or some urban area. I do not know very much about that because I am from rural Newfoundland. But imagine, Madam Speaker, spending $100,000 or $150,000 on a home only to discover that for all time there will never be door-to-door mail delivery to your home, although around the corner is another street which has door-to-door mail delivery? What would that do to the value of the House if one wanted to sell it? Obviously, to be able to say you have door-to-door mail delivery is better than saying one has to go down to the corner a block away to a box to pick up one's mail. It is obvious that the property would be of greater value if there was door to door mail delivery.
December 9, 1986

What a change of policy from the Act which Parliament passed in 1981. At that time it was clearly stated that Canada Post will maintain an equity of service in given areas, that there will be a quality of service in similar circumstances. That is in the Act. But a postal plan was approved which omits that in its objectives. It takes that equity away. We are told, you can have door to door mail delivery here and superboxes-or super-blooper boxes-over here. A plan has been approved where all of our rural areas could be changed.
The Standing Committee met this morning at nine o'clock. The chairman stood in the House a few moments ago and was angry with the New Democratic Party. He was very vocal about what the New Democratic Party said. I must admit to the House now that I was the person who nominated the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) as chairman of the Standing Committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Government Members are applauding. Perhaps they would let me finish. He was not the choice of the Government. They are not applauding now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Malone:: Now we are applauding.


George Baker: If there is one thing the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake must keep in mind, it is that he is the chairman of the committee and he should not become too angry with the New Democratic Party. I do not think he will get too angry with me if I repeat what he said a few moments ago. He said: it is just like the railways, and sometimes you have to close down the rail lines. I wonder if the chairman is giving us a message for the next meeting. He adjourned the meeting this morning at eleven o'clock and told all the members of the committee: "If you talk about what went on in the committee meeting this morning, I will hold you up for contempt in the House of Commons". That is exactly what he said. We were told: "You have to be quiet now. You are not allowed to talk about what went on at the meeting". But if I read him correctly, I would say the chairman is somewhat in favour of the closure of some post offices.
Our position as the Official Opposition is that it should be as it always was in rural Canada. If Canada Post wanted to close a post office in that community, it told the people it was going to close the post office and asked if there were any objections. If the majority of people thought the post office should be closed and an alternate service provided, so be it. That is the official position we take on rural postal delivery. The Conservative philosophy is, of course, yes, for privatization, hand it over to franchises, have the local businessman deliver the mail.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


George Baker: I hear in the distance a "hear, hear" from western Canada. That might be all right in some communities but it is not all right in all the communities. How would the
Supply
local businessman, for example, find the time to handle everything the local postmaster handles? Is it not a conflict of interest for small businessmen in small communities to deliver mail at the same time they deal with these people on a financial basis? Is it not an infringement of peoples privacy if their social security cheques, or unemployment insurance cheques or Canada pension disability cheques come in the mail and have to be delivered to them over the counter by the very businessman to whom they owe money? Is that not in a great many cases a great conflict of interest? All of those things must be thought out.
The bottom line is that under this postal plan, which was approved by Cabinet, there is to be a discontinuation of door-to-door mail delivery. That is the bottom line. The Conservative Government has approved a postal plan which will see no more door-to-door mail delivery in Canada, other than what we presently have. It has also said to rural Canada, we are going to close down your post offices. It has said they will still have postal services in most of those places but it will be a combination of franchising, local businessmen, and perhaps a mailbox outside, some sort of superbox or super-dooper box out in the backyard of the local businessman. That is not good enough.
That is why we support the motion put to this House today. We support it wholeheartedly. I notice the mover of the motion has said it is not a motion of confidence or non-confidence in the Government. I do not know how much that will count as far as the vote is concerned.
I want to make one final point to members of the Standing Committee and that is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) stood in this House on Thursday and Friday and said: whatever the committee suggests to him and to the House of Commons, if it makes sense. Those were his exact words. I do not know if he is trying to tell us that everything the committee says does not necessarily make sense, or what he is trying to say, but I assume that when he said "if it makes sense", he has reason to believe that a great deal of what the committee says will make sense, and that will take precedence over the postal plan and the postal plan will be changed accordingly.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is democracy.


George Baker: That is the bottom line. I can assure the House and the people of Canada that the position of the Official Opposition in this matter will be to reinstate door-to-door mail delivery as it was before the postal plan was approved. The postal plan is that there will be no more door-to-door delivery for all time. No Conservative can stand in this House and say there was no change with respect to the postal plan. If he does that then he cannot read. There is no more door-to-door mail delivery in Canada, no more extensions. In other words there is no more delivery to the end of the lane in the rural areas. Throw that out the window, say some Conservative Members.

December 9, 1986
Supply
Members of the Government have said that they will close 1,700 rural post offices and amalgamate or privatize another 3,521. That is what the postal plan states. We expressed our opposition to that plan in committee. Knowing the chairman, I feel confident that the committee will make the proper decision. Knowing the members of the committee, I know that they will make the right decision. I firmly believe that after the committee reports, it will be up to the Prime Minister. I do not know what he will say. Will he stand in the House and say that what the committee has said does not make any sense? I think he will be in quite a spot, if I read the committee properly. Canada Post will have to go back over the postal plan and change a great deal of what it has already started to do in Canada. I firmly believe that that will be the result as it flows from the committee under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann). I am sure that I made the proper decision in nominating him for the position that he is presently in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


Mr. Domm:: I have some short questions to ask the Hon. Member, Madam Speaker. I hope he will answer them as quickly as I ask them. Can the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) tell the House how many days were lost through labour disruptions in the five years prior to the incorporation of the Post Office? Can the Liberal Party tell us if it hired the president of the letter carriers as an adviser? We noticed that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate was sitting behind that gentleman and passing him notes during committee hearings. Can the Hon. Member tell us if the unions will accept new working conditions and reduced wage rates to allow the country to afford more door-to-door delivery? Can the Hon. Member tell us what the average wage rate is in his home town and how it compares to the $14-an-hour rate that postal workers make? It is true that the union president at Canada Post Corporation has said: "Management pays us but we run the company". Does he agree with that statement?


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks if I agree with the average rate of $14 an hour. Of course I do. Some of these people deserve a lot more than $14 an hour, since Mr. Lander, the President, is making close to $200,000. He was appointed by the Tories and is looking for a wage increase.
Do I approve lower wages for postal workers? No, absolutely not. Does the Hon. Member mean to tell me that everyone will now have to take a wage-cut under the Conservative Government? It appears that way when one looks at a great many of the positions taken by Treasury Board in terms of employees of the federal Government.
The Hon. Member asks me if we have employed the head of the Letter Carriers' Union as an adviser. I love to have the advice of the Letter Carriers' Union since members of that union are the ones who should know what is going on in the field. They are the ones who should be asked where corners can be cut. I can get a great many more answers from the union than I can from the President of Canada Post. He is no relation to Ann Landers, I can assure Hon. Members of that. One can get no answers from him.
The Hon. Member asks how many days were lost through labour disruptions prior to incorporation. I do not have a clue how many days were lost. I can assure the Hon. Member that when Canada Post was incorporated everyone was happy. Do you remember that day in the House of Commons, Madam Speaker? You do not remember it. It was back in 1981, but it seems like it was years ago. Everyone from all political parties was happy. The unions were happy, everybody was happy. The Post Office would break even, but everyone realized about two years ago that that was a false expectation on the part of the Crown corporation. It could not do that because it had gone too far one way, that is, in terms of cutting service. It had gone much too far and it is going to have to back-track now to recover the loss in service it had incurred. As well, it lost a lot of business.
I would like to tell Hon. Members from western Canada about something that takes place at Bonavista Bay, which is in my riding. Every time someone from the eastern section of Calgary mails a letter to the western section of the city that letter ends up in Bonavista Bay in Newfoundland because the postal codes are similar. I checked with the postmasters and I discovered that there are several communities around the Newfoundland coast to which western Canadian mail is being directed because the postal codes are similar. That is what happens when we deal only with machines. That should be a lesson to anyone examining Canada Post. People are more important than machines.


Mr. McCrossan:: Madam Speaker, my question is a fairly short one. In his speech the Hon. Member indicated that this was a major departure from past practices. He was referring to the curtailment of delivery. I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware that the Conservative Government in 1979 announced major expansions in delivery in metropolitan Toronto in terms of door-to-door delivery which the Government of the Hon. Member cancelled in 1980, the day it came to power. His Government left those houses without door-to-door delivery for the entire four years it was in power. Is the Hon. Member aware of that?


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I will tell you what I am aware of in terms of door-to-door delivery. When it is said that door-to-door mail delivery will be reinstituted it does not mean that everyone will receive door-to-door delivery.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 9, 1986


George Baker: What we have done over the years is scratched and crawled for door-to-door delivery to this subdivision and that subdivision. Half-time letter carriers for here and there had to be hired. It was a hard struggle to try to obtain door-to-door mail delivery. Sometimes people would accept the boxes in the hope that they would get door-to-door delivery the next month. Canada Post would say to these people, look, maybe they will have it in six months' time. Eventually, these people would receive door-to-door mail delivery. The problem under the new postal plan, which is quite a departure from the old one, is that it says that for all time there will be no new letter carrier services in Canada. That is not acceptable.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague this question. He made a distinction between the Conservative position and the Liberal position with regard to door-to-door delivery in suburbs. He said that the Conservatives are saying that they will never give door-to-door delivery. What he said about Liberal policy is that they had to scrape, crawl and beg for door-to-door delivery in order to get it some time down the road. How far down the road does the Hon. Member mean? What is the difference between never and begging, scraping and crawling for door-to-door delivery?


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the Liberal position is door-to-door delivery tomorrow morning, nine o'clock. I will tell Hon. Members that there is quite a difference between when we had door-to-door delivery under the Liberals and what is being said today. We would not dare say that there would be no more door-to-door delivery. We would be too ashamed to go back to our constituents and try to get elected if we were to say that. I will tell Hon. Members that the Conservative Government just ain't going to get re-elected.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has expired.
Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Baha'i community in Iran has been suffering from a campaign of persecution since the Khomeini Government came to power in 1979. Thousands have been imprisoned without charge, dismissed from schools and jobs, and have had their homes and
life savings confiscated. Baha'i holy places have been desecrated, and in many cases, all Baha'i community assets have been destroyed.
Baha'is are non-persons under Iranian law. They can be attacked and persecuted with impunity. Unfortunately, the sufferings of the Baha'i religious minority continue to occur even at this time of international human rights.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to instruct our United Nations Ambassador to encourage the international community to take action to stop the persecution and torture of innocent Baha'is in Iran because of faith. The world must speak out against these persecutions. We dare not remain silent. We must be heard.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY MAJOR REFIT OF WELLAND CANAL WELCOMED

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Niagara Peninsula were delighted at the announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) of a seven-year $175 million project to rehabilitate the Welland Canal. This will be a major refit of the canal to ensure continued safe and reliable inland waterway transportation into the next century. This project is expected to create approximately 500 jobs this winter and this figure will double in each of the following six years.
This announcement is important because, among other things, it puts people to work during the time of traditionally high unemployment. It should be clear that this is all new money over and above that which is already spent on ordinary maintenance of the canal.
I am pleased that the Minister of Transport has listened to the urgings of the members of the Niagara regional caucus. His support and that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are welcomed by the people of the Niagara Peninsula and by all those who depend on the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told us that he would listen to the concerns of those of us in Niagara. He has, and he has done it in a way designed to benefit all Canadians.



TARIFFS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that taxing reading must come from minds that find reading taxing. I agree. Christmas is usually a good season for book sellers and publishers, but not this year. Scrooge-like, the Conservative Government has made this the most anxious year yet for writers, readers,

December 9, 1986
sellers, and makers of books and magazines. In fact the Government is assaulting literacy with a quintuple whammy of duty, threats of sales taxes and business transfer taxes, postal increases, and trade games.
A coalition representing the 25,000 Canadians whose jobs are threatened met in Ottawa today to raise their concerns. The Canadian book industry wants culture completely removed from free trade negotiations. Postal rate subsidies should be continued to ensure access to Canadian periodicals by all Canadians. The exemption of federal sales tax now in place should be continued.
Not having books under the Christmas tree this year will not do anything to help put shakes and shingles on American roofs. Stop the tariff on books.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, there are recurring reports of nepotism in Canada Post. Previously in the House I have referred to allegations about nepotism in Metropolitan Toronto. Now, a statement under the letterhead of the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada, Local 7, indicates that nepotism may be prominent in the City of Winnipeg. Out of 150 appointments made there since 1981, apparently 21 appointees had relatives in management. This has occurred in spite of a Canada Post management policy statement of 1985 entitled Employment of Relatives.
This raises a question. Is there really equitable access to job opportunities in Canada Post? We all want Canada Post run as a business, but must it be run as a family business? This form of corporate incest requires serious attention from the top management of Canada Post Corporation.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the senior management of Canadian National are railroading the people of Atlantic Canada, whether it be through the CN shops in Moncton or Sysco in Cape Breton. The federal Government does not have the political will to
direct that Crown corporation to act in the best interest of the Canadians living in that region. Nova Scotia Premier John Buchanan says:
-the Conservative Government in Ottawa hasn't done something the previous Liberal administration always managed to do-get a guaranteed order for the Sydney Steel Corp. from CN Rail.
For the First time in the more than eight years that we've been here, there's no guaranteed order. We have always had assurances of a base order from Canadian National.
The provincial Tory Minister of Labour, Brian Young, said:
-things were pretty bad when a Tory admits the federal Liberals would probably take care of Sysco better than the Mulroney Government-
What about the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates)? He said:
Anything less than a long-term contract, not for the stockpiling of steel rails, but for the supply of the required steel rails on an annual basis, will be a betrayal of the commitment both the CNR and the federal Government has-
It is high time that the Conservative Government of Brian Mulroney lived up to its obligations to the people of Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member will want to be careful in his statements not to use personal names.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Over the past few hours, Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister advisedly got involved in the defence of the French language in Canada and particularly in Quebec. Our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) also took a firm position on this issue which is vital to six million Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, it is normal for French-speaking Quebec Members of the House of Commons to assert their unequivocal views on the status of the French language and related statutes.
What is deplorable, Mr. Speaker, is that we have yet to see the French-speaking Liberal Members of Parliament take a position in this respect. What does the Leader of the Liberal Party think about the French language in Quebec? The position of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) is rather strange as well. The silence of Liberal Members naturally flows from the ignorance they displayed about Quebec culture when the latest constitutional agreements were signed.
December 9, 1986

[English)



HOUSING


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, co-operative housing has proven itself a reliable method of providing affordable, good quality housing. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recognized that in the 1984 election campaign when he said co-operative housing would continue to have a high priority in Progressive Conservative policy on housing. The recent Throne Speech promised to strengthen co-operatives and recognize their role in community development. Yet the Government has now abandoned that commitment.
Members of housing co-operatives will be meeting this evening in 12 cities across Canada to protest the Government's desertion of co-op housing. The Co-operative Housing Foundation spent 18 months creating a new co-op housing program and negotiating it with CMHC. That program reduces the Government's cost per unit and increases the occupant's cost. Yet now the Government has slashed its promised number of units to little more than half. The co-op housing program is in great danger. The Minister must act quickly to ensure that the necessary funds are restored to keep the co-operative sector alive and healthy and fulfil the Prime Minister's promises.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in my constituency I was proud and delighted to announce federal Government financing of a $346,885 project for a re-entry program by and through the Sarnia Collegiate Institute and Technical School.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy, developed and implemented by this Government, represents an innovative and realistic approach to the high unemployment levels Canadians endured in the past. We have succeeded in shaking the make-work attitude of job creation. We are moving toward giving people the greatest gift of all, a permanent, stable, and secure job. The people of my constituency, indeed all Canadians, thank the federal Government for giving them the opportunity to become skilled and experienced in their chosen field.
On behalf of the 40 women in my area who will soon be well on their way to permanent jobs I say thank you to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), and thank you to the Government.of Canada. The Canadian Jobs Strategy is a resounding success and I applaud our Government for its endeavours on behalf of unemployed Canadians.



HOUSING


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, one year ago this week, the regressive Conservative Government launched a housing policy which can best be described as a national tragedy-social housing passed off to the provinces and co-op housing slashed from 5,500 units to 3,200. The situation is so bad that tonight in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, London, Welland, Waterloo, Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, St. John's, and demain a Montreal, concerned citizens will rally to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to keep his promise.

Even worse, the Minister of State (Immigration) (Mr. Weiner) threatened not long ago he would not help Quebecers establish co-operatives if they were also looking for support form the Opposition parties. We in the Liberal Party condemn this kink of intimidation.

We urge the Prime Minister to live up to his promise and to put an end to threats of blacklisting by members of his Cabinet.



REVENUE CANADA


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have criticized bureaucrats in the past and will probably do so in the future. However, today I want to pinpoint some unfair laws passed by parliamentarians which bureaucrats are forced to administer.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that when Revenue Canada finds it levied a penalty in error and then removes the penalty the taxpayer is still required to pay the interest which was charged on the penalty? Talk about fairness! As well, when a taxpayer is unable to pay the tax levied, interest is charged, another penalty is added, and more interest is charged until the interest and penalties far exceed the amount of the taxes. This hurts the poor. The rich can pay on time.
Revenue Canada can levy a capital gains tax even when no money at all changed hands, and then add penalties and interest until a business goes bankrupt.
Let us start tax reform by cleaning up the present inequities so that Canadians can really say: "Our tax laws are fair and appear to be fair", and bureaucrats will not have to be harassed for our mistakes.

December 9, 1986



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on November 21, 1986, the Valhalla Housing Co-operative in The Pas, Manitoba, was informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that funding for its senior citizens housing complex was being refused. The reason cited by CMHC was as follows:
The recent announcement of a 15 per cent tariff on lumber imports to the U.S. has had a major impact on the Canadian softwood lumber industry... This impact, in the opinion of CMHC, could translate into higher vacancy rates and a downturn in the residential market in The Pas.
Either the federal Government is using the tariff to disguise yet another drop in the level of support it provides to cooperative housing, or the Government is allowing American lumber barons to dictate how we meet the needs of senior citizens in The Pas for affordable, comfortable housing.
I call upon the Government to renew its commitment both to co-operative housing and the people of The Pas by restoring funding to the Valhalla Co-operative immediately.



CALL FOR INTRODUCTION OF YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the Forget Commission asked the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) to implement a youth opportunities program which, unlike Katimavik, would be directed toward youth who are the least motivated and suited to conventional schooling. Forget suggested that the program should combine basic education, counselling, life skills, and work experience. He offered the Swedish model, Youth Guarantee, as an example.
I previously suggested another model to the Minister, one which would include high school education upgrading, job training directed to skills in demand, workplace orientation, and a voluntary military training program to teach selfdiscipline and co-operation.
Almost a year has passed since Katimavik was scrapped. Although youth unemployment has fallen dramatically in the past two years, it is still substantially above the national average. It is time for the Government to unveil a new program to meet the needs of the hard core of unemployed youth.



SHIPBUILDING


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Government on the construction of the Class 8 Polar ice-breaker is due in the near future. I urge the Government to consider seriously the qualifications of the west coast shipbuilding industry for the contract.
Since the last election, thousands of British Columbia shipyard employees have been thrown out of work. The Polar 8 would provide several years of work for more than 1,000 of these workers. Spinoffs would create employment for many more.
I want to ensure that the Government take into account the particular expertise of the British Columbia yards in producing vessels for northern use, and the low bid submitted from British Columbia.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's well deserved reputation as a haven for immigrants and refugees is at risk. Our treatment of immigrant physicians is being branded discriminatory and must be stopped at once. The policy of providing Canadian medical school graduates with first bid for controlled and limited internships leaves qualified immigrant doctors with little hope of ever practising medicine in Canada, even though they have passed stringent Canadian equivalency exams.
Ontario has created an additional barrier for immigrant doctors by requiring that a pre-internship be completed before being eligible for non-existent internship positions. No such requirement exists for graduates of Canadian medical schools.
In the past Canada and Ontario have welcomed immigrant doctors to the medical profession by adding internships as the need arose. The federal Government must step in and provide sorely needed leadership in bringing a return of our traditional policy and eliminating Ontario's discriminatory practices.



NEED FOR IMMEDIATE REIMBURSEMENT OF ELIGIBLE PERSONS

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: The
people of Canada are very disappointed. Last Friday, the



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1986
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deceived Canadian pensioners and early retirees, and I think that today the Minister should make a frank and forthright statement about the changes that have been made. These people had received permission to draw unemployment insurance benefits. They were entitled to those benefits. They were hold as much by the riding offices of Conservative Members and by their Manpower Centres. Today, the Government, as recommended in the Forget report, should give these people full compensation without asking them for proof.
Mr. Speaker, this Government is treating the elderly and pre-retirees like criminals. This will not do. Second, the Government's proposal that these people would become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits after they embark on a second career is equally unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Minister reverse his decision and immediately reimburse these people so that they will get their due.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to our northern sovereignty. I want to assure the Minister that we do not want a route map of where American submarines are plying their business in northern waters, but we do want to know why it is a classified bit of information to find out from the Minister whether or not such American submarines in Canadian waters receive our permission.
Does the Minister know where they go? Do the Americans recognize Canadian waters and, if so, do they ask permission from Canada to ply those waters?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there are really two questions at issue here with which I will try to deal. The first has to do with the arrangements that we have in place that let us know about the presence of vessels of other countries in our waters. Those arrangements are in place. They are respected. We believe them to be effective.
The second question has to do with whether or not we want to start along the path of indicating either the passing or the presence anywhere in Canadian waters or in other waters of ships of the United States, submarines of the United States. I have tried to make it clear in the House of Commons before that to embark along the path of identifying the location or the patterns of voyage of those vessels could aid the enemies of this
Oral Questions
country and could undermine some of the obligations that Canada honours under NATO.


ALLEGED NEGOTIATIONS ON GRANTING AMERICAN MILITARY GREATER ACCESS TO ARCTIC WATERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister failed to answer my question. In any case, he admitted to the press yesterday that the Government is now negotiating to give the U.S. military broader access to our Arctic waters while in exchange, the Americans would recognize our soveignty over those waters. I think that the very fact this Government is conducting these negotiations puts our sovereignty in jeopardy. Could the Minister explain to the House why he is conducting these negotiations with the Americans?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations. A dialogue is taking place between Canada and the United States. We are having a dialogue, because last year, the Canadian Government clearly affirmed our sovereignty over the Arctic waters and the Arctic region. This had not been done before. This had never been accepted by the United States. We have indicated that if necessary, we are prepared to defend our position before the International Court of Justice. The former Government was not prepared to defend Canada's position. It is always preferable to have an arrangement between two parties or two friends, but if necessary, we are prepared to defend our position before the International Court of Justice.
[DOT] (M20)


WORLD COURT REFERRAL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has once again congratulated himself on placing the matter before the World Court. Why is he in the course of negotiating our sovereignty over the waters before the case is heard? This reminds us very much of the lumber situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for 16 years the Liberal Government of Canada claimed that it was going to assert Canadian sovereignty over the North. The Liberal Government claimed that, but was afraid to be tested in the courts. It did not build an ice-breaker. It did not establish the presence which Canada requires if we are to defend and guarantee our sovereignty. We have taken a position in favour of Canadian sovereignty. We are building the ice-breaker. We have asserted our jurisdiction and we are prepared to defend it in the courts. We are prepared to defend Canada rather than simply sitting back and talking about sovereignty as the Liberals did.

December 9, 1986
Oral Questions


MESSAGE FROM YUKON GOVERNMENT-BEAUFORT SEA DRILLING RIGHTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has just made a rhetorical flourish of defending Canadian sovereignty. Will he confirm that he has received a telex from the territorial Government of the Yukon which says: "You appear to be ignoring a serious threat to jurisdiction over our Arctic". The telex goes on to state: "I fail to understand your reluctance to come to grips with this important issue".
Those are very serious charges from a respected and responsible Government in our country. What does the Government intend to do about them? How does it intend to respond to the very serious allegations by the Government of Yukon that it is failing to defend Canadian sovereignty with regard to drilling rights in the Beaufort?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether there has been received in my office a communication from the Government of the Yukon. Naturally, if there has, I will consider it and treat it with respect as I do communications from that and other Governments.
The question at issue is the hearings which are being held with regard to the environmental impact of possible oil and gas activity in the Beaufort Sea. I have today sent a letter of protest to the Government of the United States with regard to that action because it has to do with hearings dealing with an area east of the 141st meridian.
I should advise the Member, as I think I did yesterday, that a similar protest was issued on an earlier occasion when an action of hearings was commenced in the United States. The consequence of Canada's protest at that time was that bids with respect to the disputed area were neither accepted nor rejected. Leases were not issued. I hope that our protest this time will have the same effect.


UNITED STATES LEASE APPLICATION HEARINGS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs about that very issue, the representations we are making to the U.S. administration. There have already been two hearings held and two more are scheduled. In his note of protest did the Minister specifically ask that the hearings now being conducted be stopped until this particular issue is resolved and the Canadian rights to those territories are clearly identified? Have we asked the U.S. to stop holding hearings over our territory?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the dispute is over the jurisdiction between Canada and the United States of the waters in question. We are asking the United States not to take any actions which would assume that those territories were not in
dispute. When we last took that action, the United States agreed to the request of Canada and did not take any actions which could be considered to be actions of occupation of a sovereignty.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of a delegation of United States Senators led by the Chairman-to-be of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who is accompanied by Senator Spark Matsunaga, Senator Max Baucus, and Senator John Chafee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that our guests from the United States have been introduced in the gallery at a time when we are raising questions about Canadian sovereignty. My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why has the Government not yet replied to a cable that it received from the Government of Yukon some six months ago, which sought clarification and support for confirmation that the territory east of the 141st meridian was Canadian territory? Why has the Government taken so long to reply to such a straightforward request for confirmation of our sovereignty?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question. It sounds to me as though our usual standards of speed in response are not being honoured in this case.


John Edward Broadbent: I appreciate the Minister's indication that there perhaps has been an error somewhere in his Department. We will set that aside.


UNITED STATES HEARINGS ON LEASE APPLICATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since hearings about drilling in Canadian territory are taking place now in Alaska, does the Minister believe it is a responsible action of a good neighbour to undertake such drillings in territory that it says is in dispute but we say is our land?
December 9, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just to show that error can occur on both sides of the House, the Hon. Member is in error when he says that drilling is occurring. That is not the stage of the process now. Indeed, when we last intervened in a case of this kind the United States Government agreed that no drilling would proceed. I very much hope that would be their response in this case.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, let me return to something that has been raised very specifically. Since the Canadian Government has said in the past that this territory is ours and we do not think it is disputed, did the Minister in his cable that was sent to Washington today request them to stop those hearings forthwith?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I do not have in front of me the text of the precise message. I consequently cannot answer that particular question. I will inform myself of the contents and will advise the Hon. Member.


FISHERIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to ask him about his secret deal with Premier John Buchanan to bail out Bayshore Tuna Limited. What did Premier Buchanan say or offer to the Minister to cause him to change his mind and go against the advice of his own Department, his own Atlantic Regional Council and his own tuna advisory committee, and approve this blatant give-away of the resources of the people of Canada?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as usual, back-bench members of the Liberal Party want to make the sleaziest kind of story as they possibly can-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask all Hon. Members and Ministers to constrain their language and sometimes their enthusiasm.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where an industry at St. Margaret's Bay in Nova Scotia has an allocation of 401 tuna to be caught. Those are fish which are not caught by any other sector of the industry in Atlantic Canada and, for the last two years, those fish have not come ashore-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: They never do.


Lloyd Axworthy: Give them shore leave.


Mr. McDermid:: They do not understand fishing terms. They do not even know that fish can swim.


Thomas Edward Siddon: This situation may seem funny to opposition Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask all Hon. Members to give the Minister a chance to reply.


Thomas Edward Siddon: This issue is not funny to the fishermen and the industry to which this initiative will give a chance of survival. It is in total accordance with the advice offered by my Atlantic Regional Council to investigate as an option the development of a longline fishery for the fishermen and the company known as Bayshore Tuna Company, and that is exactly what we are doing.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What the back-benchers in the Liberal Party want is justice in the fisheries industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: That is something new and different.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My
supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister accept the advice of Mr. Bob McFadden, who is on the Minister's own Tuna Advisory Committee. He says the fishermen no longer trust this Minister and he should resign. Will the Prime Minister remove this Minister from his post pending an investigation of this blatant give-away to one company in Nova Scotia?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, what seems to irritate Hon. Members opposite is that this Government is taking initiatives to expand the employment potential in the Atlantic fishery-


Lloyd Axworthy: For Tories, yes.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -and in fact this decision is not inconsistent with royalty charter arrangements which have been extended to the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company for several years-


Mr. Rompkey:: That's not the Japanese, though, it's the fishermen.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Richard Cashin is the head of that company-and the Torngat Fish Producers' Co-operative in Labrador. This is not an unusual initiative. This is an attempt to develop additional employment and to keep money in the pockets of Canadians which would otherwise go into the pockets of someone else.

December 9, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland on a supplementary to an earlier question.


SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, getting back to the subject of alleged transgressions of Canadian sovereignty by undersea vessels in the Arctic, I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could tell us, first, if the Government actually knows the routes taken by both Soviet and American submarines in the Arctic? Second, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, could he tell the House if there have actually been transgressions of Canadian sovereignty by Soviet and American submarines?


Mr. Prud'homme:: That is top secret.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say with confidence that we know all of the routes which might be taken, particularly by Soviet submarines, if they are in the Arctic. We have arrangements in place by which we can be informed of activities in our waters. I take it the Hon. Member's question was whether or not those are 100 per cent perfect and guaranteed. They are not as strong as they need to be. We are on the way to resolving that problem with regard to the ice-breaker, and we are naturally considering other measures which will allow us to ensure and protect Canada's sovereignty more absolutely than was the case under a more careless earlier regime.


BEAUFORT SEA-LEASE APPLICATION HEARINGS IN UNITED STATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I want to seek clarification on the properties in the Beaufort Sea east of the 141st meridian. The Minister has explained that the last time this area was open to some dispute the Minister sent a comment to the United States authorities asking them to back off. He has indicated to the House that they did. They are now back again. Is that not a clear indication that they have ignored the plea from Canada? Are they not simply going ahead with their own plans and ignoring the Government's request?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. What happened before was that a note of protest was sent. As a consequence of that note being sent, the second step in the action, in other words, the issuing of leases, was not proceeded with. In that case, what we requested was acted upon. I trust the request we have made this time will be acted upon.


CANADIAN POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is anything but clear. The Minister says we made our position clear last time but now the United States is back again carrying out impact studies in that same area. Is it not time that the Minister stood up once and for all and said to the people of Canada, and particularly to the United States, that we have had it?
First of all, it was the Polar Sea. We did not know about that. We did not say anything. Then it was the submarines under the ice. Then it was the softwood issue, and then the generic drug issue. Is it not time to stand up and say we have had it with the United States, that we are going to exert our sovereignty over these lands and it should get out of there?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the luxuries of being the Opposition is that you can stand up and say: "We've had it with this and we've had it with that".


John Edward Broadbent: You were in opposition, remember?


Charles Joseph Clark: What this Government did when we recognized the problems which had been left for us by the failure to prepare our ability to assert our sovereignty in the North-


Nelson Andrew Riis: You know how effective that is.


Charles Joseph Clark: -was to announce a multiphase program; first, the building of an ice-breaker which will give us capacity Canada did not have before-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Where is it?


Charles Joseph Clark: -second, the assertion of our sovereignty in that area and, third, the willingness to have our case heard before the International Court, and other actions. This Government, more than any other Government in our history, is acting to preserve and advance-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -Canada's sovereignty in our North.


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As he knows, the total quota for the bluefin tuna in Atlantic Canada is 1,521. The Minister has allowed foreigners to reap the benefits of this common resource
December 9, 1986

through a secret deal with a Halifax lawyer to get 401 of those species. In view of the serious stock depletion of this species, would the Minister explain to the House why he was so quick to come to the aid of this particular Halifax company when other licencees in Atlantic Canada are experiencing such difficult financial hardship at the present time? Why has he done that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would check the figures he would find that the quota to which he is referring is by tonnage not by number of fish. In fact, this year Canadian fishermen will only harvest-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: You see, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to believe the truth and the facts. This year Canadian fishermen will only harvest one tenth of our total tuna quota. In fact my Atlantic Regional Council recommended, and I quote:
Over the long term other options should be explored to help the St. Margaret's Bay industry, such as diversifying the trap net fishery to include longline vessels that are equipped to harvest bluefin tuna.
I accepted that advice and that is exactly what we are doing.


ATLANTIC REGIONAL COUNCIL'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The chairman of the Minister's own Atlantic Regional Council wrote to him on October 30, 1986, and said: "Our Council unanimously agreed as a matter of policy and principle the proposal which he now refers should not be approved". I ask the Minister why he objected to the recommendations of this particular council? Is it because you have to be a Tory bagman, a friend of a Tory Premier, or you have to pay money to a Tory consulting firm? Why is it?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, is it not strange how the Opposition takes quotes out of context without reading the whole communication. That particular communication from the Atlantic Regional Council included a recommendation that we do exactly what we are doing, not to embark on a royalty charter but to embark on an experiment to develop a new Canadian fishery. I, for one, cannot understand why the Opposition is so cynical when the Government takes initiatives to preserve jobs and expand employment opportunities in Atlantic Canada, as we were mandated to do.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International
Oral Questions
Trade. U. S. Senator Bentsen, who is visiting Ottawa today, is quoted by Canadian Press as saying he feels the Auto Pact should be on the table in Canadian-American trade talks. Will the Minister tell us clearly whether this is acceptable to Canada? Second, will she tell us if she believes the 60 per cent safeguards which protect Canadian workers must stay in place?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's question with respect to the visit by the chairman and members of the U.S. Finance Committee. In terms of the specific quote about which the Hon. Member has informed the House, I think it should be quite clear, and I have said this in the House before, that our Government's position is very consistent. We say that the Auto Pact is working well, and we intend to keep it that way. If, in the course of negotiations, any proposals that could be made that would improve the operation of the Auto Pact were made, we would welcome them.


DUTY REMISSION ASSISTANCE FOR CAR PARTS MANUFACTURERS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister also give her commitment that Canada will defend our duty remission schemes that help car part producers here in Canada despite the attacks by Governor Blanchard of Michigan and by trade representative Yeutter who was recently quoted in the Detroit Free Press?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the NDP consistently takes the view that somehow we are at war with the U.S. That is not the case in these issues. Even the Leader of the NDP, whose constituents rely on the Auto Pact, has said that there is nothing wrong with our negotiating team getting changes to the pact that would increase employment and production in Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ALBERTA MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Peter Elzinga, Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ALBERTA MLAS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Robert Fisher, MLA, Wainwright, Alberta; Mr. Jack Ady, MLA, Cardston,

December 9, 1986
Oral Questions
Alberta; and Mr. Stan Schumacher, MLA, Drumheller, Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Every time during the past year when we asked the Government to rescind its cruel unemployment insurance cuts for preretirement pensioners Ministers said: "Wait for the Forget Report". The Prime Minister said that on May 23. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Associate Minister of National Defence said that. We now have the Forget recommendation on this matter and the Government has rejected it. Why will the Government not honour its many commitments made in this House, and completely rescind those unemployment insurance cuts as of January 5 as recommended by Forget?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East would recommend that we implement the Forget report after a week's study. We will hear the recommendation of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East in mind!
What I said yesterday and what I specifically stated on Friday is that the unemployment insurance program-and this principle was established by the Minister of Finance-is not a savings or retirement plan, it is designed to provide financial assistance to people who are temporarily unemployed. Such is our objective.
We sought Mr. Forget's advice and he produced a 500-page report. As I said before, we will consider the report as a whole and study each recommendation. The Government's position on pensions was explained on Friday and I think it is crystal-clear.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about only one recommendation of the Forget Report which you yourself-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Warren Allmand: I ask my question of the Prime Minister because five or six Ministers whose portfolios changed were
involved in this issue, including the Minister of Employment and Immigration. If the Government has a credibility problem it is due to escapades such as this.
Why did the Government lead so many Canadians down the garden path on this issue and then reject the Forget Commission recommendation once it was made? Why did it do that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what 1 said yesterday and what I am saying again to the Hon. Member today, namely that the Government is being consistent with its own position. The Government had said it would wait for the Forget report, it has now been released, and we made a decision, as I was personnaly committed to do before Christmas. It has been done. You may not agree with it, but our decisions have precious little to do with the fact that you may or may not like them.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some questions for the Minister of Transport. As the Prime Minister is also aware, Hawker Siddeley used to have 2,000 employees in Trenton, a riding which the Prime Minister used to represent. The company is now down to a handful of people and is in danger of closing down. It is requesting the Government to require Canadian National to cease leasing cars built in the United States, which is one of the free trade benefits we are receiving these days in terms of railway equipment. In view of the fact that CN has some 7,000 leased railway cars presently in operation will the Minister instruct CN to lease cars only built in Canada at plants such as the one at Trenton?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman has to understand that CN operates with its own Chairman and its own Board of Directors and must operate with funds it generates itself. It receives no financial assistance from the Government of Canada. It therefore has to be allowed to operate in ways that will generate funds and make a profit for itself. This year it will have a loss.
The CN has a severe battle under way to ensure that it continues competitively, and that it continues. So we have to give CN leeway to buy cars and to lease cars if that seems the best economic thing to do. We can certainly suggest to it and press the case, as we have in the past, that it do all it can to purchase cars from the place the hon. gentleman named. We will continue to do that. But we have to leave the discretion to it.
December 9, 1986


REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF CARS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, CN has to operate within the terms and confines of government policy. I take it, then, that it is government policy to let people be laid off while CN does sound business practice with United States companies.
Will the Minister of Transport meet with CN and require it to lease cars made in Canada? Will the Minister also arrange that the repair and maintenance of these leased cars are undertaken in Canadian plants such as Moncton, Point St. Charles, and Winnipeg?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will do everything I can to encourage CN to make all of the purchases it can in Canada, to provide all the business it can to Canadian suppliers, and to do all it can to continue to employ as many Canadians as it can. But actions that would direct it to do things that are against its best interests and that would cause the company to lose money, and therefore to have to lay off people, would be definitely counterproductive to the whole objective of CN existing in the first place. So it has to be a reasonable compromise. That is what I will urge it to do.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I should like him to know that all early retirement groups in Canada generally and in Quebec in particular are truly disappointed and angry with the Government's decision and the mess in his own office which is sending out such contradictory information. Could the Minister-I am sure that, unlike the Prime Minister, he can be sincere-


Some Hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -tell us clearly and officially what early retirees who used to collect benefits and who were cut as of January 1st, 1986, must do to obtain what is owing to them and what are the criteria to become eligible? Would an oral statement be deemed acceptable for these people to be reimbursed the money you took away from them?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie cannot be serious. If, last Friday, instead of accusing the Government of backing off and saying just about anything to try and make political gains all across the country, you had simply read the statement, you would know what I had said, namely, that we would respect the
Oral Questions
principles. I said that Canadians who could prove normally that they had been ill-informed would be reimbursed. But you did not have to insult the Prime Minister as you did a while ago to indicate where the truth is. People need only listen to you.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as Mrs. Denis said, the Prime Minister is a "Charlie Brown"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please! I must ask the Hon. Member to watch his language a little more.


REIMBURSEMENT OF EARLY RETIREES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration is not so much for the Hon. Members in this House, but for the thousands of early retirees who would like to know. Will these people be entitled to recover their money, and when? Could the Minister explain where this figure of $230 million which these people will recover is coming from and who will get the money?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we are going to use special procedures to advise people of the way they could contact the Government about an eventual reimbursement. But I ask right away the Hon. Member not to create again expectations among Canadians by saying: All those who will claim .. . There are conditions. People who will be able to show ... It was in the statement and I will repeat it for the benefit of the Hon. Member. "I am today directing the commission to reexamine any such case and restore benefits, if the allegation is proven." That is quite clear. We are going to inform these people, but I will not take any chance: I am going to contact them directly myself.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday the Prime Minister said in a press conference that there would be no second-class citizens in Canada, whether it be regarding mail service or otherwise. We agree with him about that. Later on the same day, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a change with respect to those who are collecting pensions and applying for UI benefits. The Minister announced in effect that if they get a second job and are laid off, they can receive the benefits. In places like Manicouagan in Atlantic Canada, that system will indeed create two classes of citizens. I would ask the Prime Minister to give the assurance to all those across the country who do qualify that in fact he will not proceed with the Minister's announced provisions.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing at all inconsistent between what I

December 9, 1986
Oral Questions
said at the press conference on Friday and the Minister's statement in regard to resolving a complex, difficult issue. The Minister's statement was straightforward and will be extremely beneficial for thousands of Canadians. I would think that my hon. friend would want to applaud the Minister for a tremendous initiative.


REQUEST THAT ALL ELIGIBLE PENSIONERS RECEIVE BENEFITS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Minister to withdraw the initiative, I want him to change it. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that it is very easy to get a second job in southern Ontario but it is not so easy to get a second job in parts of Quebec, Atlantic Canada and the West. Therefore, it will create a second-class citizenry.
Would the Prime Minister admit to the House that the only fair thing to do is to give all those pensioners who qualify for UI benefits their UI benefits as the Forget Commission has recommended?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague from Nickel Belt understood the unemployment insurance principle. He is confused about two different things. With respect to people who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, some in Manicouagan or the Atlantic region need only 10 weeks to become eligible, whereas others in Toronto need 14 weeks. That is one way of redistributing wealth on the basis of needs. But the unemployment insurance program is not a retirement nor an income plan, it is designed for people who are unemployed.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The Minister is aware that clean coal from western Canada could reduce Ontario's acid rain problem and at the same time give western Canada's depressed economy a major shot in the arm. Will the Minister assure the House today that the necessary transportation subsidies which will have to be negotiated, to replace dirty coal from the U.S. mid-West now being used in Ontario with clean coal from western Canada, will not be bargained away at the free trade negotiating table?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that his concern is
unjustified. It will certainly not be bargained away at the negotiating table.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On past occasions the Minister of the Environment, and indeed yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Government was favourable to a joint federal-provincial task force report that would put forward the proposal of moving clean coal from western Canada to Ontario to be used here. When may the mining communities of western Canada expect some action on the part of the Government designed to ensure that clean western Canadian coal can be moved to Ontario at a cost that will allow it to be competitive with imported coal?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's question. First, may I repeat that the Government supports the initiative contained in the report on the use of western coal in Ontario. If we could get the support of the Hon. Member's Party and the support of the New Democratic Party to pass the new national transportation act, Bills C-18 and C-19, that would do a lot to bring the unit cost of transportation down and then we would be competitive.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and has to do with an article published December 6 in the newspaper Le Soleil and concerning the Matane regional paper mill. Here is my question: Would the Minister explain to us whether the number of major and complex projects is such that Matane's proposed paper mill is hard to sell and may be compromised?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: As I see it, Mr. Speaker, nobody should conclude that the Government of Canada does not give priority to the Matane project, quite the contrary. The whole issue must be considered in the context of regional development. The Government is ever prepared to help the various regions because it happens to be part of our assistance policy. The Matane project remains a priority, it is under active consideration, and we will announce our position at the earliest opportunity.
December 9, 1986


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and deals with reports about the significant risk of increased rates of skin cancer particularly in northern areas as a result of the continuing depletion of the ozone layer. Given that a recent international meeting with respect to ozone depletion broke down without an agreement, what steps are being taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare or other Ministers concerned, like the Minister of the Environment, for a Canadian strategy designed to offset the problem of ozone depletion?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate on behalf of the Minister of the Environment that the concern about the measurable depletion of the ozone layer is one which should be taken very seriously by all Canadians and the Government does take it seriously. That is why Canada was the first nation to ratify the Vienna Global Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and why, at meetings in Geneva and Vienna, Canada has been a constant proponent of the reduction of emission levels of chlorofluorocarbons which are discharged largely by air conditioning systems and various types of sprays. We will continue to seek to reduce the levels of these emissions.


CANADIAN POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister who is answering for the Minister of the Environment a supplementary question, although my initial question was asked of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Why is it that the Canadian position at that conference is reported to have been in favour of only a freezing of the production of ozone depleting substances, as opposed to the position which I understand was taken by the United States which is to be in favour of a reduction in the production of ozone depleting substances?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position has been that there must be a protocol or an international agreement on the means of reducing the levels of CFC and that all nations of the world have to be a part of an undertaking designed to reduce those levels in accordance with this protocol. Therefore, we should work very quickly toward an immediate freeze on the production and use of chlorofluorocarbons.
Oral Questions


AIR CANADA
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He will know it is the policy of Air Canada to serve Canadian wines exclusively on its Rapidair flights. That policy was violated last Thursday when someone decided to start serving foreign wine on the Ottawa to Toronto flights.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rob Nicholson: In addition, the bottles contravene the Government's language policy because they are labelled in English.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member put his question, please?


Rob Nicholson: Will the Minister look into this situation, tell Air Canada to get its act together and give its 100 per cent support to the Canadian wine industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has given strong support to the use of Canadian wines. I am sorry to see the Opposition laugh at that because I do not think there is anything funny about it. I will pass on his adjuration to Air Canada. I understand that on trans-border and international flights 50 per cent of the wine offered is Canadian. On domestic flights both domestic and foreign wines are offered and it is up to the consumer. I myself cannot understand any consumer choosing any wine other than the Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That confirms my view about your taste.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Have the section of the Corporate Plan dealing with the disruption of rural mail service and the section dealing with an increase in the rate for delivering weekly newspapers been killed? Or have they just been given a sleeping pill so that they will later on be able to raise their ugly and cruel heads again?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter has indeed been a concern of the Government. Canada Post submitted a plan. Once again it was referred to a committee for study. This

December 9, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
committee studied the matter very extensively. We are waiting for its recommendations, and will respond once we apprised of them.


Mr. Speaker:: 
PRIVILEGE
Some Hon. Members:: All committee chairmen.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear calls from Members that the appropriate letter be sent to all committee chairmen and I will certainly do that.


BUSINESS OF COMMITTEES-ORDER OF RECOGNITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege involving something that happened in the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration this morning. A meeting was scheduled for 9.30.
I arrived at 9.46 or 9.47. The chairman had arrived at 9.45. Six other Conservative Members arrived at about 9.45 or 9.46. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) had arrived at 9.30. The chairman apologized for being late because of traffic conditions. I arrived just as the chairman was announcing the way in which questioning would proceed. Witnesses had not yet been heard. The chairman said he was going to hear the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, then the six Tory members, and then the unemployment insurance critic for the NDP. I objected at that point and he informed me that he has always followed a policy of going to questioners in the order in which they arrive at the meeting.
We have all been around here for some time and there is a system in place whereby the first questioner is always the Official Opposition critic for the area concerned. Then we go to the Government side. We then come back to the other opposition Party. That procedure was not followed this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising a grievance and feels very strongly about it. However, unless he can give the Chair some facts which have not yet come out I must advise that I do not see this as a question of privilege, keeping in mind the fact that it is not the chairman's responsibility to direct a committee how to behave itself. I will hear the Hon. Member very briefly.


John R. Rodriguez: The point I am making is that there is a tradition in committees whereby the official critics of the two opposition Parties have the chance to question first. In this case that tradition was trampled on by the chairman of that committee. He went to a system which I do not think any other committee around here uses.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point. I wonder if it would be acceptable to him if the Chair will undertake to take notice of his remarks and write to the


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) made statements about my performance this morning and I would like the opportunity to correct the record. It is a moot point as to whether or not the chairman was late. If he was it was no more than 60 seconds. Some three years ago I raised in this House a procedural problem about which clock counts. I would simply like to assert that I was either on time or very close.
I would also like to indicate that the record will show that in addition to the chairman there were indeed four Conservative members of the committee who arrived second, third, fourth and fifth. I would also like the record to show that we have had close to 140 formal public meetings in that committee and in all those meetings, other than those concerned with the Main Estimates when Ministers are there to defend government policy, it has been my practice to recognize members in order of arrival. It has been my practice, as part of parliamentary reform, to recognize all members as equal. I would also like it known that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt moved a motion to put a different system in place this morning. Members considered that motion and voted to uphold the chairman in the way he was conducting the meeting.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I was in that committee this morning. As you know, there has been a long-standing tradition in this House that on the first round in debates or in questioning we start with the Official Opposition and go to the other opposition Party and so on. That practice was followed for a long time in all committees. When I was chairman of the committee now presided over by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), we did that. We recognized first the Official Opposition critic and then the NDP, and when the Socreds were here, we then recognized them.
The meeting this morning was a very important one dealing with members of the Forget Commission. It was a very critical meeting with different and divergent views. It was wrong to hold the Hon. Member from the NDP to number eight on the list after six or seven Conservatives. On the first round we
December 9, 1986

should have at least followed the traditions followed in all committees where you go to all Parties in turn.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention an attitude of this Government which I feel is absolutely improper. This is not the first time that committee chairmen, who are all Government Members, follow a procedure that flies in the face of a rule that has prevailed in this House for years, namely that the Chairman should alternate from one Government Member to one Opposition Member. Now we see that in a number of committees of this House, the chairman does not follow that rule and assigns the floor to Government Members in succession without recognizing Opposition Members. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this Parliament is rather exceptional in the sense that the number of Opposition Members is very limited, and I would appeal to your sense of fairness in defending the interests of Opposition Members. There are very few of us in this Parliament but still we have a right to be heard. So in the committee process we should be recognized as often as Government Members.
What has happened, what went on this morning is not one single occurence. It is a situation that has been arisen on a number of occasions, wherein a Conservative chairman has failed to recognize an Opposition Member right after a Government Member. This means an Opposition Member often has to wait for an hour, and hour and a half before he is allowed to carry on with the questionning and do his duty, which is to ask questions from the Government as an Opposition Member.
I feel that this situation has been going on for too long, and I would appreciate it if the Chair could look at this practice that is prevailing in committees of the House, and have instructions issued to committee chairman who, as it happens, are all Government Members and, who perhaps without realizing it, are taking advantage of the Conservative Party's overwelming majority in this Parliament.


Mr. Marcel Pnid'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, if I may add to what has already been said by my colleague for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), we are talking about something which has always been a tradition. I recognize that we now have a new Parliament and a great many new committee chairmen, but I believe that the tradition should still be followed and that it would be appropriate to remind Hon. Members and all committee chairmen how we have been doing things for a great number of years. For my part, I had the honour to chair the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for nine years.
Whatever the circumstances, and I can see the former Minister of National Defence in the House, the first questioner was always a member of the Official Opposition and we always had a first round of questions from both the opposition parties and the Government. After that, I recognize that, with the incredible majority held by the Government, a greater
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
proportion of Government Members should be able to speak. This is a principle of fairness which I would be the first to defend. If Your Honour feels the need to comment the matter today, you could perhaps ask the Committee on Management and Members' Services, which is made up of all the committee chairmen, to examine this issue. I believe that this could be done. We shall be meeting this afternoon at 5 o'clock, I think. This is the committee which is composed of committee chairmen. I undertake to raise this question because it is a matter of equity, and I am sure that the Government will realize that our traditions must be followed.
On the other hand, I am fully aware that, with its enormous majority, the Government should not have to feel disadvantaged because of the need to have complete rounds all the time in view of the small number of opposition members. However, for the first round of questions, our traditions should be maintained and one representative from each opposition party should be able to ask questions. I would even say that the first to ask a question could perhaps be the representative of the Official Opposition, and if there is no agreement, one representative of the Government majority, and immediately after, a representative of the New Democratic Party. Then, we could proceed in such a way as to restore the balance among the various parties. I think that Your Honour should remind the House about the basic principles of equity. As long as there are no abuses from the two Opposition Parties, I also believe that, on principle, the very first to be recognized should be the representative of the Official Opposition. Personally, I would have no objection if the second questioner were a Government member, but the third definitely should be. I would prefer it to be, in order, the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party and the Government. However, if this does not meet the wishes of the majority, we could perhaps proceed equitably in the following manner: First, the Official Opposition, since this is the established tradition for Parliamentary Committees, second, either an opposition member from the New Democratic Party or a Government member on condition that the Chairman immediately afterwards recognize a member of the New Democratic Party. I believe that this is the only way to be fair to the Government majority while preserving our traditions.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for you to appreciate that each commttee must set its own rules in this area and that there is no appeal to the House as a whole unless there is disorder.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which is chaired by a member of the Official Opposition, operates on exactly the same principle as my colleague who is Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. However, it is important for Your Honour to realize that each committee deals with a different topic in a vast government array and has to work out these matters for
1934

December 9, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
itself. The process within a committee might be different, depending upon whether the committee is studying the Estimates or annual reports, which may tend to be more Government versus opposition with us wanting to stick to the traditional mix, or whether it is studying new policies under the new Standing Orders.
The idea behind the new Standing Orders was to get Members of Parliament, all of whom are equal, addressing themselves to a problem. When Members start to look at a problem as a problem Party differences are evident. The objective was that the committee would then come up with unanimous recommendations. It may be that in new policy areas the committee itself would decide to be much less partisan and the rotation of speakers would be quite different.
My point is that each of these matters has to be worked out by each member of the committee, and it will depend upon the chemistry of the committee. If opposition Members play tricks or the Government plays tricks on opposition Members, the committee will be poisoned and it may not work as well. However, it is not for Your Honour to become involved at this point. It should be left to each committee to work out, and it should only come before Your Honour if there is grave disorder.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat some of the very important comments which have been made on this point. However, I should like to add another element. I urge Your Honour to recall that we are at a rather important point. When the provisional Standing Orders were before us, we experienced a number of new ways to make Parliament and its operations more effective and more efficient. We tried different approaches as part of the changes to the Standing Orders to improve the work of the committees. By and large there is recognition that the committees are working more effectively and more efficiently than perhaps they ever have.
I can recall many occasions when a government Member, a chairperson, and a member of the opposition Parties were the only participants in a committee. I remember them staying for long periods of time to keep the quorum so that important witnesses could be heard. That occurred time after time. Committees work like the House of Commons, if there is a sense of co-operation and willingness to work and if a sense of fairness overrides the business being conducted.
When the committee of chairpersons meets later today, I urge it to consider the important leadership roles exercised by chairpersons. It is the chairperson who creates a certain tone in the committee and sets the atmosphere in which the committee operates. Because the Government always has a majority of members, it can exercise its power and might at its discretion. However, it does so at its peril.
I urge Hon. Members to recognize that if we are to make Parliament work and to make it a productive, positive place in which to conduct the business of the Government, it is important, particularly for those who are in a position to do so,
to ensure a sense of fairness. Not only must there be fairness, but there must be a perception that fairness exists in committee. When one considers the actions taken by government Members and the chairperson who were present this morning, one could question whether or not there was a perceived sense of fairness for the work the committee was attempting to complete earlier today.
In the best spirit of co-operation, fairness and productivity, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to consider communicating in an appropriate way to the committee chairpersons not to dictate how they proceed or conduct the affairs, but simply to remind them of the very responsible role they have in making Parliament and its committees function well.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, however challenging the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I should like to seek the guidance of the Chair on a specific point, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has raised this point under a question of privilege, and then in the following minutes several Members referred to points of order. We then learned from other Members that this matter was raised in a standing committee and led to a vote. As I understand it-and this is where I seek guidance-our Standing Orders do not allow a Member to rise in the House and comment on committee proceedings which led to a vote.
I would suggest that we are now debating a wide-ranging topic, but that the matter has been settled and that, technically, we are not allowed to refer to it.
Since I have few opportunities to do so, I listened to you very closely a moment ago and I always do my best to become familiar with our proceedings here in the House. Anxious to learn as I am, I simply wanted to focus on what appears to me to be a slippery point, namely that Hon. Members rise just about any time on questions of privilege and points or orders on a wide variety of issues, then we spend one or two hours debating practically every incident likely to happen inside and outside the House as well as in committees.
I am trying to learn our Standing Orders. We operate under provisional Standing Orders and I think the Chair should indeed apply them with some flexibility, but not to such an extent that Hon. Members might even rise in the House on points which are out of order. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has more experience than I and he ought to know better.
Hon. Members should not always seek the floor on doubtful questions of privilege precisely because in view of their significance our privileges are to be strictly observed and we much rise only when it is indeed a matter of privilege.
December 9, 1986


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, at first glance this may seem to be something that involves a rather small point to be decided within a committee itself, but I submit that what we are talking about here really involves something that is important to the operation of the House of Commons as a whole. If this House of Commons is to operate increasingly through committees and not to be limited in its work primarily to that which is done within this Chamber, then what happens in committees has to be fair and has to be seen to be fair with respect to all Members of the House.
Committees do not belong to the Party which, for the time being, forms the majority in this House, anymore than the House of Commons itself belongs to members of the Party which, for the time being, has the majority of Members of the House. The results of an election, even an election that gives a Party a substantial majority, does not mean the creation of a one-party state. There is a role in the House of Commons and, therefore, in its committees for all Members of the House, and our parliamentary system gives a special role to those Members forming the Opposition Parties, particularly the members of the second-largest party, that forming the Official Opposition. Any attempt to destroy, weaken or distort that traditional concept is something that could weaken, distort and ultimately destroy the concept of parliamentary government itself.
I can recall over the years in the many committees in which I participated that it was always traditional, and accepted when the Conservatives were on the Opposition side of the House, that their spokesperson always led off, and very soon thereafter, as soon as such a spokesperson was available, a representative of the New Democratic Party was heard. It was never suggested when there was a Liberal majority on the committee that representatives of the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party would not be heard until all Liberals who wanted to speak would be heard. This was never done. It was not even suggested. I have not heard one word why that practice suddenly becomes wrong now that the Conservatives form the Government. If that practice was right when the Conservatives were in Opposition, then it continues to be right today.
I conclude with this point, Mr. Speaker: We are operating now under new rules, but these rules are in place only on a trial basis. They do not extend beyond the end of this year without the consent of this House. I give warning to people on the Government side that if they want those rules to continue they had better give evidence right now that they do not intend to operate this place like the organ of a one-Party state. They better give evidence that they are ready to have this place operate fairly in a way which recognizes the traditional role of Opposition Members or, and I say right now, they will have a very difficult time getting those rules extended. I have put this warning on the record, and I hope the Conservatives pay attention to it.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you know I have only been a Member of this House for some two years. However, during that time I have served as a full-time and regular Member and as a part-time Member on a number of committees of this House standing, legisative and otherwise. If there has been one thing that has struck me as significant in comparison with committees on which I have served in other places in the past dealing with Government affairs and the governing of this country, it is the fact that there seems to be a great tradition in standing committees and other committees of this Parliament not to start on time. For some reason or other people take it as their given right and tradition not to start and not to be there on time or to start on time. As a result, I and other Members of Parliament have had to wait, often for half an hour or three-quarters of an hour, sometimes an hour, before starting a committee meeting because people have not been there to get the meeting under way.
It seems to me that the criticisms we are hearing this afternoon about the breach of a tradition of this House about who speaks or who has the opportunity to ask questions first and last always can be corrected in one very simple way. If all of the members of that particular committee took their responsibilities very seriously and decided to get to the meeting on time, there would be no question about that long-standing tradition being followed.
I would like to concur with the statement of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the House Leader for the Opposition, who says that what has to happen in committee meetings is that things have to be done in a fair way and in a way that seems to be fair. I would suggest that if all Members of Parliament, including Members of both Opposition Parties, got to committee meetings on time there would be no question, either in the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration or any other, about the fairness of the allotment of questions. I urge all Members to get to committee meetings on time.
I know that the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who chaired the committee about which we are talking this afternoon would be happy to let the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) ask questions after the Hon. Member for the Liberal Party, as long as they were both there to start their questioning at the appointed time.


John R. Rodriguez: I was there.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is concerned that discussion of this point, which is important, as Hon. Members have heard, not go on for too long. I will recognize one more Member. The Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) has been trying to get the floor.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat any of the arguments which have already been made. I wholeheartedly support the contention of my hon. friend from Nickel Belt that the Parties must be recognized in

December 9, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
committees. Comments made by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) caused me to rise. Although he did not say it specifically, he came rather close to expressing a wish that we had a congressional committee system within a parliamentary system. I understand that yearning because I have been so tempted myself on occasion. However, I say very simply that it will not work. As long as we have a parliamentary system, our committees must respect that parliamentary system and recognize that it cannot be congressional in nature. That leads me to my point.
Because our committees are parliamentary in nature, we cannot impose upon them a system which allows for the precedence of seniority in the recognition of members or for members to be recognized in order of regions. We must always begin with the recognition of the three political Parties, the Official Opposition, the Government, and then the New Democratic Party, in that order, or a slight variation thereof as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) suggested.
As much as some Members may wish to have a different system for committees, it will not work. We are all part and parcel of the same system. We must learn to live with it. This is the parliamentary system and in the parliamentary system the political Parties must be recognized as they are in the House under your leadership, Sir. That is much more than a tradition. It is the heart of the parliamentary system itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated that I would hear only one more Member. However, I did not realize that the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) had been seeking the floor. I think all Hon. Members would agree that he should be heard.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with you that we have had quite a conversation on this subject. I do not think for a minute that it is a question of privilege, but it is an issue which is deeply felt by several people.
I rise mainly to confirm what the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) said. He chaired the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for nine years and unfailingly recognized me first. I had not thought it was because I was a Conservative. I thought it was because of the high quality of my questions which started the committee hearings on a high intellectual level.
However, we must be fair. I agree with the protests that have been made that we should alternate from side to side. However, with such a majority in one Party it would mean that the fifth Conservative has to wait while three Liberals speak and three New Democrats speak before he gets his first chance. I think many chairmen have worked out a very satisfactory system. The Official Opposition is recognized first, the Government second and the New Democratic Party third. Three or four government Members are then recognized. That is a reasonable compromise. I think this has been a worthwhile discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank all Hon. Members for their interventions. While the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was making his remarks I indicated that I did not think this was a question of privilege. However, I do take this as a grievance and a serious matter. I have listened carefully to what has been said.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Victoria for his comments because those Members who have had a lot of experience in this Chamber have something very important to contribute on these matters. That applies to some other Hon. Members who have spoken, especially the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I believe it is appropriate that I make it clear that there is no question of privilege. However, I return to the commitment I made some minutes ago. I will draft an appropriate letter setting out the basic things that have been said in this debate. I will send that letter to committees and ask them if they would please address the matter.
The Chair has had occasion, and probably will again for some time into the future, to remark that the spirit of reform which has made changes in the committees is of great interest and importance to all Hon. Members. There is naturally a tendency, when matters cannot be settled in committee, to bring them to the floor. The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) said that he wished some guidance from the Chair on these matters. I can guide the Hon. Members and others by saying that in a strictly legalistic sense perhaps the rule has been abridged a little this afternoon through a lengthy discussion. However, as Hon. Members know, we do not rule this place completely and strictly in a legalistic sense. The Chair is guided by the sentiments and expressions of intention of Members in the Chamber.
I hope Hon. Members will feel that I have paid attention to the sense in the Chamber that this is an important matter and that Hon. Members wished to be heard. The Chair will do its best to bring the concerns expressed to the attention of the appropriate committee chairmen and others. I hope those actions will help all Members to do the work which must be done.
I hope that there will be no need for anyone in this Chamber to give warnings about the possible extension of many of the rules. With direct reference to what the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said, it is very important that Hon. Members come to agreement on these rules. I think all Hon. Members would agree with the Chair that it would be a step backward if we were to enter the last period of provisional rules feeling that the success which might have been made of the reforms has not met all expectations.
The Chair is cognizant of what has been said. Again in reference to what was said by the Hon. Member for Bellechasse, there is a time when the Chair allows some latitude and I believe that this afternoon was an appropriate occasion for it. I thank all Hon. Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 9, 1986