1986-02-14

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), seeing his popularity and that of his Party decline on a daily basis, has decided that he has had enough of bad news. From now on it will be good news, even if he has to make it up himself. He no longer wants reported by the Parliamentary Press Gallery how incompetent are his cabinet Ministers and how terribly annoyed he is that the press will not partake of breakfast at Brian's. From now on the message will be brought directly to the regional media, bypassing the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
Over the last few days cabinet Ministers have been seen ducking the media, leaving the House by the side door, the back door, or a crack in the wall-everything except the front door. The assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) has even sent a letter to the local media explaining how they could benefit from media clips directly-not that second-hand stuff from the Parliamentary Press Gallery, in other words, the unbiased truth according to Brian.
Lately the Prime Minister extolled the virtues of the U.S. system where the Leader of the Government does not answer to the legislature at all. The Tories during the election campaign promised that they would be accountable. A little more than a year later, Ministers do not answer the press, the Prime Minister avoids answering in the House, and substance has been replaced with pre-recorded clips to be sent to the regions of Canada.
Perhaps the most interesting development in the media strategy is the fact that the Prime Minister, who does not have time to be accountable to Parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the death of Drina Joubert is being examined at an inquest which opened on
Wednesday in Toronto. Drina Joubert died on December 16 of cold and exposure in the cab of an abandoned truck in downtown Toronto. Toronto residents, who are shocked and shamed by her death and the three other deaths this year from exposure of homeless people, have formed a coalition called "Housing not Hostels". The concern is for the 6,000 to 10,000 homeless people in Toronto who cannot find accommodation now that the low rental places have been converted or destroyed. The coalition organized a march on Tuesday to City Hall to remind the public about these unnecessary deaths. It was led by several leading church people of the city of Toronto. The coalition is appearing at the current inquest, through a lawyer, in order to cross-examine witnesses, because of its conviction that it was not exposure that killed Drina Joubert but the impossibility of her getting a decent home in which to live.
Hostels are not the answer, they are the last resort. They give no privacy, no room to store belongings, they are overcrowded and there is no security while staying there. What they are demanding is that this Government and the other Governments of Canada provide housing, not hostels.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the lack of recognition in Canada of our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. In most nations, a country's early leaders are honoured through national holidays or the naming of a prominent landmark in the capital city after them. In the case of Sir John we have neither. There have been several unsuccessful Bills introduced since 1979 to designate a national holiday in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald. The failure to reach agreement on these Bills may have had something to do with the fact that no one could agree on the exact date of Sir John's birthday, which is either January 10 or January 11, 1815.
As the Member of Parliament for Ottawa West I have the honour of representing essentially the same area that Sir John did toward the end of his political career. It appears to me that, if we cannot agree on a holiday, surely we could agree on designating an Ottawa landmark in his honour. We have, for example, Colonel By Drive in the city of Ottawa. In my opinion the time has come to start thinking about naming one

February 14, 1986
of Ottawa's other federally administered roadways after Sir John A. Macdonald.
I therefore call upon the National Capital Commission, at the earliest possible opportunity, to designate the scenic western portion of the Ottawa River Parkway, mostly located in my riding and Sir John A's old riding of Carleton, as the "Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway". At the same time 1 would suggest to the Commission that it consider naming the eastern portion of the Parkway after that other great Father of Confederation, Sir Georges Etienne Cartier.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would advise the Hon. Member his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


YOUNG PEOPLE'S NEED FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to draw the attention of the House to the conclusions of a study made public by the Department of National Health and Welfare on February 6 last. This study by a Queen's University social programs assessment group focuses on the troublesome problems experienced by Canadian youths. Among other findings, Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 per cent of young Canadians aged 9 to 15 do not eat properly; 25 per cent of 15-year-old teenagers smoke cigarettes and 30 per cent of them regularly drink five or more glasses of alcoholic beverages at a stretch. In addition, Mr. Speaker, 10 per cent of youngsters aged 12 smoke cigarettes, and 20 per cent of 15-year-old youths admit using cannabis.
Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that it is a social problem which concerns us all. Governments must co-operate and work together with health organizations, parents and school authorities, but it is even more imperative and urgent for each and everyone of us to do the utmost so that our troubled youths might live in a healthier environment and enjoy a better life.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The question is how to throw away $30,000 of taxpayers' money? The answer is, it is very simple. You just give it to the Grand Canal Company to conduct a study on water diversions and water exports. This is the strange way the Government goes about cutting the deficit.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) cannot hide behind the excuse that this money was given by a regional office without his knowledge.
The Minister is responsible for the operations of the National Research Council. If he does not want to throw away $30,000, if he does not want to squander taxpayers' money, if he really is serious about cutting the deficit, then he has a clear choice and the power to make the necessary decision: to rescind the $30,000 grant and to ensure that the National Research Council, or any other agency under his responsibility, will not squander money on studies dealing with the export and diversions of our water resources. The message should be loud and clear. There should be no wasting of public funds to study projects that will wreak havoc on the ecology, on native lifestyles, and on Canada's long-term water interests.


PROTECTION OF RIGHTS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, five years ago today, women from all parts of the country came to Ottawa, spontaneously and with great enthusiasm, to show their interest in improving women's legal rights as they have evolved since the suffragette movement.
By their sheer numbers, they showed politicians how determined they were to ensure the Constitution would be an effective tool for the advancement of the status of women.

We in the New Democratic Party are proud to say that we worked together with the women of Canada to ensure that Section 28 was included in the Constitution. We are continuing to speak up with the women of Canada to make the legal promise of equality an equality in fact. Unfortunately, even the progress toward formal legal equality has been painfully slow. Much remains to be done.
On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the ad hoc conference on the Constitution, we are challenging the Government to provide stable funding to the Legal Education and Action Fund, implement the recommendations of Equality for All, establish an ongoing equality audit of laws and practices, give more importance to judicial education on equality, and appoint more women judges. I was part of that movement five years ago here in Parliament and I hope we will be seeing many more women who were part of the women's move to Ottawa here with us in the House.
February 14, 1986


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to announce in this House that an age-old problem with the White Bear Indian Band in Saskatchewan has been resolved.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and Chief Brian Standingready, accompanied by 12 advisers, signed an agreement on Indian land claims representing a total value of more than $19 million.

The original grievance arises from alleged irregularities in the sale of former reserve lands of the Pheasant Rump and Ocean Man Bands when they were amalgamated with the White Bear Band in 1901.

The settlement shows the federal Government's good faith in its negotiations with official band representatives.
I want to congratulate the Minister and the band leaders on concluding this agreement.

As part of the settlement, the band will reacquire part of the former reserve lands when property known as the Lee's Ranch, comprising some 12,000 acres, is added to the reserve holdings of the White Bear Band. This land, coupled with a sizable cash compensation and other benefits, will pave the way for the White Bear Band to channel its skills and energies into achieving its goals of self-government and economic independence.


THE BALTIC STATES
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 1918, Lithuania became an independent kingdom, and by November of the same year Lithuania became an independent republic. For years following this historic declaration, Lithuania resisted attacks by Bolshevik troops and mercenary forces.
The years that followed were hard for this tiny nation that experienced the ravages of war and dislocation of its economy. Yet, despite this hardship, Lithuania maintained her dignity and resolve. By 1940, however, the Soviet Union overran the three Baltic States and forcibly annexed them to the Soviet Union. The popular Soviet version of these events is that the peoples of the Baltic States joined voluntarily. Historical fact is that this revision of history in Soviet textbooks is nothing more than a hoax.
Oral Questions
To Canadians of Lithuanian origin, this day commemorates the brief period of democracy enjoyed by their homeland. This day also gives reason for all Canadians to recall just how precious the gift of democracy is and how swiftly it can be lost. Let us join with Canadians of Lithuanian origin to commemorate this day and to pay tribute to their national courage and resilience. Freedom and democracy are non-negotiable commodities and they must be restored wherever they are denied.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, today Manitobans learned that the Manitoba Sugar Company, the only operational sugar refinery in western Canada, will lay off 70 of its 95 employees unless the federal Government announces a new sugar policy. Mr. Bill Siemans, President of the Canadian Sugar-beet Growers Association, has stated unequivocally that time is running out. If sugar-beet growers do not have an answer by March 1, the whole industry will be in jeopardy.
In western Canada this industry provides close to 1,600 jobs. Over the years growers have invested heavily in specialized machinery to make their industry efficient and productive.
The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) has had over a year to find an answer to this issue. Yet his office can give the sugar-beet growers or refineries absolutely no assurance that there will be a policy decision by March 1. By this inaction, the Minister and his Government threaten the livelihood of hundreds of communities in western Canada. The western Ministers of the Government obviously do not have the clout to get a sugar policy through Cabinet.
All Members on this side of the House call upon the Government to give this issue immediate consideration and announce a decision before the Budget so that we can continue to have a thriving sugar-beet industry in western Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The prime rate is at 13 per cent, nine percentage points above the rate of inflation. Canadians want to know what is going on- small businesses, farmers, and people entering into mortgages. My colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry told me that a restaurateur in his riding has to serve 800 more breakfasts per

February 14, 1986
Oral Questions
week to pay the costs on his renewed mortgage. The Minister said yesterday that interest rates would return to normal levels. What, in the Minister's view, is a normal level? When will we see it?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have commented on this matter in the House before, as Hon. Members well know. I am not able to be precise about it, as the Hon. Member also knows, since he has tried this type of question on me before.
The point I would like to make to the Hon. Member is that once we are able to achieve stability we will return to more normal levels. That will be achieved once we try to withdraw ourselves from some of the instability in the international market, about which the Hon. Member is only too well aware. Canada will always be a part of that because of the open economy which we have.


PRIME RATE IN UNITED STATES
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the United States is certainly a big part of the international market. The prime rate in that country has held steady at 9.5 per cent, some 3.5 percentage points below the rate in Canada. With the size of the U.S. deficit and with the inflation rate there approximately the same as here, why is the Government inflicting this interest rate hardship on Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are two ways which we can go here. We could allow the speculative pressures to take a much heavier toll on the market-place, which would lead to a higher level of inflation. That in itself would lead to a permanent level of higher interest rates than we have been experiencing prior to this upset in the market-place. What we have done is we have taken short-term action in order to put things back on a more normal and more stable basis which, I am sure, will come about in due course. I am sure the Hon. Member will be able to display some patience.


BANK RATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, speculation is the result of a lack of confidence in the Government's policies.
If the Minister is so confident about his policies, could he give the House the assurance today that he will keep the bank rate from going up again next week, and that the rate will be allowed to fall immediately after the Budget is brought down?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the greatest confidence in the policies of our Government, and I have here a press release in which this Government
announces the creation of 2,500 jobs in the Montreal area at SPAR Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney, and that is our Government's policy.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS RENEGOTIATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago in the House, the same Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister were bragging that the prime rate had gone down since they came to power. After 16 or 18 months in power, it is back to where it was in September 1984. All interest rates in Canada have gone up, while in the United States they have remained stable. Only one rate did not go up and that is the interest paid on Canada Savings Bonds.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance when he intends to adjust the interest rate on Canada Savings Bonds. This morning we heard that more than 1 billion dollars' worth had been redeemed last week. Why penalize Canadians who opted for savings bonds and are now being forced to redeem them and buy Treasury bills with a return of 3.5 per cent more?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 share the Hon. Member's concern about the small investors who have put their savings into Canada Savings Bonds. This is something we are looking at at the present time. As we see how things develop, we may well have an announcement to make.


INTEREST RATES ON SAVINGS BONDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary. Does the Minister realize that every day the Minister delays adjusting the interest on savings bonds means he will have to add 300 million more to his weekly Treasury bills this week, on which the interest is very high, nearly 12 per cent? Why doesn't the Minister announce today he will adjust the interest rate on savings bonds, which would mean a saving for the Treasury and at the same time would give Canadian taxpayers who have opted for this type of investment a little more equity in the system?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I can add much to the first answer I gave to the hon. gentleman. It is basically the same question.


INCREASED INTEREST RATE SOUGHT FOR CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the astronomical change in interest rates as well. The Minister
February 14, 1986

knows that the banks increased their prime yesterday to 13 per cent, which is the highest in 17 months. That means that the Government is now hitting homeowners, farmers, and those right across the country who are looking for jobs. What happens to the holders of Canada Savings Bonds? Given the fact that tens of thousands of Canadians bought those bonds in good faith and they are now cashing them in at the rate of $1 billion a week, will the Minister announce today an interest rate increase for the holders of Canada Savings Bonds?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Hon. Member prepared his question before he heard the previous question.


John Edward Broadbent: No, not at all.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The question is identical; the answer is identical.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that the answer is identical but, as someone has just pointed out, he did not answer the other question.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCE INTEREST RATE CHANGE
John Edward Broadbent: The Government has already hurt thousands of Canadians because of its high interest rate policy. It is now taking this irresponsibilty out on the holders of Canada Savings Bonds. Will the Minister give us a commitment by the end of the day that the Government will announce some change in the interest rate for the holders of Canada Savings Bonds?


Mr. Benjamin:: Say yes, and sit down.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have responded in what I thought was a pretty full way. I indicated that 1 had the same concern expressed by the hon. gentleman about the small investors who are holding Canada Savings Bonds. As we study this situation over the next little while, we may well have an announcement to make. In the meantime, surely the Hon. Member can give me some time to review the matter in view of the current market conditions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if he is not going to give us any early action which will help the holders of Canada Savings Bonds, perhaps the Minister of Finance can deal with another question.


COST TO ECONOMY OF INCREASED INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister of Finance has said for weeks now that this constant increase in interest rates was simply a matter of a "blip", a temporary action by the Government.


An Hon. Member:: Question.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Since for at least six weeks we have had a remarkable and alarming increase in interest rates, is the Minister of Finance now prepared to tell the people of Canada exactly what it is going to cost us?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There will be a Budget which will come down-1 think we have a date and time now-at 4.30 p.m. on February 26.


Lloyd Axworthy: I hope so. Will you be here for it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would encourage the Hon. Member to be in his seat in the House so he can receive all of the-


John Edward Broadbent: You will be here for it, eh?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, I will be here for it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Don't forget, now.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: They are just worried because they are not all there.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member must realize-and I am sure he does-that this Budget is not going to be an easy Budget for us all. It is going to be a Budget which faces up to the realities of the country, realities which previous Governments have ignored, but realities which must be faced if we are going to have a healthy economy and if we are going to get the level of interest rates back down to the level which I think the Hon. Member would like to see.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. Two members of the Forget Commission have now publicly disagreed with her unfair changes to the UIC regulations which deny benefits to early retirees looking for new jobs. Several members of her own caucus, including two senior cabinet Ministers, disagree with her stand.
Does she not realize that every day she lets her pride stand in the way of withdrawing those unfair regulations, the more she is hurting Armed Forces and RCMP retirees, as well as others in the public and private sector forced to look for new jobs in mid-life? Why does she not withdraw these unfair regulations now? Where is the justice?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is sitting on the opposition side of the House because of what happened to this country during many years of Liberal mismanagement. There are 211 active Members on this side, and they are making a tremendous contribution in the views they put forward and in the way they represent their constituencies. They were elected

February 14, 1986
Oral Questions
to come to grips with the economic mess this country was in, and they are doing that.
Not all the decisions to be taken are easy ones. Not all our decisions will be easily acceptable to Members of the Opposition. However, we are trying to turn this economic mess around and we are making gains. Jobs are being created and confidence is being restored. Unemployment is down, and that is the best way to come to grips with the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a speech.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: She is not listening to any of those Members, Mr. Speaker. She brought in these unfair regulations before she appointed the Forget Commission and it is equally valid for her to withdraw them while the Commission is still sitting.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister really want to go down in history as the one who cheated Canadian Armed Forces retirees and others in the public and private sectors who have paid premiums over many years? Is that her idea of justice? Why does she not listen to her own back-benchers? She does not even listen to her cabinet colleagues.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to go down in history as a member of a Liberal Government which saddled the children and grandchildren of this country with a debt they will never be able to pay. That is the kind of legacy left by that Member's Government.
We look forward to the recommendations of the Forget Commission. We have asked them to look at all of the perceived inequities in the unemployment insurance program. We are prepared to receive those recommendations at any time. However, I will forbear to ask when was the last time that the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice ever met and discussed matters with the Leader of the Opposition.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We have learned that Canada Savings Bonds holders are cashing them in at the rate of $1 billion a week. He says he is going to look into that, study it and so on. The Minister acted very quickly to burn speculators, so why does he not act quickly to save CSB holders rather than simply let them fry out there?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that kind of rhetoric really does not do anyone any good. I indicated to his Leader that this matter is under active review. That is the way it is going to stand.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let us remove the rhetoric. What on earth is there to review? What on earth is he looking into? What on earth is there to study? People are cashing in their bonds at the rate of $1 billion a week. They were prepared to invest in this country and now he is hanging them out to dry. What is there to study?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has his figures a little bit wrong. He said $1 billion a week. That is not quite an accurate figure. There are some people who are cashing in their savings bonds. We are looking at the impact of that. We are also looking at the impact of the lower than market rate in relation to the smaller holders of Canada Savings Bonds who do not normally switch. We want to maintain their loyalty to this particular instrument. However, when that decision is made we want to be sure that it is the right one.


EAST COAST OFFSHORE DRILLING
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That Minister and the Minister of Finance applied pressure to the consortium of Husky and Bow Valley to reduce drilling under the Petroleum Incentive Program from ten wells to seven wells off the East Coast of Canada. Through their manipulations, the two Ministers ensured that only two of these wells would be applicable under the grandfather provisions of the Petroleum Incentive Program. Will the Minister state now that all ten wells which Husky-Bow Valley proposed to drill are eligible for funding under the Petroleum Incentives Program and that the Government will approve that funding?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is before a committee of the House, so I do not know whether you wish me to respond at this time. At no time has the Government asked any company operating in Canada's frontiers to reduce its activities, as the Member well knows. We are discussing with the company which wells will be eligible for grandfathering during the remaining period of the PIP regime.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government is retroactively applying the provisions that it wants to implement under the Petroleum Incentives Program and is contradicting testimony. Will the Minister not admit that while she was telling Canadians that she was interested in fostering exploration and development on the
February 14, 1986

Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS
East Coast of Canada, she was working secretly to cut back on drilling and exploration?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is getting carried away. He knows better than anyone else that the reason for the slackening of activity off the East Coast has been the outlook for oil pricing and the fact that the geology has been poor. It was only under the Liberal Government that companies were encouraged to drill for dollars rather than geology. Our regime encourages them to actually look for oil and gas.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She said a few moments ago in the House that she is looking forward to the report of the Forget Commission. One of the commissioners, Mr. Roy Bennett, said that the recent Government cut in unemployment insurance benefits for people on pension income was "not well founded". Since the commission has already decided that, why does the Minister not do the right thing and at least put a temporary freeze on this cut-back?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions in the House, the decision with regard to this regulation was taken 15 months ago, long before the Forget Commission was set up. Subsequent to that we have recommended to the Forget Commission that it look at all aspects of premiums, contributions, including who pays them and under what circumstances, and to give us its recommendations. I look forward to receiving the recommendations of the Forget Commission. When the Commission is prepared to make its recommendations, 1 will be glad to receive them.


EFFECT ON PENSIONERS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely inconsistent. The Minister is saying that she is prepared to forget the Forget Commission on this particular issue. Therefore, will she come with me tomorrow to my constituency office in Vancouver, where I am having an open house, where there are many pensioners who are affected by this terrible change? Would she come and face those people directly and listen to them?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, under most circumstances I would be glad to accompany the Hon. Member. However, I already have a very full schedule for tomorrow. Perhaps he and I can get together at some future time. This being St. Valentine's Day, perhaps he will write me a note to that effect, and I will be glad to take it into consideration.


INSTALLATION OF RECORDING SYSTEM IN LIBERAL CAUCUS ROOM
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Public Works. Prior to asking the question, I am sure that all Members would want to join me in wishing the Minister of Public Works a very speedy recovery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: My question for the Acting Minister is with regard to the tampering with the electronic system in the Liberal caucus room. The Minister was notified over a week ago, both orally and in writing by myself, of the request for the production of documents pertaining to the installation, corrections, and alterations to that system by EMI Connors Electronics Limited. Does the Minister intend to comply with this request? If so, when, and if not, why not?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member could address that question and that request to the person responsible for these facilities, the Speaker of the House of Commons.


INQUIRY WHETHER DEPARTMENT HAS AYOUB REPORT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, and I hope the Minister will listen carefully. I asked for papers in the possession of the Department of Public Works, and only those. Would the Minister inform the House whether his Department has the Ayoub Report? Does he have any other reports on the installation? Does he intend to table them in the House? My question is quite straightforward: Yes or no?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are fully aware of who is responsible for those facilities. I again suggest that the Hon. Member ask the Speaker of the House for that information.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government's Green Paper on international relations stated that Canadians have a profound interest in peace in the Middle East, and stressed our potential mediating role in that region. How can we possibly maintain credibility in that crucial mediating role if we allow a West German company to

February 14, 1986
Oral Questions
do here what it cannot do at home, to export arms to Arab states in the Middle East region?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in his preamble and question the hon. gentleman is leaving an absolutely false impression, for whatever motive he may have. The fact of the matter is that, pursuant to initiatives taken by the Government, as announced by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, several hundred inquiries have been received with respect to the establishment of businesses in the Cape Breton area. All of these are being considered. Thyssen is one of them.


GOVERNMENT'S JOB-CREATION POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, why would such a proposal even be considered? The Government should realize that this kind of unstable military production, which is vulnerable to changes in world politics, is exactly the wrong way to develop the solid, long-term jobs that Cape Bretoners need in the future.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member again leaves a totally false impression through the manner in which he framed that question. He also displays a rather broad ignorance of the beneficial results that are flowing from the position taken by the Government, announced by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, to bring employment, jobs, and business activity to a part of the country which is sorely in need of them.


BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF DEREGULATION POLICY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On November 1, 1985, the federal Government reached an agreement with the producing provinces on the pricing and marketing of natural gas. Could the Minister inform Canadians and Quebecers whether her new policy on deregulation will soon start producing results?
[DOT] (U40)


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond to the Hon. Member for Drummond by saying that consumers are benefiting under our new agreement because, as contracts come up for renewal, buyers and sellers can negotiate new pricing. When Mr. Ciaccia, the Energy Minister of Quebec, was here yesterday to sign the $31 million conservation program between our two Governments, he told me how pleased he was that the savings to Quebecers already amount to millions and
millions of dollars. 1 am glad that the constituents of the Hon. Member for Drummond are sharing in that saving because it was this Government that financed the gas lateral in his riding.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Contrary to the bland assurances of his Leader, the Minister has finally admitted that a free trade deal with the United States will affect thousands of workers in every region of Canada. We still do not have the hard information upon which to base the kind of judgments and negotiations to make a proper adjustment.
Is the Minister prepared to tell us how many workers will be affected, what industries, and what regions? When will the Minister and the Government give us the facts about the dislocations and provide the House with the information we need to give proper planning for workers in this country?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's preamble is as inaccurate as the headline in The Toronto Star on which he bases his question. I can tell the Hon. Member where the dislocations will be. There are estimates which show that for every 10 per cent that Canada loses in its ability to export to the United States of America, some
250,000	Canadians men and women will be out of jobs. The people who want us to maintain the status quo will cause that to happen. If we lose markets to the United States, the jobs of some 2.5 million Canadians who depend on exports to the United States will be in jeopardy. I am sure the Hon. Member does not want that to happen.


Lloyd Axworthy: In case the Minister has not noticed, this past year we had a $20 billion surplus with the United States. That is a pretty good record and I think we are in danger of losing that because of the inaction of the Government.


ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister provide for the development of a major task force of labour and business to begin looking at the potential job loss and preparing proper adjustment programs so that workers will not be the victims of the Government's actions?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the exact committee about which he talks already happens to be established under my colleague, the Minister for International Trade.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that in 1983 and 1984, through the inaction of the previous Liberal Government, some 86 single-industry towns shut down in Canada. Our Govern-
February 14, 1986

ment will take action to enhance trade with the United States and other countries in the world because Canadian jobs depend on that.


AGRICULTURE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns threatened lay-offs in the sugar-beet industry in Manitoba.
The Government promised a sweetener pricing policy to farmers growing sugar-beets and corn, which was to have been brought forward by last September. The delay has already resulted in 70 lay-offs, with 125 more later this year.
Can the Minister account for that delay that has brought such insecurity to farmers and workers in Manitoba? When will he be announcing that pricing policy?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member was going to rise in the House and join with thousands of other farmers across the country in congratulating the Government on the action that it took a couple of weeks ago in delivering the long-term dairy policy.
The difficulties in the sugar-beet industry are complex and complicated. They are somewhat similar to those complications that are found in the dairy industry. Therefore, if we are going to deliver a good and effective policy we must take the time to consult. We must make certain that we get the policy right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not know that dairy products were being made out of sugar-beets, but I guess that is what the Minister of Agriculture is going to arrange.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since farmers will not be planting sugar-beets and corn until they have that pricing policy, will the Minister make a commitment today that he will announce that pricing policy so that farmers can make their plans and workers can save their jobs?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member does not fully understand the sugar-beet industry. If he did he would know that sugar-beets are a very valuable feed source for cattle, including dairy cattle.
He should realize that there is no question about the 25,000 corn growers throughout Ontario and Quebec. They will certainly be planting a crop this year, but if it were not for the action taken by the Government last year there would not have been a 1985 beet crop planted in Manitoba and Quebec.
Oral Questions
We are very concerned about the well-being of the 1,400 beet producers left in Quebec and western Canada. We will take the time to make certain that we get the policy right.


FINANCE
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his State of the Union speech, the President of the United States indicated a move toward a fixed exchange rate as a significant movement toward reform and stability in the way nations treat their currencies. The United States has been co-ordinating economic and monetary policy among its major trading partners since last fall. At what stage are the negotiations, and will we be moving toward a fixed exchange rate and bum the speculators?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the ultimate resolution to the matter of fixed exchange rates to which the Hon. Member refers is some way down the road. We are looking for a greater degree of stability in the exchange markets, and the benefits for Canada would be obvious.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member that we must deal with more than just the exchange rate problem. We must address the fundamental problems that face industrial economies, including the imbalance in the fiscal positions and the rigidities in market systems such as is the case in the European countries, and Japan to a lesser extent.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of Defence. More than four months ago the Minister promised in the House to meet immediately with the president of the Society of Military Spouses. He has not only refused to meet with them, he has been instrumental in blocking a grant that would have been coming their way from the Secretary of State. Why is the Minister afraid of Lucy Richardson and the military spouses of this country?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Mrs. Richardson phoned my office and said that she was prepared to attend with her lawyer to discuss a settlement of the lawsuit. Given that the Minister of Justice is in fact a party to that lawsuit, the legal advice from my officials in the Department was that it would be most inappropriate to discuss any settlement since the action was initiated by OSSMN and we feel that there is no basis at all for that particular action.

February 14, 1986
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mrs. Richardson happens to be in the gallery today. What the Minister has just said is an absolute lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: How long have you been here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. First, reference to the gallery is out of order, and, second, the Hon. Member knows that she must withdraw what she just said.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. It is an absolute untruth, and I would like to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No. The Hon. Member said she withdrew that, then replaced it so that it was not exactly a withdrawal. I simply ask the Member to withdraw that, put no further preamble of that kind, and simply put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I withdraw.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET SOCIETY'S REPRESENTATIVES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister is mistaken, will he meet with Lucy Richardson after Question Period today along with representatives of the military spouses who are here in good faith to try to negotiate an agreement in anticipation of the response of the Charter?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of doing so and I am not aware of circumstances where Hon. Members, in view of a declarative statement, would in fact make that accusation. I would ask here to provide some evidence. I can provide evidence on my side of staff members who can verify the statement I just made.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: She has withdrawn that?


Harvie Andre: No, she replaced it. I resent that comment from that Member who ought to know better. She has been here a few months now.


Mr. Gauthier:: You don't need to lecture.


Harvie Andre: Let me say that I cannot discuss something which is sub judice; I just cannot discuss it. She ought to know that. It is clearly stated in our rules. Perhaps she might spend the break reading them.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the contribution which Canada can make to ending the nuclear arms race. I am asking this question on behalf of Paul
Gross of Carleton University in my riding, and on behalf of millions of young Canadians from coast to coast. Will the Government support a national referendum asking Canadians whether Canada should become a nuclear weapons free zone, thereby ending all research, transport, testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons systems and their components within our boundaries?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the House has addressed itself to that question before. As a matter of fact, if I recall it correctly, it was on the basis of a motion which was placed on the Order Paper by the New Democratic Party, and the House expressed its view on that motion.


DECLARATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the encouragement which the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament has given to countries to declare themselves nuclear weapons free zones, and since 50 municipalities across Canada, and now the Manitoba Legislature, by unanimous resolution have declared themselves nuclear weapons free zones, will be Government go a step further and allow Canadians, through a national referendum, to say what they think in order to declare Canada to be a nuclear weapons free zone?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member enjoys the support of his Party, which I am sure he does, all he need do, in order to bring that question to this national forum once again, is to place another motion on the Order Paper addressing that subject so that the House can express itself.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
This week, the Quebec caucus received an impressive amount of formal representations from the Conseil du patronat du Quebec. The message was quite clear. The Council is very proud of our economic achievements, and it says that the only way to continue in this vein is to control the deficit and bring it down even more.
Is the Minister of Finance in a position to give the Conseil du patronat du Quebec the assurance today that this is what is going to happen?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a Budget that will have to "make ends
February 14, 1986

meet". In this Budget we are going to face up to our responsibilities. We will continue along the same path we took with our economic message in November 1984 and in the May Budget. We will not flinch from this task, Mr. Speaker, because we have major problems to deal with in connection with our fiscal position, and we will have to deal with these problems in the next Budget.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday, when you met with your Quebec counterpart, the Quebec Minister of Energy suggested that Petro-Canada make arrangements to have the surplus that cannot be refined by the Petro-Canada refinery in Montreal East, refined by the Gulf refinery, instead of diverting the surplus to Ontario.
Could the Minister give the House the assurance that she will take action along those lines right away?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, yes, yesterday I met with the Energy Minister from Quebec and we discussed a number of issues in common. He discussed the possibility-but there was no assurance-that there might be a buyer for the refinery. I said that I would do whatever 1 could to be helpful. Since no deal has been concluded, it would be premature for me to say what role Petro-Canada could play.


MONTREAL GULF REFINERY-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF JOBS
Jean-Claude Malépart: 1
have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether the Minister realizes that the Gulf refinery employees, the Government of Quebec, the people of Montreal East, and the Lavalin and SNC companies are actively trying to save 450 jobs? Could the Minister inform the House why she and her Government are not urging the management of Ultramar to sell the refinery to prospective buyers in order to save jobs and save oil consumption in Quebec?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows there is no way the Government of Canada can enforce a company to do anything, such as he suggests, it does not wish to do. I want to remind him that today, in Montreal, our Government has announced plans for 2,500 new jobs in the Montreal region,
Oral Questions
under programs administered by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and by the President of the Treasury Board.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. Considering that Canada has a declared policy of not allowing arms exports to countries at war or in imminent danger of war, which include Jordan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq and other Arab countries, will the Minister of Defence release details of the Thyssen proposal for manufacturing arms in Cape Breton and exporting to those countries and also the General Motors proposal?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wishes to familiarize himself with the activities of the company which he mentioned, I am sure the public relations department within that corporation would be only too happy to provide him with the fullest information on the range of its activities throughout the world.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Minister knows that the Government is engaged in discussions on a matter which concerns foreign policy, I will ask him again. If he won't release the information directly, will he refer the subject matter, that is the Thyssen proposal and the GM proposal to the Canadian Government, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the very far-reaching nature of the changes which were made to our Standing Orders last night, that option would be available to the appropriate legislative committee.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As the summit meeting between the Prime Minister and President Reagan in Washington approaches, and as domestic car emissions contribute to the problematic question of acid rain, could the Minister assure the House that the Government will keep its promise of having new emission control systems in place for the car industry so that for the 1988 models which
10828

February 14, 1986
Oral Questions
will come on the market in September, 1987, these will be cleaner in reality rather than just a promise?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. With all due respect to him, I think some of the statements he has been making outside the House have been misguided. The policy all along has been to introduce in September, 1987, for the 1988 model year, the new regime for exhaust emission controls. As it turns out, some automobile companies are introducing their new models for 1988, not in September but in January. In any event, the policy stands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for foreign affairs, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A dangerous new level of war has been reached between Iran and Iraq with Iran's latest offensive and incursion into Iraq's sovereign territory. The offensive has the potential of escalating and endangering peace and security in a vitally strategic region known for its resources. Recognizing Iraq's readiness to end the war in a peaceful manner, will the Minister express Canada's position on the offensive and call for a negotiated settlement under the auspices of the United Nations?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, Canada has repeatedly called for an early end to the conflict between Iran and Iraq. The heavy loss of life and destruction resulting from recent violent fighting reinforce the need for both parties to begin to work immediately to achieve a peaceful settlement. We, as a Government, strongly endorse the UN Secretary General's call of February 11 that concerted and determined efforts be made to end that war, and we urge Iran and Iraq to take advantage of the good offices of the Secretary General.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my short question is directed to the Minister of Employment. Is the Minister aware that approximately 10,000 people, because of the recent change of pension income, are now receiving cheques in the minimum amount of $1 a week, and that it costs the Department $1.56 to process a $1 cheque to each of those 10,000 Canadians, and that the cost of actually processing it after it is cashed is $1.10? Is the Minister aware of that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that many inequities exist in the Unemployment Insurance program. That is why the administration of the program is now being examined by the Forget Commission of Inquiry. We expect that there will be a much better mode of operation resulting from the Inquiry. I am also aware that during the time that that Member sat on this side of the House some 27,000 more people in Newfoundland were unemployed as a result of the activities of the Government of which he was a part. Since we have come to office 10,000 fewer people are on the unemployment roll.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, February 13, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on Thursday, February 13, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) declined to answer a question posed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on the grounds that the matter in question is sub judice. The question related to the status of military spouses. I presume that the Hon. Minister declined to answer the question on the grounds that the matter of the status of military spouses has been brought before the courts for a declaration that the Government's policy towards military spouses was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Beauchesne's Citation 337 says:
(1)	No settled practice-
Unlike the practice in criminal cases.
-has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others.
(2)	In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage.
A few weeks ago we expressed concern that a Minister commented on a matter that had been brought to the attention of the Human Rights Commission. You ruled that the sub judice convention was to be applied in a very narrow and limited way and that-


Mr. Speaker:: By the Chair.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: By the Chair, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that you should protect the Mem-
February 14, 1986

bers of this House who ask questions from an unjustified use or reliance on the sub judice convention by Members of the Government to avoid answering questions otherwise in order, because the Government cannot have it both ways. When they feel free to do so they cannot make comments about matters before tribunals like the Human Rights Commission whose decisions can actually affect individual rights through the imposition of fines, and decline to answer questions because a matter may be before the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which simply involves a declaration as to the applicability of the Charter. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to remind the Government about the proper use of the sub judice convention in line with what you yourself said a few weeks ago.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is an incredible performance. The other day 1 heard the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition say that the Speaker had no right to decide what could be asked in the House, but now he is saying the Speaker must decide what can be answered in the House. Mr. Speaker, I answered the question. The question was, "Why don't I sit down and discuss settlement of a law suit initiated by this group?"
Perhaps the House Leader of the Opposition has been away from the practice of law for a long time, but I think even he should understand the inappropriateness of that particular behaviour if I were to do that. I answered the question. The question was put to me and I answered it. He should have heard it.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think if we are going to quote Beauchesne, and the House knows that my colleague, the Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) needs no help in these matters, the House should know that the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition did not quote all of the citation. Under Citation 335, "The Sub Judice Convention" it says:
The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
That is the point the House should look to in this matter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Deputy House Leader for the Government has made a constructive comment, and that is the type one would expect in this kind of exchange, rather than the petty and unnecessary comment by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre). If one wants to quote from Beauchesne, I want to respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, that Citation 337 of Beauchesne also goes on to say:
(2) In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage.
As far as I am aware the matter in question has not reached the trial stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) would allow me to indicate that he is too good a
Committee Reports
parliamentarian to use some of the language that he just used about another Member. I will leave it at that.
1 will simply say to him, as he will know from the ruling I gave before at his own request, there are times when the Chair does have to intervene under the sub judice rule, but those times are very narrow, and it is only by convention when the Chair feels that in certain matters, criminal cases usually, some potential danger would be done by allowing the question or the answer. That is the only time the Chair would get involved in that question. I take it the Hon. Member is making a representation to the Government about the answer that is made and what he thinks the answer should or should not be, but he has not raised a point of order, in that sense.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in both official languages to which, pursuant to Standing Order 70(16), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The report deals directly with all the major questions that the prospect of a forthcoming renewal of the NORAD Agreement raises among Canadians.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Ms. Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party members of the Standing Committee, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and myself wish to dissociate ourselves from the NORAD Report which has just been tabled. We do not agree with the recommendations and were denied the opportunity to append our dissenting statement in the report itself. We were also prevented from removing our names from the list of members. We will, therefore, today be issuing our own statement on the NORAD renewal.

February 14, 1986
Standing Orders


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty of presenting a number of petitions on behalf of the constituents of my riding who pray that the Government reverse its decision on changes to the unemployment insurance regulations with respect to pension earnings.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you will find a disposition to introduce, by unanimous consent without debate, and have the passage without debate of the following order:
That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on January 14, 1986, the comprehensive response requested, in relation to the report of the Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Equality Rights, presented to this House on Friday, October 25, 1985, shall be laid upon the Table not later than Tuesday, March 4, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is unanimous consent for the introduction of that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31,1 wish to move that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter requiring immediate consideration, namely, the dramatic and perhaps unprecedented increase in the bank rate and its impact on the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston) gave me the required notice of his intention to seek an emergency debate under Standing Order 31. It is difficult for the Chair to contemplate that a rise in the bank rate would constitute the sudden emergency that is contemplated by Standing Order 31. It is, rather, an ongoing problem and, as I have indicated in two recent rulings on January 27 and February 3, the Standing Order is not designed for the consideration of ongoing problems on an emergency basis except in very special circumstances.
I am therefore unable to find that the Hon. Member's application meets the requirements of the Standing Order.



TRANSITION TO NEW STANDING ORDERS-PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

['Agreed.']
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have now had further consultations with respect to certain items. I think you will find that the following motions or draft orders would be agreed to by unanimous consent and passed without debate. These are motions which will help facilitate the transition to the new Standing Orders which take effect on February 24.
If 1 may be permitted, I would read both of these motions. The first is as follows:
That notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on February 13, 1986, in relation to the provincial Standing Orders, effective Monday, February 24, 1986:
1.	All outstanding Orders of Reference before a standing Committee prior to February 24, 1986, shall be deemed referred, with evidence adduced in relation thereto, to the new appropriate corresponding standing committee;
2.	All reports, returns and papers deemed permanently referred to a standing committee pursuant to Standing Orders 47(4) and 70(1), prior to February 24, 1986, shall be deemed permanently referred, with the evidence adduced in relation thereto, to the new appropriate corresponding standing committee;
3.	Where applicable, budgets of any standing committee adopted by the Board of Internal Economy prior to February 24, 1986, shall be deemed to be the budget of the new appropriate corresponding standing committee, unless otherwise ordered by the new committee;
4.	Where applicable, all contracts for the services of staff for a standing committee or sub-committee in effect prior to February 24, 1986, shall be deemed contracts for the services of staff for the new appropriate corresponding standing committee or sub-committee, subject to ratification by the committee chairman;
5.	The Sub-committee on CN Pensions of the Standing Committee on Transport shall continue with its current members and powers, provided that

the sub-committee shall report to the new Standing Committee on Transport no later than April 11, 1986;
6.	The membership of the Striking Committee appointed on Monday, November 5, 1984, shall continue and the said committee shall, within the first ten sitting days following February 23, 1986, prepare and report lists of Members to compose the standing committees and the standing joint committees;
7.	The new provisional Standing Orders relating to the committees of the House, adopted by the House on February 13, 1986, shall come into effect the sitting day following the day on which the report of the Striking Committee is concurred in. Until such day, the provisional and permanent Standing Orders 70, 71 and 72, in effect as of September 9, 1985, shall continue to apply for the purposes of committee business.
Perhaps to save time, I will put the second motion now as well:
That, notwithstanding the Order made February 13, 1986 in relation to the Provisional Standing Orders, those Standing Orders relating to Private Members' Business which were in effect on September 9, 1985 shall remain in force, during the present Session, until the day following the adoption of the report of the Striking Committee establishing the membership of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, at which time all items of Private Members' Business on that day's Order Paper shall be placed in a draw to establish an order of precedence for twenty separate items, and they shall be restored to the Order Paper at the stage which they had attained when they appeared on the Order Paper on the day preceding the draw and items not successful in the draw shall be placed on the Order Paper after the order of precedence at the stage they had attained and in the order they had appeared prior to the draw. Provided that all names of Members listed on the Order Paper without notice of items of business shall be dropped from the Order Paper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask. I will wager ten to one that no one understood that last motion without at least re-reading the motion. In any event, I trust that the Minister has thought this through. We have looked at it. I think I can agree with it.
I would like to ask the Minister a question dealing with Questions on the Order Paper. He has not addressed that question as yet and I just wondered if he has anything to tell us about that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 really have not had a chance to consult on this. Under the new regime, there is going to be a limit on the Questions on the Order Paper and a requirement of the quid pro quo to which I referred yesterday, a response. My own instinct is, and I think this would be the fairest for everyone concerned including members of the Opposition, that we clean the slate and let Hon. Members come forward to place their items of priority on the Order Paper. They will then be under the new regime and they can decide which ones they want and continue to replace them.
I wish to discuss another situation with the House Leaders, that is, leaving them on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Grandfathering them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We can certainly look at that. However, I would like to discuss the matter with the Opposition House Leaders. I think there are some down sides to that suggestion inasmuch as the costs of printing and the preoccupation with answering questions must be considered. During the experimental period we may wish to look at a way to try to resolve
Standing Orders
the priority of questions under the new regime. That is the sort of thing which I had hoped to discuss with my colleagues, the Opposition House Leaders, in order to work out some resolution.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think we should be consulting on this issue. However, since the Government House Leader placed on the record how, in a preliminary way, he was thinking of proceeding, we on our side should also place on the record, perhaps in a preliminary way as well, how we think the matter should be dealt with. We think there should be a grandfathering of the questions. That is to say all the questions on the Order Paper should remain there to be dealt with under the rules as they existed before the decision of the House yesterday, unless a Member wishes to bring forward one of these questions to be placed under the four to be handled under the new rules through the priority answering period. I think this would be the disposition of those of our members who have questions on the Order Paper. Very frankly, I will say that the Government should give serious consideration to what I have said in order to avoid the inference that perhaps the Government would not be unhappy to see those questions disappear from the Order Paper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I take exception to that insinuation, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, if the Hon. Member wishes to discuss matters with me I am always available. When his Party's Whip stood up and asked me a question I tried to be as forthcoming as possible, without being devious or anything else. I simply say that it is a matter I prefer to have raised in our House Leaders' meeting. I would like to say that I am always willing to have a rational discussion about these matters. I do not want the constant insinuation that somehow there is some devious manner of thought going on on this side of the House. It is to the contrary. We are interested in accommodating Members of the House and will do what I think is fair to all Members.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, to clear the air, I wish to say that I had not intended any insinuation. I want to make that perfectly clear. I want to avoid the possibility that anyone would draw the wrong conclusion. I want it to be understood that my remarks were not for the purpose of making any insinuation. I regret that the Government House Leader interpreted them in that manner.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. In speaking on behalf of the NDP House Leader, I wish to say that we are prepared to agree with what has been suggested, especially with respect to the point that further discussions be held concerning this particular problem. I agree with the Government House Leader that this can be worked out. After all, it is an experimental period and there will be good faith expressed on both sides. It being Valentine's Day I am sure the good faith has started already. We are prepared to agree with the procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: May I simply say to all House Leaders that the Chair would very much like to see some consensus and

February 14, 1986
Order Paper Questions
guidance from the House Leaders on this question since it is on the Chair's list of matters which have to be dealt with.
Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motions. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 503 will be answered today.


Mr. Allmand: Were advertising contracts for the (a) SEED (ft) Business Drive for Jobs (c) Hire a Student (d) Student Entrepreneurs, components of the Challenge '85 program tendered and, if so, in each case, in what manner?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Adversiting contracts for (a) SEED (b) Business Drive for Jobs (c) Student Entrepreneurs, components of the Challenge '85 advertising program, were not tendered, but awarded in accordance with Treasury Board guideline Management of Government Advertising, Chapter 485.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 502 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 502 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Allmand: What is the regional breakdown by CEIC of the Challenge '85 program for the (a) number of applications (i) submitted (ii) approved (ft) applications submitted according to whether they are non-profit, municipal or private sector (c) amount of funding approved id) percentage of allocation that was actually approved?
Return tabled.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary in this time of reform to which his House Leader referred a few moments ago just when the Government will answer my questions of April 2, 1985, pertaining to the costs of the Shamrock Summit. When exactly will the Government answer my question in regard to the travel of the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), the former Minister of State for Transport, when she was in the capacity of Minister of the Environment? Surely those questions can be answered. The answer to one of the questions was available to the Parliamentary Secretary at one point some four months ago. However, it was subsequently withdrawn because of a technicality. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government will commit itself to answering these questions forthwhith.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the Hon. Member had followed the dispute between his Party's Whip and his House Leader, he would have heard that there is now an opportunity for him, subject to negotiations going forward, and if there is unanimity in the Liberal caucus on the matter, to ask that certain questions be responded to.
It is important to put on the recond as we leave the old regime behind us that we have answered 78.4 per cent of the questions asked during this Parliament.


Don Boudria: What does that have to do with what I am asking? Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not say that he just does not know the answer?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary just said something which I do not think is proper. I am not in dispute with my House Leader. I asked a question in good faith. I think there is a valid question to be put as to what will happen to those questions. My House Leader tried to obtain some information from the Government House Leader in that respect. There is no dispute; it is just a matter of trying to get some facts and protection for some questions which have been on the Order Paper for a very long time. I have had one there for more than a year concerning a building which has been sold in the interim. It has not been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
February 14, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.