1987-04-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 7(2) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, I have the honour to table in both official languages the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the 1985-86 crop year.


NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WEEK
Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise all Hon. Members that next week is Canada's first National Citizenship Week.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) today declared the week, so that we can reserve a special time to celebrate our citizenship and the beliefs and values it embodies.

An eloquent Father of Confederation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, over 100 years ago urged us to do the following:
To lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, to rise above all low limitations and narrow circumscriptions, to cultivate that true catholicity of spirit which embraces all creeds, all classes and all races, in order to make of our boundless province-so rich in known and unknown resources-a great new Northern nation.
In the last 100 years, we have become that great northern nation.

And next week, in large cities and small communities; people are gathering for neighbourhood events and special ceremonies organized to celebrate the pride they take in their citizenship.

Canada has welcomed people from around the world and now they are a part of us. Communities across the country have gained an extra vitality as a consequence and an added richness as a result.
I was reminded this morning of a remark made by Davey Fulton, a distinguished lawyer and a former parliamentarian, who talked about the people who came to Canada. He said:
This nation will never be able to repay the debt that it owes to those who come from other shores ... not only in a material sense, for the physical help they gave in building a nation .. . but also a debt in the spiritual and moral sense for their contribution to the enrichment of Canadian culture.
It is this sentiment that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) salutes in his declaration of National Citizenship Week.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also expresses the belief that at the heart of Canadian citizenship lies the bilingual, multicultural character of Canada. I urge all Members of this House, and indeed all Canadians, to express their pride in citizenship through their participation in next week's events.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the Minister's statement-

This is so particularly for this topic because I take pleasure in saying from time to time that I am a new Canadian. I was not born in this country. I was 13 years old when my people came to these shores. Indeed, although I was too young to vote at the time, many of my people had the pleasure not only of becoming Canadians but of actually voting for Canada, an honour not everyone has had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: That achievement was won with great struggle. Only a little over 50 per cent voted for Canada in 1949, two years after this Act was brought into effect by a Liberal Government of the time. Today, the overwhelming majority of Newfoundlanders would vote fervently for this country.
[DOT] (mo)
The Minister quoted Davey Fulton, a distinguished lawyer, who said:
This nation will never be able to repay the debt that it owes to those who come from other shores . .. not only in a material sense, for the physical help they gave in building a nation-

April 9, 1987
Petitions
My people have made some contribution in story and song to this country and, Mr. Minister, we will take the cash.
I want to quote the words of another great Canadian, Joey Smallwood, on joining Confederation. After the struggle he led to join this country he said:
It was the greatest blessing from God, next to life itself, ever conferred upon
the people of Newfoundland.
People in Labrador City, Goose Bay, Churchill Falls and many other places have come from all over the world to join us. We are becoming more and more true Canadians in every sense of the word every day. It is a great joy for me to join with my friend in paying tribute to this day and this week in which we celebrate something we all treasure, honour, and give thanks for, that is, our Canadian citizenship.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the announcement of National Citizenship Week. I am glad to see the Government has recognized the contribution of those new citizens who have come here over the years. After hearing the previous speaker talk about how his family had a chance to vote to join Canada, I think of those of us whose ancestors voted with their feet to join Canada. I think that is a very significant fact.
There are times, especially when unemployment is high, when people ask why we allow more people into our country. It is ironic, since our population is only 2 per cent of that of China, a country of similar size geographically, that we sometimes worry about over-population. Obviously that is not a concern Canadians should have. We should welcome even more people to our shores. We have to recognize that those people have helped create jobs. They have stated their desire to be part of Canada. We also have to recognize that many of them need the refugee status which is being denied them at the present time. They have enriched our culture, helped increase our awareness of the world, and made a very valuable contribution.
There is only one omission in the statement for which I fault the Government namely, that we did not give adequate attention to the contribution of our original citizens. That is not a deliberate oversight but we have to remember their status here and the fact that the first people to welcome us here were the native people of Canada.


PETITIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of people from Nova Scotia who express their concern with the federal Government's attempt to increase the cost of drugs. The petitioners express their concern that, given that the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis is necessary for many
Canadians, the legislation the Government is trying to force through the Elouse will only hurt those people. They call upon Parliament to reject those proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. In order to assist the Government to do that and get to the legislation dealing with equalization, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the House proceed to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
In order to be sure that all Hon. Members understand the procedure, 1 think it might be appropriate for the Chair to state that the vote that has just taken place was on the motion of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) that the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day. The motion has been defeated. As a consequence, we will continue with the presentation of petitions. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present some seven petitions in which the petitioners state that the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or governmental medicare programs; that the federal Government's proposals will raise the costs, already high, of provincial health care programs; that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies, which will result in an increase of drug costs and prices and which will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; that the proposed changes to the Patent Act in Bill C-22 are another example of the Canadian Government's concessions in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of ordinary Canadians, the undersigned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier could pause for just a moment.
1 remind all Hon. Members that when a member is presenting a petition or is speaking in this Chamber there are certain courtesies expected. If Hon. Members have an urgent conversation there are, of course, lobbies on both sides of the Chamber in which to have them. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier may continue his remarks.
Petitions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank you. I conclude by saying that the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by members of the golden age club of the Saints-Martyrs canadiens parish in my riding of Saint-Michel- Ahuntsic.
The petitioners are against the Government decision to make major amendments to the Patent Act through Bill C-22. They have advised me of their opposition because they consider that the Government propositions will increase the already high costs of prescription drugs, and that four million Canadian low-wage earners are not covered under social welfare or the private drug insurance system. Poor, older and sick people will be particularly hard hit by these changes.
The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to bring pressure to bear on the Government and urge it to reject these propositions which will boost prescription drug prices.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from residents of Kitchener, Ontario, who state that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices to consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
I have a petition from residents of Winnipeg who say that the proposed measure in Bill C-22 will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and, therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have 20 petitions to table pursuant to Standing Order 106 from residents of the Saskatchewan communities of Macklin, Primate, Cactus Lake, Salvador, as well as signatories from the Alberta communities of Hayter and Provost. These petitioners humbly call upon Parliament with respect to Motion No. 37 and ask that Members of Parliament give due consideration to supporting this motion which calls on all Members of Parliament to request the Government to consider the advisability of amending the Canadian Constitution to afford rights to unborn Canadians. These petitioners humbly

April 9, 1987
Petitions
pray and call upon all Members of this Parliament to support this motion when it comes for a vote in Private Members' Business.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have petitions from hundreds of residents across this land. From Ontario, the communities of Dresden, Thamesville, Chatham, Tweedsmuir, Kitchener, Guelph, Jarvis, Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester, Orleans, London, Winchester, North Bay, Toronto, Ajax, Thornhill and Kanata; from the Province of Quebec, Charlesbourg, Ste. Foy, Aylmer, Gatineau; from Nova Scotia, Oakum Secum, Porter's Lake; from New Brunswick, Bathurst and Beresford; from Saskatchewan, Regina; from Manitoba, Winnipeg; and from British Columbia, Vancouver, Port Alberni and Prince Rupert. These hundreds upon hundreds of petitioners point out that the Forget Commission report on unemployment insurance has proposed a system of annualization which would reduce benefits to the unemployed over-all by 31 per cent forcing over 62 per cent of the unemployed to live on less than $140 a week. That is less than welfare pays to a single parent with a child in most provinces.
Furthermore, by its proposal to eliminate regional extended benefits, it would be taking $1 billion in income transfers out of Quebec, $660 million out of the Atlantic, $670 million out of the west, and devastating the regions with the highest unemployment in Canada. Therefore, the petitioners, hundreds upon hundreds of them from the communities that I have enumerated are calling upon Parliament and specifically upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to forget and reject the Forget Commission report.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition on a different subject. The petitioners are from Saint John, New Brunswick. They point out that in many parts of the world people are fleeing to seek safety from persecution by coming to Canada. They also point out that Canada has established standards of refugee status determination but that in fact our existing procedures have broken down under unexpected strains. They point out that the standing committee of Parliament on the subject has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force. Therefore, these petitioners are calling upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and the Parliament of Canada enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and an adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition signed by over 800 citizens of the riding of Dauphin-Swan River who call upon Parliament to support Motion No. 37 which will allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from a variety of communities across Canada, from Moose Jaw and Regina, Province of Saskatchewan, from the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, from Calgary, Province of Alberta, and from Shediac, Province of New Brunswick. These petitioners all ask Parliament to take action to prevent changes to the Patent Act regarding prescription drugs. The petitioners are deeply concerned that the monopoly granted to U.S. owned and operated pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic firms, will result in an increase of drug costs and prices, will push up provincial health care programs, and in many cases those who are not in those programs will be unable to afford the prescription drugs that they require. They ask the House to consider carefully their concerns and to refrain from making these changes to the Patent Act.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today, in conformity with Standing Order 106, a petition from almost the entire adult population of the marvellous community of Kincolith, north of Prince Rupert. They wish to bring to the attention of the House and, in particular, to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), their concern about the directive the Minister of Transport has given to the Canadian Coast Guard to proceed with plans to eliminate the staffing of light stations at Lawyer Island, Boat Bluff, Point Island, Chrome Island, Trail Island, and Point aux Pas, and that the same Minister has also directed that there be staff reductions at Lucy Island, Putney Point, Cake Mudge, Point Atkinson and Saturna Island. They are concerned that the savings to the Coast Guard will be insignificant in comparison with the potential loss of local weather services and assistance in search and rescue to the many residents of Kincolith who transit those northern waters up into the Alaskan Panhandle down to Prince Rupert and on down the coast. They call upon this House to revoke the directive and to request a full public inquiry into the need for staffed light stations on the entire West Coast of British Columbia.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Pursuant to Standing Order 106, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to these petitions.
Whereas the new Canada Post corporate plan to install permanent super mail boxes in both urban and rural areas
April 9, 1987

creates two classes of citizens; whereas the closure of rural post offices deprives citizens of a unique federal presence; and whereas higher rates, especially for second-class mail, compromise the distribution of many newspapers, weeklies, regional newspapers, magazines and religious publications.
Wherefor we humbly call upon Parliament to reject the Canada Post plan and enjoin the corporation to deliver the mail to all Canadian taxpayers, without any distinction.

These petitions, Mr. Speaker, come from St. Joseph, New Brunswick and from Shediac, New Brunswick. These petitions are also from Hull, Boucherville, and Chapleau.
I also draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the concern in Dorchester, New Brunswick in terms of increased postal rates, particularly on second-class mail, which will imperil the distribution of numerous magazines, periodicals, and regional newspapers, as well as religious publications.
The plan of Canada Post to adopt supermailbox service creates two classes of Canadian citizens in the urban and rural regions. It is their feeling that closure of rural post offices will eliminate federal presence in numerous communities and will impede the effectiveness of postal service which is vital in rural areas.
They call upon Parliament to reject the corporate plan proposed by Canada Post and to instruct the corporation to proceed with mail delivery to all Canadian taxpayers without discrimination.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, to-day I would like to table some petitions from Winnipeg, Manitoba. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals in Bill C-22 that will increase the price of drugs for Canadians.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou);: Mr. Speaker, I have here several petitions from various parts of Canada, mainly from the Montreal area and also from the Province of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, in all these petitions, the undersigned respectfully declare that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase of drug costs and prices and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; that the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or Government medicare programs; and that the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the free trade negotiations with the United States, at the expense of the average Canadian.
Petitions


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table today, all of which have been duly certified under the provisions of Standing Order 106.
The first batch is signed by well over 300 people who live in the Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Thunder Bay-Atikokan ridings. They petition the House with regard to the closure of a direct mail unit of the Canada Employment Centre in Thunder Bay. They indicate in the petition that this decision will result in unemployment insurance clients from northwestern Ontario mailing their report cards directly to Belleville, Ontario rather than to Thunder Bay. Quite frankly this means that a number of them will not be receiving their cheques on time. In fact, if there are any problems, there will be many weeks of delay because of the administrative change. They call upon the Government to reject the decision.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by over 100 residents of Thunder Bay, deals with the Forget report on unemployment insurance. They express concern about the transfer of benefits out of the regions. They oppose the annualization of the unemployment insurance program and call upon the Government to reject that suggestion and to enhance services available to them.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the final petition I wish to table is signed by residents of the St. Catharines, Welland, and Niagara Falls areas of southern Ontario. It concerns the report of the standing committee of Parliament dealing with immigration.
It indicates that the committee has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force.
It also points out that the report has the support of all Parties in the House, as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and other groups and individuals. They ask that that approach be adopted by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions on a number of subjects to present today. The first one I have the pleasure to present is duly certified correct as to form and content pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106.
The petitioners are from such places as Toronto, Oakville, Etobicoke, North York, Woodbridge, and Brampton, Ontario. The petitioners state that troubles in many parts of the world are causing people to seek safety in Canada, and that Canada

April 9, 1987
Petitions
has established good standards of refugee status determination, which procedures have broken down under expected strains. They also indicate that the standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force. This proposal has support from all Parties, as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and other groups.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the next petition has also been certified correct as to form and content pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106. It is from a number of residents in the City of Toronto.
The petitioners state that the Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs.
They also state that the proposed measures will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. As well they say that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs for provincial government drug plans.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reject proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to present a number of petitions from a variety of Canadians across the country who are in opposition to Bill C-22.
They believe very strongly that with the passage of the Bill the price of prescription drugs, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, will rise dramatically. They believe that it will affect very negatively the senior citizens, the disabled, and the poor of the country.
I have another petition to present. It is from individuals in the Province of Quebec as well as individuals in British Columbia, in particular the Vancouver area. They are opposed to Bill C-22 and pray that the Government would withdraw the Bill because they believe it will affect very negatively the cost of prescription drugs.
I have another petition to present. It is also signed by residents of the Province of Quebec, particularly the Pointe Claire area. They are also opposed to Bill C-22.
They indicate that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and prices. They also indicate that it will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They call upon the Government to reject the proposals contained in Bill C-22.
I have another petition to present. Once again it is signed by residents of the Province of Quebec, in particular Pointe Claire. I also have another petition which is signed by residents of the City of Toronto, a city which is known to some members of the Chamber.
As well I have another petition which is signed by individuals from the City of Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Chilliwack, British Columbia. These petitioners call upon the Government to withdraw Bill C-22, the amendments to the Patent Act. They believe that it will negatively affect the cost of prescription drugs in the country, thereby affecting senior citizens, the poor, and the disabled.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have another petition to present. It indicates that the plan of Canada Post to adopt supermailbox service creates two classes of Canadian citizens in urban and rural regions. It also indicates that the closure of rural post offices will eliminate federal presence in numerous communities and will impede the effectiveness of postal service which is vital in rural areas.
The petitioners also say that the increase in postal rates, particularly for second-class mail, will imperil the distribution of numerous magazines, periodicals and regional newspapers as well as religious publications. The undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the corporate plan proposed by Canada Post Corporation, and to instruct the corporation to proceed with mail delivery to all Canadian taxpayers without discrimination.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have several other petitions to present and I will try to summarize them as briefly as I can because I want to accommodate you and other Hon. Members who wish to rise on petitions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All the Hon. Member has to do is summarize the prayer, if it is a petition on Bill C-22 or a petition on the post office.


David Charles Dingwall: I have a petition here signed by residents of Belleville, Ontario, and I am sure Hon. Members know where that is.


John R. Rodriguez: Where?
April 9, 1987


David Charles Dingwall: Belleville, Ontario. 1 also have a petition signed by residents of Savary Island, British Columbia, and they call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-22, the amendments to the Patent Act, because they believe it will negatively affect senior citizens who need to buy prescription drugs.
I have a petition signed by residents of Lethbridge, Alberta, one signed by individuals from St. Nicholas, Boxton Falls, New Brunswick, one from residents of Moncton, New Brunswick, one from individuals from Swift Current, Saskatchewan, and another one signed by individuals from the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec. All six of the petitions I mentioned call upon the federal Government to withdraw Bill C-22, the amendments to the Patent Act, because they believe that it will cause an increase in the cost of prescription drugs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say to the Hon. Member that the petitions were the same and therefore he should have lumped them all together and told us where they were from so we could carry on with the business of the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your direction. I am attempting to abide by your wishes in that regard. I do not want to read out all the communities listed in the petitions because I think that would unduly delay the workings of the House, but I thought I would give a brief summary in accordance with-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Just the provinces would be sufficient.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners wish to call for the withdrawal of Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act, for they believe it will cause an increase in the cost of prescription drugs, negatively affecting Canadians.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition with regard to Canada Post. Again, this petition is signed by individuals from the Province of New Brunswick, primarily the Restigouche area.
I also have another petition on the same subject matter signed by people from Shediac, New Brunswick. They too call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the corporate plan which they believe at this time will have extremely negative effects on rural post offices in Canada and will create two classes of mail service.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by Canadians from the Toronto area who point out that the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information and that the tariff has little negative effect on the
Petitions
publishing industry of the United States yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book-publishers, booksellers, distributors and Canada's culture. They say that rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The petitioners therefore 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 in respect of fair trade negotiations which are part of this program.


Mr. McDermid:: Presenting a petition that late, you should be ashamed of yourself. It was changed two months ago.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, one of the precious privileges of a Member of Parliament is the one of fulfilling the function of presenting to the House petitions from citizens of Canada. I would like to note that the petition that was just read, although it arrived late, illustrates one of those rare instances of the Government in fact recognizing what citizens have requested. Because there were those who were willing and able to fight on their behalf, there was a change in an arrangement that offended Canadians.
I have a number of petitions to present. The first is from petitioners who live in this very region, and I would like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it conforms to Standing Order 106. The petition is signed by a number of residents of Canada who wish to avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance to the honourable House and they point out, Mr. Speaker, that there has been-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope that the Hon. Member would summarize the prayer and come to the point at the end of the petition.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was about to attempt to do that. I am sure you realize that there is no intent to do anything but ensure that the concerns of the citizens are properly and articulately presented. The petitioners are concerned about the cuts that were imposed upon the National Research Council, cuts which have disrupted scientific activity there, threatening the economic future of Canada as well as the health and safety of Canadian citizens. They say that the cuts will cause the loss of irreplaceable scientific expertise. Therefore, these petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind the funding cut-backs in the budget of the National Research Council including all consequent terminations and cut-backs in research activities and to provide funding for the space program from sources other than the NRC budget-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to bring to the attention of those Hon. Members who have only been here for a short period of time, and particularly to

April 9, 1987
Petitions
their House Leader and their Whip, the method for presenting petitions. Citation 692 on page 213 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads as follows:
(1)	While a Member may, if he desires, present a petition from his place in the House during Routine Proceedings and before the Introduction of Bills, he may also present his petition by filing it with the Clerk of the House.
(2)	When a Member presents a petition, he may not make a speech nor present argument in support of the petition.
I believe there are other members who would like to present petitions. Therefore, I would like Hon. Members to shorten their presentations. Particularly today, a national day of prayer, let us show a little love and affection between Members of Parliament. Let us get on with the business of the day.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I hope that nothing 1 might have done would obscure the fact that I love both you and the rest of the Hon. Members here. However, I was reading the prayer and I thought I was very strictly following the directions you gave to us previously in these circumstances.
The petition goes on to mention the development of a national policy for research, science and technology based upon a target of 2.5 per cent of the GNP devoted to research and development.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which comes from Halifax and concerns the fact that there are many people in many parts of the world who seek safety. The petitioners note that Canada has had standards of refugee status determination that have worked well but have now suffered certain strains. They express concern about new procedures being enforced and support the position of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Jewish Congress that Parliament ensure that the Government and Parliament will enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, and as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The next petition I have is from British Columbia. The petitioners note that fishermen across Canada fear their right to collect unemployment insurance is threatened. They point out that unemployment insurance must be improved in order to meet the needs of those who avail themselves of it. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) rejects any recommendations which would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance, and enter into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in order that improvements to the program be made, as in duty-bound your petitioners ever pray.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, finally I have a petition signed by citizens from the Toronto area. They take exception to changes in the Patent Act which will increase prices of prescription drugs and unfairly hurt those Canadians who require drugs for their health needs. They note that these changes are a result of pressures imposed from an alien source. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals, as in duty-bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 630 constituents in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which, added to the 6,223 constituents who have presented similar grievances previously, adds up to a grand total of 7,353. The undersigned ask that the Canada Post Corporation drop its plans that would lead to shutting down a number of rural post offices. Petitioners also want the Canada Post Corporation to drop its plan to stop providing home delivery in urban areas.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbia petitioners, pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners are fearful that the federal Government is seriously contemplating taking away their right to collect unemployment insurance. Therefore, they ask Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) rejects any recommendation which would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance, and ask that the Minister enter into consultations with the fishermen in order that improvements to the program be made.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another set of petitions on a different topic altogether. The petitioners are concerned about the Government's plan to proceed with Bill C-22. They feel that these proposed changes to the Patent Act related to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for the average Canadian consumer, and they believe this is another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the U.S. at the expense of average Canadians during the free trade negotiations. They ask Parliament to urge the Government to reject these proposals which they believe will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
Since I have the floor, and to get on with the business of the House, I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the House move to the next item of business.
April 9, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It being one o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 9(2), I declare that the motion has lapsed. Therefore, 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.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Last Tuesday Alberta MLA Piquette was denied the right to speak French in the Alberta Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I back his action and this morning I sent Mr. Piquette a telegram to express my support. I invite all Members of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, to stand behind Mr. Piquette and acknowledge the principle of the two official languages. I also urge the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to put this topic on the agenda of the next constitutional conference.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in any other business the term "courtesy service" would have something to do with prompt, efficient service to the customer. To Canada Post Corporation, however, it means that travellers are expected to transport the mail free of charge as a courtesy to the post office.
Mail to and from the communities of Colville Lake, Jean Marie River, Trout Lake and Nahanni Butte in the Northwest Territories will not arrive unless delivered by some kindly, itinerant pilot who carries the mail bag out of the kindness of his or her heart and without recompense for his or her trouble.
Surely in this so-called "information age" this level of nonservice where mail deliveries can be three weeks apart is completely unacceptable.
* *
*



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I must express the pride I feel with respect to NDP Alberta MLA Leo Piquette and the cause he is defending, namely the recognition of French in Alberta. It shows he is a courageous man, and I want to assure him that all New Democrats in Quebec and the rest of Canada are behind him with encouragement and support in the defence and recognition of the French language in Alberta.
That is a concrete and specific example of New Democratic action in favour of the recognition of the French language.
* *
*



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, today in his article on federal research and development contracts in Quebec, Michel Vastel once again searched his prodigious memory and came up with statistics tailor-made to create regional tension, distort the performance of this Government and above all, raise suspicions about our efforts to bring about national reconciliation. Mr. Vastel, with his selective memory, used only DSS statistics for research and

April 9, 1987
development contracts, which represent less than 10 per cent of federal spending on research and development.
Mr. Speaker, this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I want to give the House the figures for all extra muros expenditures on research and development. According to Statistics Canada, in 1984-85, the latest year for which complete statistics are avaible, Quebec received 27 per cent, Ontario 32 per cent and British Columbia 12 per cent, which is about in proportion to the population of these provinces. This distribution of federal spending on research and development is fair by any standard.
Mr. Speaker, would you not agree that it is necessary to correct these distortions here in the House and to point out the kind of injustice being perpetrated against this country by the well-intentioned members of the fourth estate?



HOUSING


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, 1987 is the year of shelter for the homeless. We are told that single-parent families headed by women, women who are on their own, are the largest group seeking subsidized housing in Canada. The latest changes introduced by the Government with respect to subsidized housing do not in any way meet the needs of these women. In fact, it has been made even more difficult for women to gain access to low cost housing because the maximum allowable income to be eligible for this kind of housing is still set far too low.
In addition to the financial aspect, housing is a special problem for women in certain groups such as native people, immigrants, the handicapped, single mothers, teenage mothers, victims of abuse, and of course the homeless.
We think it is intolerable that 52 per cent of the population of Canada should be faced with this kind of problem in a country where adequate housing is not a privilege but a right.
I therefore want to ask the Government to correct this deplorable situation as soon as possible.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, April 9, 1987, is the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. Eloquent testimony to it was given in
the House on April 3. However, it should be referred to in the record of our proceedings on the anniversary date itself.
Many through the years since 1917 have seen this battlefield as the birthplace of Canada's national consciousness. For the first time persons could be conscious of being Canadians first, before being British or French or any other ancestry.
Of the 600,000 who served Canada in World War I only 14,000 now survive. But those men and women should know that this House remembers what they did to advance Canada from colony to nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken a strange course of action against Chileans fleeing the oppression of General Pinochet. On February 20 a transit visa order with no grace period as allowed in all previous cases was aimed specifically against Chileans, by name. That weekend a planeload of Chileans was stopped in Buenos Aires and the consul who approached them told them that they were not refugees but just economic migrants, without examining their case.
Since then the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) have repeated again and again that they are all economic migrants, even though they were forced to make two exceptions. They have ignored the advice of the United Nations' Miss Herrera. They have ignored the advice of a Montreal lawyer experienced in these matters who went there to examine 34 of the claimants. They were simply told to send this information to the same consul who told them in the first place, without examination, that they were only economic migrants.
We read in The Globe and Mail that the Minister has no control over his visa officer except moral suasion. In other words, the Minister is now covering up for the anti-Chilean refugee bias of his consul in Buenos Aires.



LIBERAL PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of a
two-day caucus on political organization, the Leader of the
April 9, 1987

Liberal Party could see for himself that his Party is experiencing communication problems.
Elowever the positive aspect is that the leader strengthens his position as such, at least when he physically appears with his troops, and their discipline was obvious in this House when the President of the United States referred to the liberalization of our trade: none of the Liberals applauded in the House. When the American President mentioned the priority of private enterprise, no applause from the Liberals. When the President linked foreign aid to trade liberalization, again no applause from the Liberals. When the President twice rose the issue of national defence, no applause from the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, this is hardly the way to launch a communication program. If the Leader of the Liberal Party is anxious to have more photo sessions with the President of the United States he will have to change his negative approach towards the United States, and perhaps he ought to be more receptive with respect to the positions of the dissident members of his caucus.
Then he might not have to tell the House-and we have our doubts about this-and I quote: "The President asked to see me". See Hansard for April 7, 1987.



ROAD SAFETY


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I have another letter which I wish to put on the record on the subject of making three-point rear seat-belts mandatory in all cars built or sold in Canada. The letter is addressed to Dr. Campbell of Transport Canada and is signed by Mrs. Marilynn Riseborough of Woodlawn, Ontario. It states:
While watching the TV program The Fifth Estate... I was shocked to hear one of your staff members .. . say that one of the reasons for no shoulder seat belts in the back seats of cars in Canada was "because not many people ride in the back seats of cars in Canada"-
One car manufacturer's representative on the same program stated the cost for these shoulder belts is negligible.
You people set the standard, why are you not seeing that these belts are mandatory in all vehicles sold in Canada!
This is not a new problem to me. When my daughter was two years old in 1972 I found out that lap belts can paralyze a child in accidents at 30 mph ... I ordered a harness from Mothercare in England and had my car dealer anchor it to the frame of my car. This harness went over both shoulders and the lap.
I call upon the Government to force car manufacturers to install three-point rear seat-belts in all passenger cars built and sold in Canada.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago today an army of Canadians achieved the impossible. They dislodged the enemy occupying Vimy Ridge.
The French Army had lost 150,000 men trying to do this, and the British Army fared no better. Through sheer bravery and determination our soldiers achieved what most people thought was hopeless.
During the course of the attack the highest point of the Ridge standing 470 feet above the plain could not be taken. The brave troops of Quebec, Ontario, and B.C. were beaten to a standstill by the enemy perched atop this vantage point.
At dusk the men of the Nova Scotia Highlanders were ordered to advance. The Nova Scotians attacked with a frenzy, driving the enemy off the ridge and carried on down the other side, advancing farther than any other regiment in that battle.
Those who took part in this action included men from my riding like Sydney Goodwin of Lower Argyle; Clifford Doucette of Weymouth who, alone and with only a rifle, dispatched the entire crew of an enemy machine-gun; Charles Hersey of Freeport, or Lewis Gates of Middleton who single-handedly operated his machine-gun for 48 hours against the enemy. Some of these men did not survive the battle, but in making these sacrifices Nova Scotians succeeded where so many others had died in their attempts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!




Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today is the seventieth anniversary of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge. I was particularly moved by the passage from Pierre Berton's book quoted in The Globe and Mail today which described how the sound of artillery smothered the skirl of the pipes. As a piper myself, and as a grandson of a piper who was there at Vimy Ridge after having been gassed and temporarily blinded at Ypres and wounded at the Somme, I have always taken a special interest and a special pride in the story of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in World War I, as all Canadians should, Mr. Speaker.
The spirit of togetherness which animated Canadians on that day and which contributed to their victory is something that should be remembered, cherished, lived and enhanced in our day. Whenever we are tempted by regional grievances, however justified they may be, we should not forget that on that morning, for those Canadians who have a place of honour

April 9, 1987
in our history, there was no west, no east, no centre, no periphery, only Canadians, all wearing the same uniform and united in purpose.
Let us pray for a vision of Canada in a peaceful world that could do for us in peacetime what was done for us in war on that morning.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
in providing a stable and competitive market-place. The report stated:
The fact that (Petro-Canada) is government owned-offers a unique opportunity to.. . use Petro-Canada's potential to promote competition in an industry where the extent of concentration in conjunction with vertical integration continually threatens the vigour of market forces . . . Petro-Canada gives the Government the opportunity to reduce the competitive restraints and associated public cost of that market, not only without having to pass special laws, but in ongoing pervasive ways that could not be achieved by laws.
The Government is planning to sell off Petro-Canada. This Tory Government is simply and clearly not capable of defending Canada's public interest when it comes to ensuring an adequate supply of energy at reasonable prices.
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, work toward overcoming problems of farm finance and work toward overcoming problems of soil degradation must not be taken in isolation one from the other. Only about 5 per cent of Canada's land area has a significant agricultural capability. Most of that land is already under production and threatened by any number of sources of soil degradation. If our soil disappears, so do our farmers, our jobs and the very food we eat.
As the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and many others have pointed out, soil conservation is everybody's business. A commitment to soil conservation is required by all if Canada is to feed present and future generations. This commitment must come not just from farmers but also from consumers, farm chemical and farm machinery producers, and Governments.
I welcome the initiative taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and his Department to launch a major public awareness campaign related to soil conservation in Canada. I welcome the federal Government's commitment to working on the problem of soil degradation, but I would like to remind the House that soil conservation efforts must be taken in accord with, and not in opposition to, efforts taken by the Government to help farmers overcome problems of capital restructuring, debt financing, low commodity prices and other problems of farm finance. It is a tall order, but it is one that this Government can deliver.
*
* *



PETRO-CANADA POTENTIAL TO PROMOTE COMPETITION

[Stage Direction]
*
* *


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, these are bleak days in Alberta. The economy is stalled, the ranks of the unemployed are swelling, and the food banks are packed. From Red Deer to Lethbridge, from Lac La Biche to Coutts, and from Three Hills to my home town of Longview, people are asking themselves whose interests the federal Government is standing up for? Apparently it is not the interests of ordinary Albertans.
What average Albertans want is what Canadians in all parts of Canada want. They want to be treated and respected as first-class citizens. They do not want their problems and their hardships to be an afterthought. After all, the problems facing someone who is unemployed in Edmonton are the same as those faced by someone who is unemployed in Montreal, Chicoutimi, or Windsor. Yet there is a growing feeling in Alberta that its concerns, its problems, and its aspirations are not being treated by the Government with the same degree of attention as the concerns of other provinces. When voices are raised pointing out the situation, they are threatened, muzzled, and silenced. This is no way to deal with those who seek to express the true sentiments of average Albertans.
Alberta can make a dynamic and exciting contribution to Canada. It is time that Alberta and Albertans were not taken for granted by the Government. Perhaps next time Albertans will ask themselves just who really speaks up for average Albertans and their families.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the Conservative Government realizes that Canada's public interest, like that of all other industrialized countries, involves ensuring an adequate supply of energy at reasonable prices.
The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission report "Competition in the Petroleum Industry" released in May, 1986, concluded that Petro-Canada should play a leading role



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I want to read to the House a letter which I received:
April 9, 1987

Gentlemen:
There is a man in the post office so powerful that when he coughs the post office chokes.
Everyday, since 1982, this man has delivered a bag containing hundreds of pieces of mail to this company.
Last Monday he got sick. The bag of mail did not arrive. The next day I called the post office and after finally discovering a phone that somebody would answer, I got the whole story.
It goes like this. The post office is understaffed, so when our man gets sick our company doesn't get any mail unless a temporary replacement can be found. A few hours after my call, someone did drop off a few pieces of mail, but as at Wednesday at 2.30 p.m., the mail we should have received has not arrived.
Now it's not as if our offices are isolated in the middle of some northern tundra. We are located in the middle of downtown Toronto about two blocks from Maple Leaf Gardens (I guess Harold Ballard isn't getting his mail either).
Is there mail after death? I guess we'll find out soon enough because it's postal service like this that kills small business.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with Oral Question Period, and although it is not normal for a Speaker to comment upon statements made in the House, I think it is in the interests of all Hon. Members and those Canadians watching to note the number of members who rose to speak of the great Canadian challenge and victory at Vimy.
I am deeply touched by what I have heard because my father, Clarence Rosswell Fraser, was a stretcher-bearer in the Canadian Corps in that great battle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Hon. Members of the House would associate themselves with the remarks you have just made on behalf of the Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns a very vital issue to western Canadians, that is, the issue of Senate reform.
Oral Questions
As the Prime Minister will know, the Premier of Alberta has already declared in favour of a form of elected equal Senate. I think to the satisfaction of many of us, the Premier of Ontario has indicated that he is now prepared to consider such a proposal.
Could the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether he and his Government are also in favour of such a proposal and whether he intends to include or incorporate that topic as part of the forthcoming federal-provincial talks on the Constitution?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the latter part of the question, which I believe applied to the upcoming talks scheduled for April 30, it was agreed at the meeting of provincial First Ministers in Edmonton last year-and I believe it was chaired by Premier Getty-that the first round of constitutional discussions would relate exclusively, it is my understanding, to the attempted resolution to bring Quebec back into Confederation. After that, if that were to be successfully concluded, it was agreed that the federal Government would move on to other areas of concern to the provinces, including the question of Senate reform.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO INTRODUCE REFORM PROPOSALS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying almost two years ago now that the Government which he heads would bring forward proposals on Senate reform before the end of its mandate which is now getting very close.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to commit today specifically that the Government will bring forward proposals dealing with a model or formula for an elected, equal Senate as part of the constitutional reform within the next 18 months?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that today the Liberal Party of Canada expresses its support for an elected Senate with equal representation from all provinces. I understand that is quite at variance with the position of the Liberal Party of Canada in regard to the Senate adopted formally in 1983. I would like to point out to my hon. friend-


An Hon. Member:: No, '87.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, this is 1987. If this is the position of the Liberal Party in 1987, I know my hon. friend would want to rise and confirm that.
The commitment I gave to the country was for after we proceeded with these constitutional arrangements that I am sure all Parties are endeavouring to reach in regard to bringing Quebec back into the Constitution. Indeed, the First Ministers themselves set it out in a communique and, pursuant to that, I would be happy to meet with them hopefully at a mutually

April 9, 1987
Oral Questions
convenient time thereafter to consider the question of Senate reform.
It was my understanding that all First Ministers who signed that communique in Edmonton last summer believed that a condition precedent to consideration of this kind of constitutional reform was a mutually satisfactory resolution of the question of bringing Quebec back into Confederation.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell the Prime Minister that the report of the western caucus of our Party which was made today endorses that principle, based upon very extensive discussions with westerners about its need.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: All one of them.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Was it with the Senators?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would only say that it is a little unseemly for a Party that has taken no position and for a Party that wants to abolish the Senate to deride a commitment on the part of western Canadians to get better and equal representation at this national level. We are prepared to put our position on paper and in public.
Does the Government endorse the basic principles of Senate reform and the objective of an equal and elected Senate? Will the Government bring forward proposals within the next 18 months so western Canadians and others in the regions will know that they can get a much better deal from Ottawa than they are getting now from this Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I caution my hon. friend. If he is going to get into this kind of discussion which is clearly designed to exacerbate any regional difficulties which may exist, I would point out to him that since this Government came into office the unemployment rate, an important indicator of economic activity, has fallen in the following way: the lowest rate of unemployment in Canada is in Manitoba.


Nelson Andrew Riis: NDP Government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The second is in Ontario, the third is in Saskatchewan, and the fourth is in Alberta. That is progress and equality brought about by fair and equal representation in the elected Cabinet of Canada, something which was lacking so often under Liberals.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Alberta used to be better off.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Alberta used to be better before they got a whiff of the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Say that in Kilgour's riding.


Martin Brian Mulroney: When Mr. Broadbent hears that they are talking again, they will be in trouble.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I tell you, the telephone lines are going to be humming.
I invite my hon. friend to refer to the Edmonton declaration after the 27th Annual Premiers' Conference of August 10 to August 12, which said: "The Premiers unanimously agreed that their top constitutional priority is to embark immediately upon a federal-provincial process using Quebec's five proposals as a basis for discussion to bring about Quebec's full and active participation in the Canadian federation. There was a consensus among the Premiers that then they will pursue further constitutional discussions on matters raised, which includes Senate reform."
If the matter of Senate reform is reached pursuant to this formula enunciated by the Premiers, the Government of Canada will have a proposal to put forward in regard to Senate reform.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but I might point out to the Prime Minister that western agriculture is facing the worst financial crisis since R. B. Bennett was Prime Minister. That tells us something about the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Agriculture knows that many farmers have been overcharged on interest by the banks which switched from a fixed rate to a floating rate before 1982. In one case in Alberta the overcharge amounted to $240,000. We learned just yesterday that banks are demanding a $500 fee to show farmers their loan accounts. Will the Minister demand that the banks stop gouging farmers, repay the overcharges, give them the information they need, and straighten this matter out?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into the allegations about whether they are charging this fee or not. I must remind the Hon. Member that I have asked the Inspector General of Banks to inquire into the scope of this program. I hope he will be getting back to me in a few weeks.


REQUEST THAT BANKS BE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE ACCOUNT INFORMATION TO FARMERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I talked to the Inspector General of Banks yesterday and he said their inquiry
April 9, 1987

is only from the point of view that the banks may become insolvent because they have to repay all this money to the farmers. The Inspector General has no power to require the banks to stop charging this S500 fee to farmers for looking at their accounts.
If the Minister cannot get the co-operation of the banks, is he prepared to bring in legislation which would require the banks to provide this information to farmers? Many farmers are facing the loss of their farms because the banks have overcharged them.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as it was to the first question.
I will look into whether the banks are making such a charge. If they are, we will look at the circumstances. However, I have to remind the Hon. Member that these cases have gone different ways in the courts. The floating rate has been sustained in some instances and a fixed rate in others. The best way to pursue this is of course through the court system, farmer by farmer, individual by individual. They should have the information necessary to pursue that route and I hope the banks will co-operate.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
Yesterday, the Minister said in the House that she had ordered an inquiry to investigate the activities of the Advertising Management Group in her Department. Could the Minister inform the House what activities and which individuals this inquiry will investigate? And will she table in the House the terms of reference of the inquiries so that Canadians will know what is going on?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that yesterday I announced the Department would be conducting an inquiry to investigate allegations of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Peloquin. I have asked for an inquiry that will evaluate the legal aspects of the allegations of conflict of interest.


QUERY CONCERNING TERMS OF REFERENCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I will now try it in English. The Minister announced the inquiry yesterday. Will she tell this House who is going to be conducting the inquiry and what its terms of reference are? What is she investigating? What is she inquiring into? I want her to let us in on this inquiry so that all Canadians can be aware of what is going on in her Department.
Oral Questions


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to set the record straight. Mr. Jean Peloquin is not a public servant but a consultant hired under contract on an annual basis. He was a member of an advertising management group which, as I have said several times before, has done fantastic work by cutting costs and restoring the competitive aspect of this sector.
Indigo is a production, not an advertising firm. The Advertising Management Group's mandate was to advise the Government on advertising proposals, not on production.
I just said that an inquiry has been ordered in my Department to evaluate the legal aspects. If necessary, once this inquiry has been completed, I will expand the inquiry's terms of reference and order an internal inquiry, because I think it is important for people in the Department to know how to work with the extremely effective system introduced by this Government.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Minister said that she was dismantling a patronage system and that it is an honest process. Yet, outside the House she said:
[Translation[
If you had to advertise yourself, wouldn't you give the job to a friend whom you could trust to get your message across? I would.

In other words, if you want somebody to promote you, you would choose your friends. "I would", the Minister said. It appears that patronage is alive and well. Would the Minister not agree that her contradictory remarks, those made in this House and those made outside, are indications that the patronage system is still alive and well in the Conservative Government?
[ Translation]


Monique Vézina: The greatest challenge to this Government has been to restore the confidence of Canadians by getting the economy back on track and renewing the desire of Canadians to work together. I am sure that after this inquiry we will be able to work in complete confidence, because I have confidence in my staff and in their desire to work with the private sector, because we in the Government know that we must be able to trust the people with whom we work, and we will always work with people we can trust.


Don Boudria: Thanks to her last "joke", Mr. Speaker, we can appreciate the Minister's sense of humour.

April 9, 1987
Oral Questions


PATRONAGE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister also deals with the Peloquin case. Yesterday, she was reported as saying: "We have established a competition system. We are dismantling a patronage system". Could the Minister indicate to us when she adhered to her new way of thinking, because concerning the Conservatives, she stated last year in the Le Soleil newspaper, and I quote:
Because they are our friends. Because we share the same ideas, the same views, the same ideal.
-thus favoring Conservatives. Is the contract awarded to Mr. Peloquin an example of good patronage, as she described it last year, or is it an example of the reform she announced yesterday in the House of Commons? Which of the two is it?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, my only concern is to re-establish fairness. The system which has been implemented has reintroduced competition, something which did not exist before.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have at last found a promise which the Conservatives have fulfilled, that of patronage.


PELOQUIN CONTRACT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, less than an hour ago I was refused a copy of the government contract with Mr. Peloquin by the office of the Minister of Supply and Services. Could the Minister explain why I was refused a copy of this contract? Is it stonewalling similar to that which I got from her colleague, the Minister of Public Works, with regard to the Vincent Massey affair in Hull? What is the Government trying to prove by hiding these contracts?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, reconsidering the very efficient system we have set up is out of the question. If the document to which you are referring is available under the freedom of access legislation, I can assure you that you will be able to receive it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and is
with regard to the multimillion dollar boondoggle at Place Vincent Massey. I have before me a copy of a memo from the former Minister of Public Works to his Deputy Minister in which he states as follows:
With a base rate of $4.47/sq. ft. and considering that for this type of building
the market rate is five times higher, you can understand the financial situation
facing Mr. Tessier.
It is now clear that this lease was renegotiated to bail Mr. Tessier out of a lease which he felt was at an unacceptably low rate. Will the Minister explain why his Government placed the private financial interest of Mr. Tessier, who coincidentally happens to be a friend of the Principal Secretary of the Prime Minister, ahead of the taxpayers of Canada? Why did he do that?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member has been absent from the House and perhaps from the country for the last two days because we have had considerable exchange of views about the merit of this proposition. Yesterday we had a press conference dealing with all inquiries relevant to this issue. There is absolutely not one iota or scintilla of evidence to suggest any inappropriate involvement in this issue. I challenge the member for the fifteenth time to put forward on the floor of this House, or outside, the basis of his suggestion that we have done something inappropriate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to say outside what I am saying inside, which is that this memo from the Minister to his Deputy makes it quite clear that the Government was bailing out a friend of the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary.


PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, why is it that the document setting out the supposed alternatives which the Minister tabled yesterday at his press conference, at which he admitted that these figures were way beyond his scope, was in fact a doctored document which did not exist at the time the original proposal was made? Why does he, through his office, refuse to make available the original documents setting out these alternatives? What is he trying to cover up?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how one could infer that there has been a cover-up when I had a conference with 40 members of the press and exposed myself to any questions they wished to ask. I had officials there to respond to the computations involved in the four alternatives. That was fully explained. I challenge the Hon. Member or any person of conviction to indicate that we have pursued the wrong course.
April 9, 1987


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. Keith Flax, Speaker of the Legislative Council of the British Virgin Islands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF ECONOMICS FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to Members' attention the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. Martin Bangemann, Minister of Economics for the Federal Republic of Germany.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the self-described Minister responsible for patronage in government advertising.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I am interrupted by the Tories. I am trying to achieve what their Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona says should be done, that is, that the Government clean up its act on patronage.
I want to come back to the limited internal inquiry that has been called for by the Minister which, as she just said, is supposed to look only within her own Department. Unfortunately it will not be able to deal with the whole network and look into the Ritz-Carlton committee, Roger Nantel, Senator Bazin, and Mr. Meighen. Who will inquire into the involvement of all these Tory friends? Will the Minister not make the right decision now and call for a full public inquiry into all the aspects of how the Government awards contracts?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a term to characterize the question just put by the Hon. Member. I suggest it is mudsl-inging by association. I never heard of the committee you are referring to. I referred yesterday to a selection, jury made up of public servants from the client departments, that evaluated the tenders submitted. I never heard anything concerning that committee.
The investigation is limited to my Department.
Oral Questions


PELOQUIN AFFAIR-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister does not know of the committee I have just described, she certainly knows Mr. Peloquin. Concerning that individual, she is reported as saying yesterday, and she will confirm if true: We are keeping Mr. Peloquin in office for the time being. And I read in the paper the following quote, between brackets: "We still need him right now". What I would like to ask the Minister is this: How can she keep in office someone who is being investigated, who is suspected of conflict of interest? How can she say that she still needs him? Is the Minister not prepared to do the right thing and state in this House that Mr. Peloquin is now suspended until the investigation is completed?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peloquin is a consultant. A consultant is hired by contract, a legal effect that warrants the hiring of a consultant. That contract ended on March 31. On his request, we did not renew that contract. Mr. Peloquin is no longer in our employment. Faced with the allegations that have transpired, as Minister in charge, I have therefore ordered an investigation on the legal aspects of the allegations that were being made. Mr. Peloquin no longer works in my Department.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for Science and Technology. This morning Le Devoir reported that Quebec had received less than 10 per cent of the research contracts funded by the federal Government during the first fifty-one weeks of 1986-87, while Ontario and British Columbia received a larger share. In the light of its commitments, how can the Government justify this kind of imbalance?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I too read the article in the French press and was rather surprised. My first instinct was to make sure that the article was reprinted in the press in Vancouver.
Upon reflection, I found that the figures used in the article are as irrelevant and false as similar figures presented in the Vancouver press which indicate that, with 12 per cent of the population, only 3 per cent of federal contracts have gone there. The figures are quite erroneous and false.

April 9, 1987
Oral Questions TAX REFORM


TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I believe he has received a copy of the New Democratic Party's third interim report on the tax system, this time on the personal tax system, which we published today.
One of the findings in that report is that, contrary to the Government's suggestion that the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption largely helps farmers and small business, in fact 55 per cent of the benefit of the special treatment of capital gains goes to 1 per cent of taxpayers whose income exceeds $50,000. They are mainly investors. Given the degree to which special treatment of capital gains is directed to wealthy Canadians, is the Government committed to making the tax system fair and, if so, is there any way in which a reformed tax system based on fairness can include the maintenance of that $500,000 capital gains tax exemption?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed about the report of which the Hon. Member speaks. I am very pleased that they are catching up with the themes of tax reform that the Government has brought forward. We have laid down fairness and simplicity as two of the major objectives of our tax reform. I see that the Hon. Member's Party agrees with those.
In regard to the question of the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption, I am also pleased that this morning the Party agreed with that in terms of farmers and small business. They fought it when it originally came in; now they agree with it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister seems to have forgotten that the minimum tax which was proposed in the House was directly because of the initiative of my Leader in the 1984 election.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the figures we have from the Department of Finance indicate that Canadians earning more than $250,000 a year save more in tax from the special treatment of capital gains each year than the average Canadian earns. Can the Minister name one tax expert in Canada who believes that the $500,000 capital gains lifetime exemption has any place in a fair and progressive tax system?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we will not exchange names of economists and tax accountants. There are many of them who have recommended that. Part of the Government's approach to tax reform is to look at the whole range of personal income tax exemptions and personal income tax rates. It is the same at the corporate level and the federal sales tax level. Major reforms will be included in the Government's examination of tax reform. That subject will be examined along with all others.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns this morning's announcement by the Minister of Transport that Canada's airports are now up for sale or divestiture by way of lease. Given that Canada's nine largest airports lost $157 million, according to Transport Canada's financial statement, in 1985-86, why has the Government of Canada approved this thinly veiled policy to cut costs and cut services to Canadians in Canada's airports in advance of any public hearing process and review by the Standing Committee on Transport, the appropriate Standing Committee of the House?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member has it all wrong. The Minister of Transport has initiated an opportunity for provinces, municipalities, and airport authorities to become involved in the management and operation of airports throughout Canada. They are indeed a very important centre of economic activity in most communities and this initiative has been in response to a number of communities that have stated their desire to have a greater say in the management and operation of airports. This is a responsive Government, and that is what the Minister of Transport is doing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What the Government of Canada is trying to initiate is an opportunity for municipalities and provinces to buy a pig in a poke.


COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that $157 million was lost by Canada's nine largest airports, according to Transport Canada's own financial statement in 1985-86.


John Horton McDermid: How much of that was Mirabel?


Brian Vincent Tobin: It was $56 million in Mirabel.
The appropriate Committee of the House of Commons has never had this matter referred to it for a public hearing process. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give us a commitment to put this policy decision on hold until Canadians, as they deserve, have a chance to have a say in this government policy initiative which will ultimately result in Canadians having less service than is currently being provided through the Government of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking through his hat in more ways than one. First, this proposal is not a compulsory policy, it is a voluntary policy. Any community or province, or any authority that wants to be formed in terms of management of an airport
April 9, 1987

system, can come forth and make proposals to the federal Government. As far as a committee response to it is concerned, the Hon. Member is a distinguished parliamentarian who has been here for quite some time and is sometimes a member of the Transport Committee, and there is clearly an opportunity for the committee to investigate. I am sure the Minister of Transport would welcome that opportunity.


SPACE DEVELOPMENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. Weinberger, has stated that the U.S. space station in which Canada has agreed to participate must allow the United States to "explicitly reserve the right to conduct national security activities on the U.S. elements of the space station without the approval or review of other nations". Given this advocacy of using the space station to develop star wars, how can Canada continue to support the project if we are to honour the Government's commitment to support only peaceful research in space?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. As the Hon. Member correctly indicated, the position he quoted is that of Mr. Weinberger. It is not yet the position of the Government of the United States. I have made it clear on several occasions, and welcome the opportunity in this Parliament today to make it clear again, that Canada entered into that agreement on a particular set of understandings. We anticipate continuing in that agreement if those understandings are honoured.


CANADIAN POLICY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, studies commissioned by the United States Defence Department and the United States Army say the space station could be used as a fuelling depot for star wars weapons, a staging area for battle management, and a service station for repairing arms. Why has the Government put all its space research effort into a facility which the Americans will obviously use for military purposes at some date in the future? And should the Government not now get out of this project which is inevitably going to be used for military purposes?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Governments and, indeed, Members of Parliament, should never do anything because of blind prejudice, whether in taking policy decisions or expressing themselves in the presence of the President of the United
Oral Questions
States when he is a guest here in the House of Commons of Canada. That was far more of an affront to the people of Canada, by the way, than it was to the President of the United States.
The answer to the Hon. Member's question is that we have made it very clear to the Americans that we expect the original purposes of the space station program to be respected. That is our position. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate that here in the House of Commons today.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION-USE OF STATION FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the Secretary of State for External Affairs an even further opportunity to reiterate it, if I may. The Defence Secretary, Mr. Weinberger, was actually part of the entourage with the President on Monday. Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs seize that opportunity, having Mr. Shultz and Mr. Weinberger here, to determine whether or not the United States is prepared to accept the condition of Canada's participation, namely, that the space station be used only for peaceful purposes?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly took the occasion to make clear the position of the Government of Canada directly to the relevant Minister of the United States Government, as I have done publicly.


Donald James Johnston: In answering my supplementary question, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us who that relevant Minister was? Was it Mr. Weinberger, Mr. Shultz, or perhaps both?


FUTURE OF SPACE PROGRAM
Donald James Johnston: Going further, there needs to be some timetable here, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs would agree, because from a budgetary point of view $800 million has been allocated to this program which has bled a lot of other very important scientific activities being carried out in Canada. All of those constituencies which need that money surely deserve to know whether this program is going to proceed or not, and whether the space station is going to be used for peaceful purposes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we would like to have an answer as quickly as possible. I have made that position clear on a number of occasions. I do not propose to try to adjudicate internal disputes within the American administration. That is for the American administration to do. What we made clear is the position of Canada.
The Hon. Member will know, because he was a member of the Government which was involved in the original arrangement with the Americans, that it allows some purposes of

April 9, 1987
Oral Questions
defence, search and rescue, surveillance, verification, that kind of thing. We want the purposes of the space station to continue to be reserved for those original purposes.


SOVEREIGNTY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will be aware of recent reports in our media and the U.S. media of increased Soviet submarine activity in or near Canadian waters, particularly reports that Soviet submarines have regularly moved into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Does the Minister know if Soviet submarines have entered Canadian waters? If so, has the Minister protested in the strongest possible terms this invasion of Canadian sovereignty by the Soviet Union, to the Soviet Union?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the Hon. Member's question-


Pauline Jewett: I care about my sovereignty.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -which is coming from a member and a Party who have done more to weaken the defences of Canada than anyone else in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The House will appreciate the fact that we cannot comment for security reasons on the state of our knowledge with respect to foreign submarine activity off the coasts of Canada. Suffice it to say that there is continuing foreign Soviet activity off the coasts of North America and that the Canadian Department of Defence continues to do its job in terms of surveillance and protection of Canada's security and of our sovereignty, and we would ask for the support of hon. members of the New Democratic Party in doing so.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party care about our sovereignty, which is more than I can say for those people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, we have to learn from the American press about U.S. invasions of our sovereignty in the Arctic and about Soviet invasions of our sovereignty off the West Coast. Why does the
Government not know something about what is going on? Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to protest to the Soviet Union this invasion of our sovereignty?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we do know something about what is going on. One thing we know is that Hon. Members opposite have passed a resolution on behalf of their Party calling upon Canada to pull out of NATO and NORAD, which would desperately weaken the defence of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why don't you stand up for Canada just once?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The position of this Party, the Government of Canada, is to defend the sovereignty of Canada, to defend the security of Canada, in spite of the opposition of the New Democratic Party.


SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the present economic crisis in Quebec's shipyards.
The Prime Minister is aware that 5,000 workers in Quebec are waiting for work to start in the shipyards so they can go back to their jobs. We know that at this point, workers employed by the Lauzon shipyard at Quebec City are no longer entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. They now have to go on welfare.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to urge Marine Atlantic to speed up the changes so that by the month of May, about 1,000 or 1,200 workers will be able to go back to their jobs, instead of having to apply for welfare?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question about planning in Quebec's shipbuilding industry has been answered by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion a number of times.
As for the workers to whom the Hon. Member is referring, there are ways of dealing with the loss of a number of jobs through mechanisms involving the Department of Employment and Immigration, in co-operation with the provinces and the businesses concerned. We are always prepared to consider-as the Hon. Member said, when and if something happens, then the Department will intervene.
April 9, 1987


INQUIRY IF TRUMP PROGRAM WORK CAN BE ADVANCED AND PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CARIBOUII FORWARDED IMMEDIATELY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion looked after the shipyards.
Last week I went to take pictures of the Lauzon and Sorel shipyards. There is nothing there, no ships, no workers. People want work, not social welfare, not unemployment insurance. Any work done in shipyards comes from the federal Government.
First, can the Prime Minister rise to defend the interests of Quebecers and ask his Minister of Defence to get work started without delay on the TRUMP contract-four ships-which might create more than 6,000 jobs in Quebec, and second, make sure that Marine Atlantic officials immediately forward the Caribou II construction plans? That is what people want.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the process described by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is exactly the one followed by his government before we came on the scene and saw the unimaginable mess in the shipyards.


Jean-Claude Malépart: The shipyards were busy then, but now they are idle.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, 1 can only repeat that Canadians did pass judgment on the economic policy of the previous administration. This is history now. Given the national debt and the economic situation we found ourselves in, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion suggested that the shipbuilding industry might need to be rationalized. That is what we are doing and the process is well under way. As to employment in Quebec, we have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, and this is the lesson you should bear in mind.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is seized with this particular issue. I can tell the Hon. Member that a statement will be made on this whole issue in the very near future.


PROMISE OF NEW ROLLING STOCK
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. When members of his Government were running for office they promised new rolling stock for VIA Rail. Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the announcement that will be made is that the Government will renege on this promise, therefore putting 1,000 people out of jobs in Montreal and Thunder Bay for a year and a half to three years? Is that what he is saying?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member will know that some 705,000 new jobs have been created during the course of this Government's tenure in office.
I can tell the Hon. Member we did live up to most of the promises that were made with respect to VIA Rail, and we restored a number of services. We have purchased new locomotives. The issue of the rolling stock is still being considered. The Hon. Member is quite well aware that we have tried to work through a consortium to try to arrive at a deal that will be fair to all concerned. It has not been an easy process. It is very expensive. I think the Hon. Member will recognize that we will use whatever funding is available in the best manner possible. That is what the Minister of Transport is doing right now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, one question, please.


VIA RAIL
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister with respect to what I hope is not another broken promise by the Government. It is my understanding that the Government has decided not to purchase new rolling stock for VIA Rail but that it will buy third-hand equipment in the United States and that it will spend $200 million refurbishing the existing rolling stock. Will the Prime Minister confirm this or will he say that it is not true? If it is true, can he tell us why the Government has decided to abandon the jobs of over 1,000 men and women in Montreal and Thunder Bay?
* *
*


PETRO-CANADA PRICE CHARGED FOR GASOLINE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Public Utilities Board of Nova Scotia in its report ordered the oil companies to roll back their prices with respect to gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel oil by the amount of 2.5 cents per litre. This indicates that at least in the Province of Nova Scotia the major oil companies led by Petro-Canada have been over-charging consumers. Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources order Petro-Canada to reduce its prices correspondingly in other provinces so that those provinces which are not protected by public utility boards can pass along a savings to their consumers? If not, why not?

April 9, 1987
Tabling of Documents
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question, that is the view of the Board involved in that decision; it does not necessarily reflect the actual situation, and the situation is not necessarily the same in all provinces as you mentioned.
Secondly, the Government does not intend to intervene in the market-place.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, one question, please, which will be followed by a question from the Hon. Member for Portneuf, and that will end Question Period.


MINISTER'S MANDATE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also with respect to the judgment of the Public Utilities Board of Nova Scotia. Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources assure the House that in accordance with his legal mandate he will instruct Petro-Canada immediately to make sure that it is not part of any price-fixing arrangement in any province?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously part of the mandate of the Minister and Petro-Canada not to act illegally.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. According to newspaper reports today, Soviet nuclear submarines armed with intercontinental missiles are carrying on unusual manoeuvres. I should like to ask the minister if Canadian territorial waters have been violated by the Soviet navy. If so, has the Canadian navy been compelled to intervene?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that Soviet submarines have been located in Western Atlantic waters, but what is unusual this time is that they are more numerous. The Canadian forces, as members of NATO, are taking part in monitoring that area.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Act, 1985, Chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 1986, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the 1986 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Newfoundland.

Pursuant to the Act, this report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it is Thursday again. Therefore I am delighted to ask the Government House Leader what business he intends to call not just for today, not just for tomorrow, but for all of next week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my colleagues on the other side of the House did not show up for the House Leaders' meeting yesterday at which I probably would have been able to discuss with them the order of business. I will unilaterally make the decision that we will deal with Bill C-44, Bill C-20 and Bill C-37.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We don't believe you!


POINT OF ORDER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: At 1 p.m. today, Mr. Speaker, you declared that a motion of the House had lapsed. That is the very point I was trying to make last December when the Deputy Speaker of the House declared that a motion of the House had lapsed. Whoever refers to page 1760 of Hansard will find that I then rose on a question of privilege to ask the Chair to explain to me under what authority it felt it could interrupt a procedure which I deem basic to our country and Constitutional, namely, that whenever an issue is before the House, it must be dealt with through a division, with the majority votes prevailing.
April 9, 1987

I am sorry to have to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I must ask you again to rule on my question of privilege of December 4. I am therefore providing you with an opportunity to cover two questions at the same time.
Again, today, a motion was moved by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) calling on the House to go to the next item, a motion which has been deemed by the Chair to be in order and put to the vote. At 12.35 p.m., the bell started to ring and the vote was to be taken at 1.05 p.m. At 1 p.m., the Chair declared that the motion had lapsed and the House took recess for the lunch break.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the arguments which I put forward on December 4, 1986, because it is time consuming and 1 do not want to abuse the time of the House. But may I remind you of the clear and definite provisions of Clause 49 of the Constitution, which states that questions arising in the House shall be decided by a majority of voices. Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to enlighten me and the other Hon. Members on the reason why you, who are neither a judge nor a person eager to order people around, but who must preside over all proceedings, feel that it is your responsibility to lapse a motion before this House.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not the first time that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier raises this issue. Of course, the matter is very important. For the time being, I will delay my ruling, but sometime next week, the Chair will probably be in a position to rule on this very important point.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which 1 gave you notice. This is a matter I raised again some time ago in this House. It concerns the authority of committees to allow television cameras in committee rooms, thereby allowing televised broadcasts of committee's proceedings.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Human Rights voted to allow the televised media to film part of the Committee's proceedings. Although the intentions are good and the reasons quite honourable, I submit that the Committee went beyond its powers, and I wish that my question of privilege be put before the House because I seriously believe this seriously involves the privileges of every Member in this House, as I would like to demonstrate with the following remarks.
It is known, Mr. Speaker, and I already have gone on record on this, that I personally support radio and TV broadcasts of committee meetings. It has always been my view that it might
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
be in the public interest to allow television and radio to record and transmit the work, the proceedings of our committees, because I believe this would add to the committees and to public awareness of what is going on in this House.
Mr. Speaker, raising this question is a matter of some difficulty to me because the witness this morning is a witness for whom I have a lot of respect-a very important witness, someone who has set very high standards of what it means to fight for human rights, but I do so because there must be rules, rules must be put in place soon to provide for televised broadcasts of committee meetings. I believe that, and I expect action on this. I raised this before in this House, but there has been no move yet from the Government, so I invite, I urge, I plead with the Government to find the courage needed to bring in a solution to that problem and to allow committees to broadcast their proceedings along principles similar to those under which the official record of Debates is published, as is being done in this House. No public or commercial TV cameras would be allowed to come here and broadcast our proceedings here. What goes on here, Mr. Speaker, is controlled by you. The image given to private and public broadcasters is controlled by the Chair, following a decision of the House made in January 1977, if I am not mistaken. To maintain order, we need rules and, in committees, if a majority of Members, including me, want the proceedings to be televised, we will have to make arrangements, establish a set of rules and, under the authority of the Chair, proceed with broadcasting.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the members of the committee were well intentioned, their motives were honourable. However, there are problems. First, committees of the House, even with such honourable motives, do not have the authority to allow broadcasting of their proceedings. It is the duty of Committee Clerks to inform chairmen and members that there is no authority, no rules which, at the present time, allow for broadcasting of the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, I raised this question in the House on October 28, 1986, after I attended a committee where the chairman tried to authorize ... I will read the proposal of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology: "I have given permission to the press to record this meeting and for the television cameras to be in the room behind the press table."
I immediately intervened, Mr. Speaker, and said to the chairman: "I think the ruling you have just made is beyond your powers." The committee sided with me and the proceedings were not televised.
This time, the Committee voted and it is my understanding that it allowed the television cameras to record the proceedings and to broadcast picture and sound.

April 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that while I have no problem with that principle, it is its implementation that concerns me and, as Whip of my Party, there are times when I must be, let us say, somewhat stiff on discipline, but we will have to get used to working within and observing the rules, otherwise, we have chaos, Mr. Speaker, which is not appropriate, as we know.
This time, unlike what happened the last time, the committee allowed the cameras and the recording of this morning's proceedings.
I will not be very long, Mr. Speaker, but 1 just want to make my points very clear. May I repeat that I have always been in favour of televising the debates in the committees. It is a view that I share with many in this place. I believe it would be informative for Canadians-I have said that before and I repeat it-to see what is going on in the House outside this Chamber. Nevertheless, no such authority exists at this time, and I deplore it.
In January, 1977, the House approved the electronic Hansard, that is, TV in the House. The broadcasting of the House's debates and proceedings were provided by a resolution of the House and under the authority of the Speaker. I believe strongly that this is the right thing to do for committees. I also deplore, regretfully, that the committee this morning exceeded its authority by permitting television cameras to televise its proceedings. In the absence of formal authority the committee members exceeded their authority, and it could be that the broadcasters themselves could be held in contempt of this House because there is no disposition that protects them, as far as parliamentary immunity is concerned or as far as the normal law of defamation is concerned. In other words, a broadcaster who utilized the image and sound recorded in that committee this morning could be held responsible under the normal laws of defamation and could possibly be held in contempt of the House because there is no provision for that recording.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the privileges of all Members of the House this morning were possibly somewhat misused. I would like you to rule as soon as possible on how we can resolve the situation by inviting the Government, maybe all House Leaders-


Mr. Fennell:: And the Whips.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And the Whips-I appreciate the comment of the Government Whip-to sit down and conclude how we can resolve this problem once and for all.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond briefly to my hon. colleague's point. First, I would suggest with respect that his point is not a question of privilege because my hon. friend was not personally involved in
the committee meeting in question. On a previous occasion my friend made an excellent argument on the basis of a question of privilege because he was at the particular committee meeting at which it was suggested the meeting be televised. On this occasion, my hon. friend was not at the meeting. I think that the matter should be treated as a point of order, which I think is a very good point of order.
I have reviewed Hansard from the previous occasion in which my hon. friend made the point on page 822 that no committee chairman has the authority to allow televising or broadcasting of committee hearings. I agree 100 per cent with my colleague. I would take it one step further. First, however, I want to join with him in commenting on the content of the committee hearings.
There is absolutely no question that every Canadian-we were all here yesterday when Coretta King was introduced to the House-is well aware of the magnificent contribution which her husband made to the history of this continent and the efforts that she is making of her own accord. We are appreciative of her visiting Canada and taking the time to meet with Hon. Members of the House of Commons. However, there are some things that no committee is empowered to do, even upon consent. I suggest, as my hon. friend suggested, that the House Leaders and the Board of Internal Economy be seized of the matter. That is where it belongs.
Considerations are ongoing, and it was unfortunate and inappropriate that the hearings this morning were televised. We all appreciate the spirit of the occasion, but there are some things one cannot do, even with consent, when the spirit moves one.
I suggest that Mr. Speaker should consider this to be a very serious point of order. Under the circumstances, as my friend suggested, until some rulings upon which we can all agree are brought forward in the House, there should be no question at any time that committee hearings be televised.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the matter before us for a moment, as I was there this morning and witnessed what happened.
What is apparent to everyone is that there was a lot of confusion and interest because the witness was one with very high profile, there was a huge crowd, and all sorts of things can happen. I think what the House wants to understand-and certain committee chairmen would want to hear it expressed- is that this is not a precedent. What happened this morning was a very unique circumstance. It is important that the Board of Internal Economy deal with it. I think it is something the House wants to see decided clearly and in a direction which we as chairmen can live up to.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to a somewhat dubious question of privilege and perhaps more likely a point
April 9, 1987

of order. As inexperienced as I may be in this place, I recognize the dangers which are potentially present in committee hearings that become the focus of television, radio or photography without the kinds of controls provided by the electronic Hansard.
Perhaps we should take note of the events this morning in terms of what we have been celebrating for the last two days. Coretta Scott King is the widow of Martin Luther King. She is honoured as he was honoured not because they followed the rules but because, by virtue of breaking the rules when it was necessary to do so, they brought focus to a problem in the nature of our democracy.
The Elouse and its committees represent the functioning of democracy in Canada. If there had not been television or radio in the committee this morning, Canadians would not have been able to see or hear the widow of Martin Luther King assert clearly for us all to hear that there is no fight for freedom in alliance with South Africa in Angola by the United States or that United States involvement in Nicaragua is not a struggle for freedom.
The rules were broken, but I think the dramatic nature of her intervention demonstrates clearly to all Canadians that it ought to be possible for Canadians to see what goes on in committee. I support the proposition that the matter be addressed by the Government. If it is, and if it is addressed in the interests of Canadians, once again it will be because the name "King" was associated with an event which changed history. I look forward to the result, which will mean just that.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take just a few moments to speak to the point because of my own personal interest in and concern for the issue. I preface my remarks by emphasizing that I believe most strongly that from time to time the deliberations and proceedings of a committee of the House ought to be televised.
Further I would say, in full and total agreement with the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), that there was no clearer an example of such an opportunity than that which presented itself to the Standing Committee on Human Rights this morning.
The motivation of the committee was right and proper, that is, that a distinguished and inspirational person like Coretta Scott King, the widow of the great civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., should have had a much wider audience. Her message really needed to be shared with many, many more people. I commend the motivations of the committee.
It is regrettable in the extreme that the committee clearly breached its authority. There are no Standing Orders which allow it to make the decision unilaterally to have television in the committees. The committees are not maitres chez nous except insofar as the authority exists in the Standing Orders or by a particular reference from the House.
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
What we have at the moment-and the Standing Committee on Human Rights has brought it into focus-is an unresolved, unaddressed, and very important issue, that is, when and under what circumstances may television be utilized by the committees of the House. So far that matter has not been settled and, in not settling it, I think we the Members of the House have collectively been negligent.
I want it understood that the committees know the Standing Orders. They know the references in Beauchesne's. I should like to quote from Citation 304 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 244 as follows:
A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House.
To the very best of my knowledge, committees do not have this discretionary power. Whenever they have attempted to assume that power unto themselves, they have run afoul of the House. We know what are the proper proceedings. That was exemplified by the constitutional committee. When it felt it was important to share the constitutional debate with the whole nation, it came to the House seeking authority, and that authority was granted.
We know what committees can do. Under Standing Order 96(1) the powers of committees are clearly established-to examine, to inquire, to report, and to send for papers and records. If they do not have enough authority, they can come back to the House to seek additional authority for papers which they feel they need. They may sit while the House is sitting or during a period when the House is in adjournment.
The Standing Orders are so clear that they went on in Standing Order 96(2) to say that there are additional powers which the committees have, and those additional powers are spelled out very specifically. In fact, certain committees have a power or powers which other committees may not have because of the particular responsibilities laid upon them by the House. However, when a committee is in doubt about what it can or cannot do, it must come to the House for direction.
I return again to Beauchesne's where it says that sometimes a committee may have to obtain leave from the House when its order of reference is limited in scope. That is the operative phrase-to obtain leave. Thus, if a committee wishes to utilize television, as did the Standing Committee on Human Rights this morning, it must obtain leave at the present time.
I am not condemning the committee. I am not casting judgment on the committee.
I am saying that we are faced with an intolerable situation. It would have been extremely difficult, given the circumstances under which the House has functioned in the last several days, for a committee to anticipate that this would be the situation this morning and to obtain leave. The fact that there was no other recourse and that the Standing Orders did not allow the committee to act under the authority of the House is regrettable.

April 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
Returning to Beauchesne's, Citation 304(2) indicates that a committee is bound by and is not at liberty to depart from the orders of reference. That, Sir, is what must be changed.
The Committee on Human Rights has served all committees extremely well today. It has raised a situation that cannot go unresolved any longer. We must act now and we must act decisively. The committee has emphasized that now is the time for the House to make a clear and unequivocal decision regarding the use of television in committees. We must decide when it can be used and under what conditions it can be used. Perhaps Standing Order 96(2) needs to be expanded by adding an additional section dealing with television.
I conclude by saying that there is in Canada a very wrong impression about Parliament. That impression is that everything of significance happens in this place, and, worse than that, that the only significant event in this House is the 45-minute Question Period. You know, Mr. Speaker, as do all Hon. Members, that much of the useful, valuable work and much of the service to Canadian citizens occurs when Members of Parliament attend committee to deal, often in a very non-partisan and objective way, with the important business of this nation. Not every single proceeding and not every single committee hearing should be broadcast, but it is a pity that on occasion Canadians cannot see the good work of Parliament in committees by way of the media of television.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise until I heard one of the comments made by the Hon. Member who last spoke regarding the question of television in the committees. I would point out that too often a wrong makes a right. I cannot accept that a wrong having been done today proves that it is right to have television in committees. I would like to agree with the Hon. Member that there are times when committees should be televised. However, we should not change the rules because something wrong was done. We should change the rules if we feel it is right to have television in committees.
I agree that there are some committee hearings that should be televised and others that should not. We do not wish to leave the public with the dissatisfaction of a dull debate, something which would happen if we televised each and every committee.
I feel that today the committee did have an opportunity to disband officially and at that point to allow the cameras to run. This is one way the committee could have gotten around the rule. However, it did break the rules of the House and I object to that.
If you, Mr. Speaker, were to make a rapid decision based on the wrong that was done today, that too would be wrong. I would like to see, as submitted by my colleague, the Liberal Whip, a committee established to discuss what should be done, and I would like to see a full discussion involving the Whips because it is, to a large extent, our responsibility. We could discuss how and when committees should be televised.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak to this same point. I would first observe that, as you know full well, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for witnesses to be heard in this House. It is within the context of a committee that witnesses, Canadians and people from abroad, are called to give special information to Parliamentarians. Because of that, I would first like to lend my support to those learned dispositions made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who talked about the need for the House to deal with this matter and to do so in as wise a way as possible. This is an electronic age and we know it is our responsibility to inform Canadians, to give them some knowledge of what we do here and to make ourselves accountable to them. Rather than seeing the media as a threat, it seems to me that the proper use of media is to provide an opportunity for people to be better informed.
I also rise because I was a member of that committee. I do not want to leave it to others to suffer alone whatever criticisms there may be. While the chairman was sitting as the chairman, it was the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) who moved the motion that the television cameras be allowed to be present on this very special occasion and it was I who seconded that motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
On occasion throughout history, we have seen the violation of rules, perhaps wittingly and perhaps unwittingly. Certainly the black woman who sat in the back of a bus in Alabama changed history by challenging the rules. Let us hope that this particular event will also have a positive end. Although the committee had no intention of challenging the rule, by bringing this into focus perhaps a change will come about so that we may better inform Canadians and provide greater accountability of the House of Commons to them. I feel that the chairman should not be held solely responsible in any way for what happened today.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a word on this matter because I had something to do with consideration of the matter as a member of the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons.
At least two things need to be said. First, by allowing its proceedings to be televised, the committee did go beyond its powers and I do not think there is any dispute about that. However, it was a manifestation of what can probably be found in more than just that committee, and that is the emerging consensus among Members of Parliament and committees collectively that there ought to be some provision for the televising of committees.
I would not want it to be said that if we were to proceed with the televising of committees it would have come about because of civil disobedience on the part of a committee. On this occasion it came about because the committee simply decided to take the Standing Orders into its own hands, so to speak. I think the televising of committees is something that
April 9, 1987

should be done, not by default and not after it has become common practice, but something that should be in a positive way and in response to the recommendations of the special committee on the reform of the Elouse of Commons. In those recommendations are guidelines with respect to how this can happen. I think it is time that all the people who have the authority to bring this into effect got together to see that this recommendation of the McGrath Committee is brought to fruition.
I believe that televising committees could have a positive impact in terms of broadening Canadians' knowledge of where work goes on in Parliament. People could see through television, on which many people depend for information about the political system, what goes on in committees as well as what goes on in the House.
If this occasion has done nothing else, it should provide an opportunity for the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to say to the committee that it has acted beyond its powers. This should also be an occasion for Members of Parliament and the House collectively to find renewed initiative to get on with the recommendations of the special committee with regard to the televising of committees.
I hope this will have a positive effect on the future of Parliament. There is no guarantee that it will. It does have its down sides, but I think it is something of which Members of Parliament, the media, and everyone else concerned must try to make the best.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the committee which is under discussion I would like to make a few points very briefly.
First, I doubt that any member of the committee was aware that the committee, in making this decision, was countering the rules of the House. There was certainly no intention to be other than respectful of the authority of the House. If we acted beyond our authority and rights as a committee, then so we did. It is possible that we are not the first people in the history of the House who have made a mistake. However, if a mistake we made, we made it without intending any affront to the House or its officers.
The second point which I think needs to be considered is that the committee made this decision unanimously. I think the decision was welcomed by all members of the committee, regardless of Party, as an opportunity on this occasion, and this occasion only without precedent being set, to provide the people of Canada with an opportunity to hear the message of a distinguished human being who was in this country, in this city, and on this Hill, as she may not be again. She had already given an inspirational address to a large number of people who were fortunate enough to be in the hall where she spoke. To the best of my knowledge there was no opportunity for that message and presentation to be shared via television with the larger public of the country. This was an opportunity for the
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
people of Canada to receive something which I still believe, with respect to this debate, would be welcomed by the people.
I think it should be noted that for the purpose of the Human Rights Committee today's decision was not to be regarded as a precedent, that it was being done for this time only and in recognition of the special circumstances of the meeting which had been called to hear an outstanding human rights advocate. I submit that to you with respect, Mr. Speaker. If we have broken the rules, it was done without any intent to show other than respect to you and the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few points to this very important discussion. We recognize that the privileges of the House extend to the committees by and large. The committee reports and the verbatim transcripts of committee hearings are documents published under the authority of the House and are entitled to the same absolute privilege as are House documents. The point that ought to be made is that when the events of the committee were televised with the potential for rebroadcast there was the possibility that an individual's comments could be considered slanderous or problematic and, therefore, open to some interpretation by a third party.
I submit that by convention the same thing exists in this House. While Members of Parliament are protected under the privileges that exist, we are being broadcast throughout the country and would be subject to the same situation if a person were able to put forward a slander suit or something similar as a result of the broadcast of the House of Commons.
By convention Members of the House of Commons have agreed and assumed that that which is said in the Chamber is subject to immunity under the appropriate rules of the House. If that immunity exists here, I fail to see why the same thing would not exist in committees. As I said, there is an understanding that committee reports and the verbatim transcripts of the committee hearings are documents published under the authority of the House which are entitled to the same privileges. Presumably convention in the House of Commons ought to apply equally to the committees of the House of Commons. For that reason I do not believe that the privileges of Members of the House have been breached.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I want to say this is very important. I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his intervention and also for the various points he made on the present position. It is clear. There is no objection to the principle of television in committees, but to a decision that shifts the authority, the power, against the rules. It is not appropriate for a committee to have televised broadcasting of its proceedings.

No one is pretending for a moment that what was done was other than a breach of the rules. There have been suggestions made that certain circumstances justify breaching rules. I

April 9, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
remind all members that that is a position which the Chair is sometimes very much tempted to take, but I try mightily to stay within the rules. If I did not I am sure all Hon. Members would have something to say to the Chair, because I am your servant. The rules are made by this place and, of course, they are made to be obeyed.
Especially for the public which is listening to this debate I want to reassert that we are Members of Parliament; we are law makers, we are the inheritors of a tradition of the rule of law. As a consequence, none of us ought to take lightly the breaking of rules.
It so happens that in this case the very distinguished, remarkable and much loved Coretta Scott King was before the committee. By the way, in my view the committee had other options. It could have sat as an ad hoc group. It could have appended the proceedings to the further proceedings when they regrouped as a full committee. Perhaps that did not occur to the committee, but I point out that there are other ways in which this could have been approached.
It is clear that there has been a disposition among some Members of Parliament to bring television into committees, or at least into some committees. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) pointed out very well that Question Period, while at its best is the finest accountability session in any free country, is not all of Parliament. I was pleased to hear him point out the incredible amount of work that goes on in committees. I am glad it has been said and repeated by members, because as Speaker I often have to remind the public that when this place is not packed after Question Period it is because members are at committees, of which there are 30 or 40 sitting at any given time including the legislative committees.
However, remembering that we do live by the rule of law I must remind Hon. Members that our rules here are the precedents of rulings set by Speakers and the Standing Orders that Hon. Members have set for themselves.
I remind Hon. Members that on November 6, 1980, Speaker Sauve said on exactly this point:
After listening very carefully to the debate this afternoon, 1 have not been
persuaded to change my opinion or to reverse the opinion of my predecessor,
and 1 must hold the view that the televising of proceedings of standing and
special committees of the House may be authorized only by the House itself.
Some time ago, before I became Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy suggested a form of order that could be presented to the House which would cover the televising of committees, or some committees. But that resolution has never been put to the House. As other Hon. Members have pointed out today, if it is the disposition of this place to have television in the committees, or in some committees, or in some circumstances, then clearly the obligation lies on members of all Parties to put the procedural rules in place to enable this to happen. Members from all Parties were at the committee today and all, quite frankly, have stated that they did want
television for that proceeding. I can understand the reasons for that.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, as he said at the beginning, has raised this matter before and it is not because he is against television in committee-which I understand- but because he has, I believe, a very appropriate regard for the fact that we make rules and we must live by them.
There has been some suggestion that perhaps this is a question of privilege. I do not think that it is in the interest of members for me to really inquire very far in that direction. I think that enough has been said. I believe there is no question that what was done was against the rules, what was done could have been done in another way, and if it is to be done again it is up to Hon. Members to make sure that it is done lawfully.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement this day's sitting will be extended by eight minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are four motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977.
Since there are identical motions on the Order Paper, I have consulted with the Hon. Members concerned and I am prepared to select the motions in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 4 seeks to permit the payment of $175 million to the province in the first year rather than in the two-year period proposed in the Bill. This motion was moved and ruled out of order in the committee on the grounds that it infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown by adding an additional charge on the public treasury.
The Chair agrees with this decision but must, however, consider the fact that this motion is a straight deletion of
April 9, 1987

words. A study of the precedents shows that this type of motion has always been allowed at the report stage. I will refer Elon. Members to Speaker Jerome's decision of June 29, 1976, where the Speaker said that the Standing Order: "Appears to give them a sanctity that does not extend to other motions".
Furthermore, Speaker Lamoureux made the following statement in his ruling of February 13, 1969:
-an Hon. Member may do certain things at this stage of the proceedings, one
of which is to move the deletion of a clause.
Although the Chair has difficulties with this motion, I am prepared to allow the Hon. Member to move his motion on the basis of the two precedents I have quoted.
Therefore, this motion will be debated and voted on separately.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides) moved:: That Bill C-44 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 19 at page 1 and
substituting the following therefor:
"and ending on March 31, 1990, a fiscal".
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to present Motions Nos. 2 and 4 to be debated and voted on in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I moved Motion No. 2 which seeks to limit the application of the 1987 Bill C-44 to 1990 instead of 1992 on account of the announcement the Finance Minister made in this House in his budget speech and to the general public last July, when his Government expressed its intention to proceed with a thorough tax reform that would affect personal and corporate income tax, the idea being that the tax base would be modified, broadened, that some taxpayers would be taken off the tax rolls and that a heavier burden would be borne by corporations, thus allowing the fiscal burden of individuals as it is after the last three Budgets to be reduced and maybe brought back to the 1984 level.
Mr. Speaker, such fiscal amendments will definitely impact on provincial revenues, and we know that the equalization formula under which the federal Government makes payments to provinces-and this is what Bill C-44 would be doing-is based on the per capita yield of one tax point in each province, such yields being equalized according to a five-province average. Now, Mr. Speaker, the tax reform that has been announced-and unfortunately we are still awaiting the White Paper on that tax reform-is to include not only the amendments I just referred to, but also in-depth changes to the federal sales tax, which could be replaced by a value-added, or transaction tax.
We are told-and this has been repeated on a number of occasions-that such an amendment could even lead provinces to review their own provincial sales tax systems and share, according to a formula that is not known to me, in that proposed value-added, or transfer, or transaction tax. Mr. Speaker, such an overhaul could be very significant indeed, and would certainly change provincial revenues, which in some
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
cases could be higher and other cases lower, and the average itself no doubt could change.
First, in respect of the personal income tax, the taxable income average is not the same in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, all provinces that receive equalization payments.
This means that if yields differ from one province to the other and there is a lowering in principle of income tax rates for individuals at the lower end of the income scale in Canada, the impacts on revenues in each province will be changed, and this in turn could alter equalization. This is why I propose that the scope of Bill C-44 be limited to three years, from 1987 to 1990, to enable the House and the Government-whoever may be in Government in 1990-to force the House to review equalization payments and the equalization payment formula to take into account such changes and the impact that tax changes could have on provincial revenues, and thereby on equalization. The argument we hear from Government benches is that it is always possible for the House of Commons to review equalization payments and that the Government could bring in legislation that would take into account the impact of tax reform.
Mr. Speaker, I readily admit that such a possibility exists. It is absolutely true that the Government could, over the five year period, come up with a new proposal in the House of Commons. But it could also very well be that the Government that will be in place after tax reform will decide not to make any change. This might, or would force provinces to go through a difficult period fraught with financial difficulties, complexities in providing services of a uniform high quality from coast to coast. Therefore, by suggesting that the scope of Bill C-44 be limited to three years instead of five, this would allow the House and government Members or place them under the obligation to review the legislation in order to take into account changes that might be caused by tax reform. I am sure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and especially the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) have brought these arguments forward. I would not want to doubt their good intentions but I am reminded of the old saying that might is right. The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) will certainly recall how often this sentence was used by the man who once represented the riding of Trois-Rivieres in the Quebec Legislative assembly as he sought to ensure equitable treatment for provinces in terms of equalization payments.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this prudent step which has no effect on government policy at the present time and which is intended to ensure greater equity and to provide greater security to provinces with regard to equalization payments they receive from the federal Government-that the amendment contained in Motion No. 2 which I am tabling to ensure income stability for the provinces shall be well received by all the Hon. Members of this House.

April 9, 1987
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer)- Correctional Services Canada-Contract to supervise parolees in Toronto; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Shipyards-(a) Inquiry why Government is delaying contract awards to three Quebec shipyards, (b) Inquiry why certain work has not yet begun; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Bilingualism-Public Service-(a) Compliance with linguistic requirements by Deputy Ministers, (b) Policy enunciation-effect on Public Service.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Garneau, p. 5017).
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this legislation is important to the provinces, and you may remember, Mr. Speaker, that earlier today when the Government was trying to deal with a time allocation motion I had actually made a motion that we move to Government Orders in order to debate this legislation and give it the adequate time it needs. I am afraid that by having this legislation finally introduced into the House just a little more than an hour before we adjourn, as far as dealing with Government business for the day, we are really not giving this matter the attention it deserves.
Members of the Government tried to indicate that we have been filibustering or slowing down this process. The Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, have all indicated this is important legislation and that they want it passed, but they did not introduce this legislation into the House of Commons until the middle of March.
The Government came running to the New Democratic Party, and myself as the critic in this area-and I am sure they went to the Liberal Party as well-and said: "We want this legislation passed quickly". We tried to help. We gave this legislation second reading in one short day of debate. We said that all we wanted was a chance to move amendments in committee and to hear a limited number of witnesses.
One would assume with that kind of co-operation from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, the Government would move quickly in committee. Instead, it was another week before the Government got its act together and started legislative committee hearings on the equalization legislation. That meant, again because the Government was in a rush, that we were trying to get witnesses to appear in the next day or two.
You are from western Canada, Mr. Speaker, and realize what a large country we live in. You will realize how difficult it is to get speakers from major groups and from the provinces to come to Ottawa to express their concerns on such short notice.
Because we believe this money has to go to what we call the "have not" provinces, the poorer provinces, we again cooperated with the Government and managed to get this legislation through committee in a very short time frame. This legislation could have been brought back to the House on Tuesday. It could have been brought to the House on Wednesday. Instead, the Government refused to act because it wanted to pass some other legislation and introduce time allocation- which is "closure" by a different name-on Bill C-22, the proposed legislation to change the Patent Act as it affects drug prices. We squabbled and spent yesterday in procedural motions, basically Government initiated, and again today when the Government refused to move to this legislation quickly.
I think the opposition has done all it can to give quick passage to this legislation. I am not going to agree at this time to pass report stage with just one hour's debate. The ruling just given by the Chair indicates we have two motions before us and that they will be debated separately. People are concerned about these motions.
We have had a history in the last number of years, ever since 1982, of the federal Government speaking down to the provinces on matters of this nature. It has not sat down and negotiated agreements with the provinces on EPF, the Established Program Financing. It has not sat down and negotiated a process of equalization. Whether it is the previous Liberal Government or it is this Conservative Government, we have a situation where provinces of all political stripes are complaining about the way the federal Government treats them on this issue.
In my speech on second reading I indicated a whole series of problems the provinces were having with this process. They would go to a meeting expecting to receive $175 million in one year, and all of a sudden at the next meeting they would discover that the $175 million would be given over two years.
April 9, 1987

The Established Program Financing was not supposed to result in a cut from what was promised for the fiscal year 1986-87, according to the budget figures we were given by the Minister of Finance in November of 1985. All of a sudden the provincial Ministers of Finance find that, yes, the formula is changing and it will be one year earlier, which means there will be $400 million less going to the provinces through EPF than would have been the case had the other legislation been allowed to continue to the end of March 1987. So there is a series of problems which must be taken into consideration.
I think that the amendment before us will help in some ways. It is an amendment which I certainly intend to support. First, it helps because if it is accepted by the Government we would not be stuck with this legislation for the next five or six years, but for a much shorter period of time. This is important because the Government has said, as has the Minister of Finance in his last Budget and the Minister of State for Finance in answer to a question this afternoon, that tax reform is a priority of the Government and that they will do something to make the system more fair, more simple, and a number of other things. Indeed, if that is true then the financial picture of the federal Government will change, as will the financial situation of the provinces.
I think it is important that we look at equalization again as a result of those changes in tax legislation. Three years is certainly more than enough time for the federal Government to come down with its proposals for tax reform. It is more than enough time for the people of Canada to react to the changes. It is more than enough time to ensure that we have legislation in place and that we have some expectation provided by the federal Department of Finance along with its provincial counterparts with respect to what we can expect.
I am afraid that if we pass this legislation in its present form we will end up in a situation in which tax reform will come in some way or other and this legislation will be kept in place. It will limit the amount of money that the federal Government has to give to the have-not parts of the country. I find that objectionable. It makes me question the sincerity and good faith of the federal Government with regard to tax reform when it insists on making this legislation stay in play for over five years.
I realize that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind you, although I am sure I do not have to, of the procedure in the House that we must always speak to the Speaker, even though he is such a wise man who probably knows everything we will say anyway. However, for the benefit of some members on the government benches it is necessary to say these things, and 1 have to address them to you, Mr. Speaker, so that they can hear me.
I think it is important to remind the House that the Premiers of the Provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec and the Premier and Minister of Finance of Manitoba have all
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
expressed concern that we are not doing enough in terms of equalization.
Last March when we last spoke to this measure I pointed out that even the Canadian Medical Association pointed out that as a result of the way legislation is going in this country we are creating more and more of a two-class system in terms of medicare and hospitalization. The legislation which is before us at the present time takes us further down that road. It makes it more and more difficult for the poorer provinces to provide the same level of services as they are now providing, let alone a level of services that Canadians in other parts of the country receive.
For that reason alone I believe this amendment should pass. It will give us time to ensure that there can be better legislation in the future, legislation which will actually reflect the tax reform which has been promised in this House.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my support for this amending motion which would oblige governments to renegotiate the equalization agreement in 1990 instead of 1992 as proposed in the Bill. This, Mr. Speaker, to allow for the impact the tax reform will have on payments to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, for two years the Conservative Government has been promising tax reform. We know perfectly well that this reform will have a substantial impact on the revenues of the provinces, and since the equalization system works on the basis of those revenues, the agreement should cover a shorter period, so that when we get tax reform, we can then adjust the equalization agreement and fiscal arrangements with the provinces accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why government Members, why the Conservative Members of this House should have any objection to voting in favour of the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). In fact, their support should be unanimous, so that once the Bill is passed, we can proceed, we hope in a few weeks, with the White Paper promised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his February, 1986, Budget.
Mr. Speaker, if the motion is defeated this afternoon, it will be clear the Government does not intend to introduce its proposal for tax reform in May, as announced, or if it does, that it does not intend to implement the reform as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, that would be only one of many promises this Government has failed to keep. Promises for tax reform, promises for social justice, and instead we got the highest tax increase since World War II.
Mr. Speaker, although the Government's last Budget hardly deserves the name, the Government nevertheless managed to include five tax increases.
If Conservative Members are sincere, if the Government really wants to introduce tax reform proposals that are fair and

April 9, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
equitable, it should support this motion and have an equalization Bill to cover the period from 1990 to 1992. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I meant from 1987 to 1990, instead of up to 1992 as proposed in the Bill before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point I would like to make. We must not forget that the Conservative Government has already considerably reduced funding for economic and regional development. As far as regional economic development goes, the Government's record is not very encouraging. We know that the envelope for regional economic development went from $14.9 billion in 1984-85 to $12 billion in 1987-88. That is a drop of $2.9 billion in three years, so that in real terms, this envelope has lost nearly 30 per cent of its value.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is still higher today in six provinces than it was in 1982. Why then does the Government keep on increasing taxes and reducing transfers to the provinces? It wants to sign an agreement for a longer period while speaking about a tax reform which we know will affect the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to this House a statement made by Quebec's Minister of Finance, Honourable Gerard D. Levesque, in a letter that he sent to his federal counterpart on February 4, 1987. I quote:
Thus, despite Quebec's opposition, you are proposing to change the real estate tax base using the data provided by the real estate company Royal Lepage. On the other hand, you refuse to take into account the interprovincial differentials in value of residential land reflected in those data, which would largely meet the objections we have put forward. You will understand that I was surprised to hear that those changes had been considered under a federal-provincial joint proposal.
I have serious questions about the usefulness of the consultation process that took place and that led to the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, who has forgotten the commitments made in the fall of 1984?
Consultation. That was the buzzword of all Conservative candidates. They were speaking about a new relationship with the provinces. And here is a Quebec Minister of Finance who seriously questions this consultation process followed by the Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment put forward by my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) is clear. Its purpose is to have the agreement terminated in 1990 in order to allow for the promised tax reform. If this amendment is negatived this afternoon, it means that our famous tax reform will not take place and I wonder what small business will think about this action. You will recall that not so long ago, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business published a survey of its members. Their two major concerns were the tax burden and Government red tape. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, those two major problems can be solved through a fair tax reform and we hope that Conservative Members will support this amendment. If they do, we shall continue to believe that tax reform will take place in the near future.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this motion until I was provoked to do so by the nonsense the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) was spouting out. First, the Hon. Member wants to know why the Bill was not brought in earlier. It is obvious that because the census data is not available until the end of January or until the beginning of February, when that data becomes available it has to be processed and all kinds of calculations have to be made before it is possible to make the necessary estimates that are dealt with in this Bill. That is simply why it is not possible to bring in the Bill before the census data is available.
The Bill was brought in on March 11. As far as the Government is concerned, it has been dealt with expeditiously. If it were not for the kind of nonsense we went through yesterday with the Liberals and their colleagues, the New Democrats, deliberately delaying the work of this House, this Bill would already have been dealt with and by now it would have received Royal Assent.
The New Democrats in their presentation should have taken into account that there is no change to the formula proposed in this Bill. It does two things. We are continuing with the same existing equalization formula for another five years. There is no change at all to the formula, just a change to the input data as a result of the last census.
We are also being extremely generous with the provinces in this Bill in forgiving about $175 million that has been paid to them in excess of the amounts the provinces are supposed to have had over the last couple of years. When it comes to generosity on the part of the federal Government toward the provinces that do not have the capability of raising all their own provincial revenues, this amounts, in the case of Newfoundland, to about $1,800 per capita per annum. I challenge any member of the New Democratic Party or any other Party in this House to say that that is not fair and generous treatment when you compare that with the $700 per capita in Ontario.
We are getting led astray by the Opposition on the question of tax reform, Mr. Speaker. If we look at the proposals that have been brought forward in this House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), what possible effect, other than an almost negligible one, could they have on the ability of provinces to raise moneys through the ways which provinces customarily do? What effect will tax reform have on a province concerning resource royalties, for example? None, Mr. Speaker. What effect will tax reform have on the provincial sales tax? None. We are getting carried away when we think there will be major changes to the equalization formula as a result of any tax reform on the federal level.
Therefore, there is no need for this amendment that we have before us to reduce the time period of renewal from five years to three years. Five years is a reasonable time for the extension
April 9, 1987

of these types of federal-provincial agreements. If they are ever to be changed, a lot of negotiation will be required. We should not have to go through them every year or every second year because they are something like the Bank Act. Traditionally we have come to the determination that a reasonable period of renewal for major changes to the Bank Act is every 10 years. With these types of financial arrangements between the provinces and the federal Government, we have come to the understanding that five years makes sense and is a reasonable period.
What we have to keep in mind when we are discussing this Bill is that the provinces are expecting to get those cheques issued on April 16, only a few days from now. If that is to happen, Mr. Speaker, then we must have Royal Assent around April 14, which is next Tuesday. Be it on the heads of the Liberals and the New Democrats if they so delay this Bill that those provinces which need the money do not get it, as a result of their activities and the nonsense that is going on in this House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, first with regard to what was said by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), it seems to me that the argument he gave about the data from the census having to be processed being the reason that the Bill could only be introduced at the time was somewhat suspect as an argument. It seems to me that what the Bill lays out are certain principles and formulae on how equalization payments are to be made. Those could be arrived at and passed by this House, even if they could not have been agreed upon, long before the time the Government chose to bring the Bill before the House.
What concerns me about the Bill, particularly in speaking to the amendment, is the Government's refusal to consider the idea of having a three-year period as opposed to a five-year period. I acknowledge that traditionally there has been a five-year period, and I also acknowledge the wisdom in principle of what the Hon. Member from Western Arctic said that these are things that should not be in a constant state of negotiation. There should be arrangements which last for a significant period of time and, therefore, give a certain amount of predictability to the fiscal management of the provinces and, for that matter, the federal Government.
Unfortunately what has happened is that since 1977, which was the last time the federal Government and the provinces actually agreed on what federal-provincial fiscal arrangements would be, whether with respect to the Established Programs Financing or whether with respect to equalization, which is what we are speaking about today, we have had a history of successive governments. First we had a Liberal Government, and then the Conservative Government which unilaterally changed the fiscal arrangements existing between the federal and provincial governments.
The Bill proposes to give an increase of $175 million to the provinces over two years, instead of the one year to which the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
provinces were entitled and which the federal Government should have given if it were interested in reaching an agreement. It is another example of unilateral action.
I say to Hon. Members on the government side that there is some authentic merit in the following two notions which one could use to support the idea of only having a three-year period in this instance. First, tax reform is coming forward. It seems to me that Conservatives have always been known for complaining about the way in which tax reforms make financial planning difficult for businesses. Indeed, myriad tax changes happening every year have made it difficult for business and very difficult for the provinces.
Perhaps the Government is not serious about tax reform. Perhaps its resistance to the amendment comes from the fact that down deep it knows there will not be any serious tax reform, and therefore our fears are quite unfounded. Perhaps that is the case. However, let us take the Government at its word, that there will be significant tax reform. In that case it seems to me that serious consideration should be given to shortening the time period or perhaps including a review mechanism in the legislation.
The Conservatives are very fond of sunset provisions in legislation. We are talking about a sunset provision in this amendment which is shorter than the normal sunset provision of five years on federal-provincial arrangements-and in this case its equalization-because by the Government's own admission something is coming down the pipe which could well change the financial and fiscal context within which provinces must operate.
The refusal of the Government to consider a shorter time period seems to be a confession or an expression of lack of confidence in itself and in its ability to reach an agreement with the provinces, both in respect of tax reform and in respect of Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements which could be arrived at by agreement and consensus. By refusing to consider it or dismissing the idea, basically the Government is saying that it does not expect to get along with the provinces or to reach an agreement with them, so it will put this in place for five years and forget about it. Basically that is the impression one cannot help but get when one sees the Government refusing to consider the amendment and promising significant tax reform.
There is still hope, in our judgment, that the federal Government and the provinces can reach more of an agreement than they have as yet, but the Government does not have confidence in itself that it could reach such an agreement. Instead the House is faced with the prospect of once again having to divide sooner or later on the Federal-Provincial Fiscal arrangements which are being unilaterally imposed upon the provinces.
For the benefit of newer members, I remember when the Liberal Government imposed Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements unilaterally upon the provinces. I remember the cry of indignation, outrage, and self-righteousness in the

April 9, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Chamber at that time about the nasty, arrogant, regionally and federally insensitive, Liberal Government which would even consider imposing anything unilaterally upon the provinces.
However, what have we seen since 1984? We have seen the Conservative Government continuing in that tradition. I remember only too well that it was after the September, 1984 election that I wrote to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and reminded him of when we sat together on the committee which dealt with Bill C-97, if my memory serves me correctly, that unilaterally imposed new fiscal arrangements upon the provinces and implemented the six and five reduction. Oh, what a howl there was from the then Hon. Member for Provencher about the unacceptability of unilateral action.
However, ever since the election of the Conservatives we have seen one unilateral action after another. Today, in their refusal to consider the amendment, they have not only said that unilateral action and unilateral attitude are being preserved but that they are to be preserved for at least the next five years, which could well be three years beyond the mandate of the Government.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in a very brief way in this debate.
It was in the 1930s that a royal commission looked into the problems of Canada, the problems of the provinces, in meeting in a financial way the needs of their people. It was agreed- and indeed it is defined in the Constitution-that the purpose of these programs was to ensure that provincial Governments had sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
Right after World War II it was accepted by all Parties, indeed by all Canadians, that the federal Government had a responsibility to try to ensure that all provinces and the territories would be in the position to provide basic services- post-secondary education, hospital care, and medical care-so that all Canadians were treated in a reasonable and equal way regardless of where they lived.
Over the years we have developed a great number of programs in areas where the federal Government financially helped the provinces, particularly the have-not provinces- Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan-to meet the costs of providing basic services to the people living in those provinces. We developed a hospital insurance plan where the federal Government said to the provinces that if they developed a universal health insurance plan it would pay half the cost. In the case of the have-not provinces, the Government said it would pay even more than half the cost. The Government also said that when the provinces had developed medical insurance plans, it would pay half the cost of those plans.
Realizing the importance of education, and particularly of post-secondary education, the federal Government agreed to
pay 50 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education, particularly in universities. Those plans were developed over many years, but beginning in the 1970s the then Liberal Government realized that revenues were not growing as quickly as the costs of these programs. The Liberal Government began to change the programs. We saw the end of the Government funding 50 per cent or more of the costs of hospital insurance, medical insurance and post-secondary education. As well, the Liberal Government put a ceiling on increases in the Established Program Financing formulae.
Many of the provinces expressed their opposition to these changes made by the Liberal Government. Many of the provinces, and particularly the have-not provinces of Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, did not have the ability to maintain and improve health care and postsecondary education services on their own. Their ability to raise the necessary funds through income taxes or any other form of taxes or fees for services would not permit them to continue to fund these services.
Besides the changes made in the EPF funding to which I have referred, we also saw over the years changes in the equalization payments. These were payments to provinces made by the federal Government designed to help the have-not provinces fund these programs which we as Canadians believed to be fundamental rights. We realized that only with federal government assistance could these programs be continued at an adequate level.
Again, the then Liberal Government decided to put a cap on transfer payments to the provinces. After the Conservative Government was elected, it accelerated the reduction of assistance given by the federal Government to the have-not provinces. It did so by changing the EPF funding and now it is proposing to cut back on the funding given to the have-not provinces through equalization payments.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is so quick to defend everything his Conservative Government does. On listening to him, one would think that the opposition to this Bill was being brought forward simply for partisan, political purposes. In fact, every one of the have-not provinces has protested this unilateral decision made by the Government. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, both of which have Conservative Governments, have made very clear their real opposition to this Bill. These are provinces which are in very great financial difficulty. The Province of Quebec, which now has a Liberal Government, has objected to the unilateral decision of the federal Government. The Province of Manitoba, which has an NDP Government, has objected as well.
It is not only Governments that have objected. I would like to bring to the attention of Members of the House the objections to this Bill of two very important organizations. The Canadian Teachers' Federation has argued that this change will affect very adversely and seriously the ability of the have-not provinces to provide adequate education. The Canadian Medical Association has said that as a result of this decision,
April 9, 1987

which we will make if we pass this Bill, the cut-backs in EPF funding will provide for a two-tier health system. The best services will be available in the have provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and the second tier of inadequate health services will be available in the other provinces. It is for these reasons that I join with my colleagues in opposing this Bill.
Let me point out the situation in my own Province of Manitoba. Manitoba alone of the equalization recipient provinces will face a year-over-year decline in grants. In 198687, Manitoba was the only province to receive a supplementary payment in the amount of $65 million. This brought its total equalization grant for the year up to approximately $506 million. Elowever, according to the document entitled Fiscal Equalization issued by the Government with its legislation, Manitoba will receive just $469 million in equalization payments for the year 1987-88 despite the fact that it has demonstrated its need. This is the only province where there will be an actual decline in payments, a decline of $37 million.
We believe that this decision made by the Conservative Government is unfair. Despite the arguments of government Members that they are willing to consult, we believe that for them consulting means listening to the people who object and then going in the direction in which they intended to go in the first place, something which we consider to be highly improper.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-44 and to raise some concerns. I represent a riding in Ontario, a province which is an in-between province. It is certainly not the worst off of the provinces; nor is it the best off. However, as a Canadian, I share the concerns many of us have over the plight of the poorer provinces.
The Bill before us today which deals with equalization follows through on cut-backs made in other legislation. In Bill C-96, which was before the House last spring, we saw cutbacks in the formula, and of course that Bill put at risk postsecondary education and health care funding.
I would also like to point out that education in the have-not provinces is sometimes disadvantaged by other measures. The problems faced are compounded by the direction in which other provisions are going. An example of this is the Secretary of State's funding for education in the second language or in minority languages. This funding helps considerably, though it is not the main source of funding. It augments funding available for education in the have-not provinces. However, because this funding is directed in large measure toward Anglophone institutions in Quebec, institutions which are quite well established and well funded in their own right, there is less money to go around for Francophones in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. There is less money for communities which depend very much upon these special programs. We see that there have been cut-backs there
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
and that they are disadvantaged. Therefore, they are disadvantaged with regard to funding in the main programs and also in the more specialized programs to meet particular needs.
Canada's equalization program is designed to ensure that the provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. This is very fundamental to our federal system, although it is not something that President Reagan understands very well. He simply sees it as the state doing too much and advises us against statism. However, what Mr. Reagan calls statism is, for us, caring.
As a country we care that all our communities not suffer, that the wealth be shared, and that a reasonable standard of service be provided to Canadians all across the country. We want Canadians who happen to live in economically disadvantaged areas to be guaranteed a good quality of service, especially in such key areas as post-secondary education and health care services. Equalization payments have been absolutely fundamental in ensuring that there is a standard for all Canadians to which all Canadians are entitled. All Canadians share in it by paying their taxes.
Although equalization is not perfect, it is one way of sharing the burden between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged provinces. These provisions have varied since the time of Confederation. They go right back to the BNA Act and there has been some support for the provinces with the assumption of provincial debts and per capita subsidies.
Over the years as the burden of services which the provinces have had to provide for citizens has increased and the tax revenues available to the federal Government have increased certain measures of equalization have been taken to ensure that the provinces can provide those services.
However, the present Government is failing to honour commitments made. This is especially shocking since the Conservative Government made much of the failure of the previous Liberal Government to honour commitments. There were cut-backs which began under the previous Liberal Government and the present Government has continued them, but it has had the colossal effrontery to claim the opposite. In the Speech from the Throne there was a statement about national reconciliation. We wonder where national reconciliation is when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of equalization payments and how the regions are to live with each other. The Government talks big about reconciliation but the federal Conservatives are in fact failing to honour commitments made.
One response of the Government is that there ought to be a phasing-in period and that $175 million could be added to the pot to take some of the sting out of the cut-backs which were coming in equalization payments. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated:
I believe that an augmentation of $175 million in a year, close to $5 billion in a
five-year period, is a very major increase in that program. We weren't able to

April 9, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
get a consensus, so we'll go back to the drawing boards and look at some
proposals, but the parameters are still there.
It then turned out that this SI75 million would be extended over two years rather than one. Members of the New Democratic Party have raised this supposed misunderstanding. It is not a misunderstanding but a reneging on an obligation to partially modify the cut-backs.
In looking at the actual figures we see that equalization payments as a percentage of GNP have fallen. I think this is the more realistic way to look at them. In absolute terms, of course, they have gone up, but we also have inflation. There is also growing wealth in our country and relating equalization payments to GNP is a very relevant way of looking at what is happening. In 1982-83 it was 1.35 per cent and it decreased over the following years to 1.34 per cent, 1.29 per cent and 1.15 per cent. By 1986-87 it was down to 1.08 per cent and in 1987-88 it was down to 1.06 per cent. That is not a very large percentage of the GNP and we can see that the proportion has been sliding.
In looking at equalization payments compared to the Consumer Price Index, which is a measure of inflation, we see that the increase from January, 1983, to January, 1987, was 9.9 per cent. In that same period of time the Consumer Price Index rose by 18.5 per cent. From 1983 to 1988 equalization payments were at 15.1 per cent and the Consumer Price Index was at 22.8 per cent. In short, by objective criteria the equalization payments are falling behind.
The provinces which have to provide the services and pay in real terms because the costs of services are going up, are having a great deal of difficulty finding the money to meet those needs. The best criticism of the federal Government's actions on equalization is simply that the program does not meet its constitutional requirement to provide comparable levels of service at comparable levels of taxation.
I simply want to reiterate the concerns that teachers have raised about the amounts of money available for education. Education is, of course, a provincial service, but equalization funds are one means through which the federal Government can help out. Expenditures on students very much reflect the availability of equalization payments and school board expenditures have reflected this failure.
The Canadian Teachers Federation has examined the situation seriously because of its concern for quality education and has discovered that the discrepancy between have and have-not provinces in funding of primary and secondary education is actually increasing. The gap between the provinces fell in the early 1970s but has subsequently risen. In other words, the failure of the federal Government to provide adequate levels of support through equalization is having a direct impact on the education of children. This is something which we regard as extremely regrettable.
I would particularly like to mention the case of Manitoba, one of the provinces which has been most hurt by the changes instituted by the Government. I want to repeat the protest
which Manitoba has made that the federal Government does have a responsibility under the Constitution to aid in equalization payments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to rise and speak on Bill C-44, and particularly on the amendment presented by our colleagues in the Liberal Party. Indeed, in commenting on this amendment I think it not out of place for me to point out that we have not had a speaker from the Liberal Party on this Bill for a little while. I might ask why that is. Surely if they put an amendment forward they must do so from a sincere belief in the principle of the amendment, and there must be more of them willing to support it. For obvious reasons we in the New Democratic Party have adopted this amendment which now appears to be parentless, without its original progenitors. In proposing the amendment in the first place the Liberal Party displayed more gall than grace, as I will demonstrate from an examination of the Liberal Party's record on equalization.
In speaking to the amendment, I believe it is worthwhile to set out some of the basic principles of equalization and what equalization is intended to accomplish.
Equalization is not a form of charity but an investment in Canada, particularly in Canadian unity. It is an investment in a system of financial transfer which is intended and, to some degree, does provide the poor provinces in this country which have lower tax bases, lowering taxing ability and lower tax yield, some opportunity to offer services on a reasonably comparable basis with those of the wealthier provinces.
Equalization is somewhat of a misnomer because equalization payments do not equalize. There would even be those, particularly on the government side, I suspect, who would claim that it is not really the intent of those equalization payments to equalize, but more to provide a balance.
While I will not attempt to calculate the details as to what extent equalization or balancing is accomplished, it is worthwhile to examine why this is attempted in the first place. There are very good ethical reasons for us, as a sovereign country, to attempt some form of equalization. It has been said that civilized societies-as we claim and others judge us to be in this country-are judged not by the standards of our wealthiest sectors but by what sort of services and lifestyle are available to those who, through no fault of their own, are forced to rely upon the support of their fellow citizens and the public purse.
There are even more compelling, pragmatic and practical reasons why equalization should be attempted in Canada. We are a mobile society. Those with whom we rub shoulders in the bus line or at the airport may have been raised and educated in a part of Canada that is 5,000 miles from where we live. They
April 9, 1987

may have been raised and educated in circumstances vastly different from our own, yet because society is essentially an organic method of social interaction, it is obvious that the opportunities for other people should not be unduly stifled or derogated because of the distance from particular facilities, be it industry, health care, education, commerce, or indeed entertainment. Because of our mobility rights as Canadians and the unparalleled extent to which we exercise them, many of us largely depend on each other in this country's great society. Each of us in our daily lives is dependent in a very real sense on the ability of others to function and realize their aspirations.
It is not in the national interest that we as Canadians should arbitrarily deprive any part of our society, be it divided by geography, occupation or whatever taxonomy, or lack of the proper resources required to make the essential investments in the development, not only of required skills and physical needs but the development of social interaction to which we are all entitled and able to exercise.
There must be an element of equality over time in equalization. There was a time when provinces that are now considered to be amongst the wealthier were in fact amongst the poorer provinces. We should be well aware of the way in which the economic opportunities of some parts of this country have been sacrificed-not necessarily deliberately-to the economic opportunities and prosperity of other parts of the country.
I refer to two cases in particular. The first is the Maritimes in the case of free trade arrangements within Canada and the reduced protectionism across the border that arose particularly in the last century and the beginning of this century. While I do not suggest that there are many areas in the Maritimes that are not healthy, dynamic or prosperous today, the over-all regional economy was allowed to run down. Development was transferred gradually to central Canada, particularly to the two largest and most central provinces.
The second example is British Columbia which has been unfairly and unduly penalized by the Government's willingness to concede to the demands of our great trading partner to the south in regard to softwood lumber. Unemployment in British Columbia today is far above the national average, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admitted today. If we had an equalization formula that included British Columbia on the basis of that high unemployment, it would fulfil the spirit of equalization, which is to tide over parts of the country that have been sacrificed for what the Government considers to be, albeit mistakenly, the broader national economic objectives.
In the time I have remaining, I want to discuss the interaction between equalization and Established Programs Financing. Established Programs Financing, as a percentage of the total cost of education, has fallen for the last seven years. Equalization under the Liberal scheme prior to 1983, and equalization from 1983 to 1987 has consumed a decreasing portion of the nation's resources. We committed an error when we allowed the Liberal Government to do that, and there has
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
been less commitment to equality over time than existed in earlier years.
You are signalling that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. This country needs equalization. It is an investment in our very future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.08 p.m., the Flouse will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   IMMIGRATION EXTRADITION OF LEONARD PELTIER
James Ross Fulton: That this House deplores the extradition of Mr. Leonard Peltier to the United States from Canada in 1976 on the basis of false information filed with a Canadian court by American authorities, and that this House calls upon the government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of all extradition proceedings in this regard.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this motion is before the House today. The Parliament of Canada is the highest court in Canada, being one step beyond the Supreme Court of Canada.
The motion before us is honoured today by the presence of a number of first citizens of North America and others who have travelled across the continent to be here. They are: Lew Gurwitz who has represented Mr. Peltier for more than a decade; Steve Robideau who has also worked for more than a decade; and Archie Fire Lame Deer, a medicine man from South Dakota who has travelled a great distance as well to be here during the last couple of days of the 24-hour-a-day vigil that has been taking place on the grounds of Parliament.
The purpose of Motion 28 is to give a man a fair trial before the courts of Canada. That is something that Leonard Peltier thought he was getting in 1976, but did not receive. Over the intervening years we have seen a growing movement, not just in North America but around the world, of civil libertarians, church groups, lawyers, and other interested groups who have tried through every means possible to bring justice to this man. They have done this through the court system, the political system and have provided in excess of 20 million signatures to the White House.
What I am hoping today is that this House allows this matter to come to a division. We will find that out at 6.08 p.m. What I think is starting is a fresh chapter in the life of Leonard Peltier, who is sitting at this very moment in a cell at Levenworth Penitentiary in the United States serving a double life sentence for an offence he very likely did not commit.

April 9, 1987
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
Let me deal with what I am attempting to do here today. What happened is that a bilateral treaty between Canada and the United States, a time honoured treaty, was bruised and broken by the United States. Article 9 of the bilateral treaty requires that prima facie evidence be provided in an honest, accurate and forthright manner by the foreign country with whom we have a bilateral treaty.
In this case, as we have learned in the intervening years, the U.S. administration knew at the time the documents were filed before the Federal Court of this country that the documents were perjured and falsified. That has now been confirmed by the U.S. administration. It is an extremely serious case when a treaty with our closest neighbour and ally on this continent has been breached in this way, particularly where it has taken more than a decade of a man's life sitting behind bars.
I know Hon. Members are aware of the case of another first citizen of this country, Donald Marshall, who sat for almost a decade behind bars falsely accused. It was only later when someone else admitted to the offence that he was released and now lives free in this country.
Many people might ask why the Government of the United States would put false documents and information before the highest court of this country, the Federal Court of Canada, to obtain the extradition of Leonard Peltier. One does not have to go too far to find the answer.
There were originally three co-accused, Mr. Robideau, Mr. Butler and Mr. Peltier. Mr. Robideau and Mr. Butler appeared in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in early 1976, on the charges of which Mr. Peltier has now been convicted. They were acquitted unanimously by a jury on the evidence that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Troopers and others had managed to put together. They were unanimously acquitted. They were not acquitted by a hung-jury or acquitted by half the jury.
We have learned through the work of Mr. Gurwitz and others in the United States, through access to information and through other legal processes, that the FBI sent a telex to all FBI offices and agents in the area of South Dakota and neighbouring states advising them to drop everything else they were working on following the acquittal of Mr. Robideau and Mr. Butler and to get to work full time putting together an air tight case to obtain the extradition and conviction of Mr. Peltier. We know that occurred.
Let me deal for a moment with the documents which were falsified. Our courts cannot unilaterally, on their own, return Mr. Peltier. It can only be done by the Cabinet represented in this Chamber; it alone can take the necessary steps to have Mr. Peltier returned to Canada to come before the Federal Court to be freed, as I believe he would be now if we had had an opportunity to see the nature of the Poor Bear affidavits.
It is worth noting that there may have been at least one Canadian official, Mr. Halpern, who might well have known at the time those documents were tabled that they were perjured and falsified, because he travelled with others to the United
States and the FBI did not take just one affidavit, it took five affidavits from Myrtle Poor Bear. She is a person who had been in a psychiatric institution more than 100 times at the time the falsified documents were taken.
The FBI sorted through the various affidavits and, to be sure the courts of Canada would agree to extradition, accepted the one which said this individual had been an eye witness to a double murder and that Leonard Peltier had been the one. That evidence has now been proven to be false, not just beyond a reasonable doubt. The individual who had given those original affidavits has admitted since that time that she was never at Pine Ridge Reservation during this period of time.
Others might ask what was happening? Why is this an important case to Canada? I think the damage to our treaty is the point 1 want to make. Motion No. 28 provides the way to get Mr. Peltier back for a fair extradition hearing before the courts of Canada, courts he trusted at that time and which unfortunately had false information put before them.
I would like to give a brief history of those years, and the reign of terror which took place in those States on the Wounded Knee and Pine Ridge Reservation which the FBI, the CIA, State Troopers and vigilantes invaded. Between those two areas, Wounded Knee and the Pineridge Reservation over 400 first citizens of this continent died under mysterious circumstances. They were all murdered, but no charges were ever laid. No one was ever convicted of the deaths of those individuals.
The CIA and the FBI brought in armed personnel carriers, Ml6s. Thousands of rounds were fired. It was truly a state of siege, related to the traditional use and occupancy of lands which had been turned over to the native people in that area, treaty lands which were being encroached upon by ranchers, mining companies, agricultural operations, highways, power lines and by everything else. These first citizens of North America decided to stand up for themselves and a reign of terror came upon them. A Canadian native woman was also murdered during the Pine Ridge occupation.
We see the FBI bringing the information forward it had collected in the first case, and the first two individuals, Mr. Robideau and Mr. Butler, were acquitted unanimously by a jury. The FBI put together a case; it falsified documents, it put those documents before the Federal Court of Canada and got the extradition of this man. He was taken to trial and given two life sentences for the murder of two FBI agents. This is a matter which, in terms of the information that has come out in relation to ballistics, falsified evidence and all kinds of other suppressed evidence, has now caught the attention of the U.S. Congress.
Don Edwards, a former FBI agent himself, is now the Chairman of the Congressional Committee on Constitutional and Civil Rights. He has taken this case. He, along with 55 Democrat and Republican Members of the U.S. Congress filed an amicus curiae brief, for the first time in the history of the United States on an active case before the courts in the United
April 9, 1987

States, in an attempt to get a new trial for Leonard Peltier. However, it was turned down by the Eighth Circuit Court in the United States on grounds unrelated to the evidence which had been adduced under Access to Information.
In Canada, Members of all Parties in this House, 60 parliamentarians, have signed a document asking for a new trial process for Leonard Peltier. That is why I am pleased this afternoon that the former Solicitor General, who was Solicitor General at the time, the number one policeman, one might say, in Canada, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), will be speaking this afternoon in support of this very proper process for the highest court in Canada to take the kind of judicial and well thought out opportunity we have to make recommendations to have Mr. Peltier returned to Canada for a fair, honest and open trial. That is something every Canadian expects, not just for Canadian citizens coming before our courts, but for anyone, particularly on an extradition proceeding where there are falsified documents.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) will also be speaking. He is deeply knowledgeable about the devastating affects of government regulations, policies and laws upon the first citizens of this continent. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) will also be speaking in favour of this motion. I hope that those government Members who speak on this motion will speak to the issue. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that the documents were falsified. The U.S. administration has admitted that.
Let me sum up by pointing out that first citizens, not just in Canada or in North America, but around the world, are looking to see what kind of leadership Canada is going to give on this matter. It is the first country in the western world to recognize and affirm aboriginal rights in our Constitution. They want to see if the highest court in our country will take account of the views of 74 international church groups, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 55 Members of Congress, civil rights' groups around the world, Marlon Brando, who has been involved in this case as an American citizen for more than a decade, Jackson Brown, Jessie Jackson, and four Nobel Prize winners. There is an extensive of people around the world who wish to see Leonard Peltier returned to Canada for a fair, honest and open extradition hearing so he can stay free in North America.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for introducing this motion to call upon the Government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of all extradition proceedings in this case. This motion gives me an opportunity to provide Hon. Members with brief background notes on the Peltier affair and explain why our Government did not protest against the extradition of Mr. Peltier nor ask that he be returned to Canada.
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
First I must say that the Peltier affair has often drawn the attention of the media both here and abroad. It has been pointed out that eminent religious and political personalities throughout the world as well as native and international organizations support the requests made on behalf of Mr. Peltier with respect to his release and return to Canada. It has been alleged, first that his extradition was based on false evidence, second that the treaties were ill-advisedly used, third that Mr. Peltier was unfairly and inequitably treated, and fourth that items of evidence were suppressed and that he was unjustly declared guilty of a crime he did not commit.
Unfortunately such statements are made by people who probably do not know all the relevant facts and who may not have studied the many decisions and rulings related to the case. True, inaccurate evidence was given to support the extradition request. However it is not true that such evidence was the basis for the final decision to extradite Mr. Peltier and eventually declare him guilty of murder under two charges. None of the many courts or none of the many commissions which heard or examined this case concluded that the other items of evidence did not warrant a full trial or could not be used as the basis for a guilty verdict.
Mr. Speaker, let me recall that during the CBC Fifth Estate interview in January 1987 Mr. Peltier did not deny having been among the group of people who had fired on FBI agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler when they entered the Harry Jumping Bull hall on the Pine Ridge reserve in South Dakota on January 25, 1975.
To gain a better insight into this case it will be appropriate to discuss the legislation and the extradition principles. After that, Mr. Speaker, a general outline of the extradition issue, the items of evidence in this case, and the decision to extradite will be given. We will also deal with the Federal Court review of the judgment and the decision not to appeal the request made to the then Minister of Justice. The facts in this case are quite clear, Mr. Speaker, and they will show that under the circumstances Canada did nothing other than meet its international legal commitments.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today deplores the extradition of Leonard Peltier to the United States from Canada in 1976 on the basis of false information filed with the Canadian court by American authorities, and also calls on the Government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of all extradition proceedings in this regard.
I must say that I was extremely disappointed with the response of the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin) who, I presume, spoke on behalf of the Government. In his reply he said that Canada must live up to its international obligations with respect to treaties. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States did not live up to its obligations with respect to

April 9, 1987
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
the extradition treaty when it presented evidence to the extradition hearing in Vancouver in 1976.
For some 10 years now I have been protesting the manner in which Leonard Peltier was extradited to the United States. While I as an individual cannot be sure whether Leonard Peltier is guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged against him, I am absolutely certain that false evidence was presented before the extradition hearing and that other very important evidence in the hands of the prosecution was withheld. I am absolutely sure of that.
The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that this extradition hearing in Vancouver in 1976 was a travesty of justice. It was a blight on our criminal justice system and should be annulled, as the motion suggests. We should start all over again. We should start all over again and hold an extradition hearing in which only proper evidence is presented, and all the proper evidence is presented, otherwise we will be giving credibility to fraud in our justice system.
I would like to recount some of the incidents in this case although my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has just done that. We know that in 1975 there was a serious incident which took place at the Pine Ridge Reserve in South Dakota in the United States at which two FBI officers entered onto a private ranch on the reserve without any search warrant and attempted to find evidence. As a result of that action by these FBI agents, shooting broke out and the two FBI agents were killed. An Indian was also killed. As a result of this shooting Leonard Peltier was charged with murder, fled to Canada and was later arrested in Hinton, Alberta, in February of 1976. The extradition hearing started in Vancouver in May of 1976 and concluded on December 18, 1976.
It is interesting that when the extradition hearing started I was the Solicitor General in the Government of the day. When the extradition hearing finished, in September of that same year, I was the Minister of Indian Affairs. I can remember receiving in my office, as Minister of Indian Affairs, Marlon Brando and other important personalities from the United States who pleaded with me and gave me evidence that this extradition hearing was badly flawed and should be started over again, that it should not be carried out in the way in which it had started. This was at a time when the evidence was not as strong. It became stronger as time went on. It was later admitted that the FBI had other affidavits which contradicted the affidavit it had presented before the extradition hearing in Vancouver in 1976.
The affidavit it presented was the affidavit of Myrtle Poor Bear, a poor woman who had a record of mental illness, who claimed to be Peltier's girlfriend and who said in that affidavit that she was present when Peltier shot the FBI people. However, there was another affidavit in which she denied that, which affidavit was not presented to the hearing. After the extradition hearing and after the trial it was found that shell casings discovered near the dead FBI agents could not have come from the weapon that was held by Leonard Peltier.
However, that evidence, although known to the FBI, was not presented to the trial and was fraudulently withheld.
The Yale Law Review, an eminent law review in the United States, in commenting on this case pointed out that extradition treaties are based on good faith between nations and when one nation seeking the extradition of a person to its own country presents affidavits in evidence, one usually relies on the fact that it is doing so in good faith and in accordance with the treaty. The Yale Law Review concluded that in this case that was not done. If that sort of behaviour continues then our whole system in terms of extradition falls down. It begins to crumble because we never know when to rely on the evidence that is being presented to us in these various extradition hearings.
As I pointed out, the extradition hearing and the trial in the United States was full of irregularities, false evidence and was a real frame-up. It was a frame-up to get Leonard Peltier for whatever reason the American authorities felt that that was necessary.
This case is just another example of the continuing inequities in our justice system, vis-a-vis, the poor and racial minorities. As we look at our system here in Canada, and I am sure my colleague from Cochrane can refer to it in his remarks because he is more familiar with it than I, an extremely high percentage of the people in our prisons in Canada are Indians and other people from racial minorities, much higher than their percentage of the population. That was the case in the United States and Canada when we had executions taking place and it is one of the strong arguments I use against the return of capital punishment in this country. Capital punishment has always borne more heavily on the racial minorities, the immigrants and the poor. Social and economic conditions breed this kind of discontent and situation which give rise to these types of happenings.
The Government has made a great deal about our new rules for parliamentary reform. The Government has stated that the new rules should give back-benchers and opposition Members an opportunity to present motions to this House to be debated in an open and free way and then allow those motions to come to a vote so that we can decide certain issues which are not on the Government's agenda but which are on the agenda of the opposition Parties and the back-benchers. This is just such an example.
I should point out that the request we are making in this motion is supported by a very large group of people internationally. As has been mentioned, 60 Members of Parliament in this House support it, 55 Congressmen in the United States, Amnesty International, four Nobel Prize winners, many religious leaders, bishops, archbishops, and so on in the United States, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and many others. One would hope that the Government will allow this motion before the House to come to a vote so we can take a decision on it.
April 9, 1987

If we in this country really believe in a criminal justice system, then we cannot tolerate false evidence being presented to us in an extradition hearing or the withholding of evidence. If we are going to have a proper system we must support this motion today.
Mir. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, I wish to concur with the motion presented today by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and commend him for giving the House the opportunity to consider this important matter. I concur with the Hon. Member from Skeena that with regard to the case of Leonard Peltier every aspect is deplorable.
The extradition process was deplorable, as has already been indicated to this House. Part of the evidence presented by the U.S. Government was later established to be unreliable. On the basis of information that there was some unreliable evidence, the Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the decision to extradite. The court, nevertheless, felt satisfied that the Government of the United States had produced sufficient evidence to warrant the extradition action-Sir, "sufficient evidence".
The lawyers, acting on behalf of Mr. Peltier have now obtained, as a result of the United States Freedom of Information Act, a mass of some 12,000 documents which show that the U.S. Government withheld testimony. The review process by the Federal Court of Canada and its decision was deplorable, particularly in light of the subsequent admission by the FBI that much evidence was not only withheld but, in fact, also fabricated in order to obtain the extradition order from Canada.
Mr. Peltier was surrendered to the United States after an unsuccessful political appeal to the Minister of Justice of the day, Mr. Ron Basford. I think that is deplorable as well. The Minister at that time refused to consider the material which alleged that there were inconsistencies in the affidavits. He said that was up to the courts. He confined himself solely and entirely to the question of whether the offences were in any way of a political nature. The Minister reached the conclusion that there was no evidence that the offences were of a political character. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that was deplorable because the alleged offences with which Mr. Peltier was charged occurred in a highly charged environment and an environment of political confrontation.
It has been mentioned that in June, 1975, Mr. Peltier and other members of the American Indian movement were camped at the Pine Ridge Reservation. They were there for a political reason, to protest the tribal chiefs plan to sell some resource rich reserve lands to the American Government. Isn't it always the way, Sir, that the indigenous peoples of any country are always relegated to the worst, poorest quality land? Yet, all of a sudden, when something valuable is discovered on that land, a resource-something a Government wants-the Government finds some way to get the land back, and that is exactly what happened in this case.
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
Prior to the Pine Ridge incident, in February, 1973, the American Indian movement had occupied Wounded Knee and had declared it to be an independent Sioux nation. The Indians vowed to stay there until Indian treaties had been reviewed. They vowed to stay there until the United States Senate investigated the treatment of Indians in general in the United States of America. Federal marshalls arrived on the scene. There were some negotiations and some gun-fire.
In May, 1973, the federal siege came to an end, but it came to an end in exchange for a promise that there would be sincere negotiations regarding the Indian grievances. Two years later, after that promise was made, the situation remained critical and unresolved. So we come to Pine Ridge. Two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents entered a ranch, as mentioned by my hon. colleague, without a warrant. What were they doing? They were searching for a man who had stolen a pair of boots. This was the Federal Bureau of Investigation; it is easy to see that every aspect of this case was political in nature. For the Minister of Justice in 1976 to have closed his eyes to that and not to have recognized it and granted the extradition order was deplorable and short-sighted.
Mr. Peltier was tried and convicted in the United States. It was a deplorable trial because fabricated evidence was used, unreliable evidence was used and that has been revealed. Amnesty International believes that new evidence casts serious doubts on the fairness of Leonard Peltier's trial. Amnesty International believes that the United States Court of Appeal should have given serious consideration to the evidence and it believes that the interests of justice would best be served by granting Mr. Peltier a new trial.
I might just add parenthetically that there were three judges of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court, the Court of Appeal that conceded that the prosecution withheld evidence. They also conceded that the evidence presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, at least two of them, was improper.
Extradition proceedings are carried out pursuant to a treaty. In this case it was the 1842 Treaty, the old extradition treaty between Canada and the United States. Extradition proceedings are not a trial. There is no finding of guilt or innocence. Evidence is not subjected to cross-examination. The purpose is solely to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a person being sent to a foreign country where it is alleged that he or she has committed a crime.
We now know that there was insufficient evidence. I charge that there was a violation of that extradition treaty between Canada and the United States. There were wrongdoings in respect of those proceedings because false evidence was used. Surely, in order to uphold the basis of a treaty, there are obligations to use only valid evidence. There must be the assurance that documents used are trustworthy. It is deplorable that it was otherwise.

April 9, 1987
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
I agree with the Hon. Member for Skeena who said that this was a treaty fraud. The Department of Justice would have us believe that there is no mechanism to annul a proceeding. However, if the basis upon which a decision was made is wrong, surely the decision itself is wrong and that decision should be declared null and void.
If we argue in this place that the absence of a mechanism is the reason for not acting, what a hollow argument that is. It is as if justice is some kind of machine, a sort of judicial technology.
I believe that overarching every proceeding, overarching every trial, hearing and review, there is the ideal of natural or fundamental justice. That ideal ridicules the nuts and bolts of justice and simply demands that we do what is right. To say that we cannot act is simply deplorable.
I repeat what the Hon. Member for Skeena and what the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) have said. Let this House in the name of human rights, let this House as the highest court in the land, demand in the name of natural and fundamental justice that there be a new extradition proceeding. Mr. Speaker, let justice prevail.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I paid particular attention to the strong arguments he made, along with those of other Hon. Members, on this important issue. Certainly some strong arguments have been made to which the House has an obligation to give serious consideration.
However, my colleague has already emphasized the necessity to understand the extradition law and the extradition process we in Canada are bound to follow. It is my understanding that the extradition law is straightforward and does not really offer an option at the present time.
Therefore, before beginning to discuss the particulars of the Leonard Peltier extradition case, I should like to outline generally the extradition law and principles as they are applied in Canada.
As between Canada and the United States, the Extradition Act and the extradition treaty between the two countries is the applicable law. It is important to know that a fugitive found in Canada for whom extradition is requested is not put on trial in Canada. The hearing before the extradition judge seeks to establish by the presentation of evidence essentially four things. The first is identity, that the person before the court is the fugitive wanted for serious crime in the requesting state. The second is dual criminality, that the offence for which the fugitive is wanted is an offence in both the requesting and the requested states. The third is a prima facie case, that there is sufficient evidence before the extradition court that, if believed, would require the case to be put to a full trial. The fourth is that the offence is one listed in the scheduled offences in the particular extradition treaty.
The main difference between an extradition hearing and a trial lies in the type of evidence which is admissible at the hearing and the weight to be applied to the evidence. Sworn statements of witnesses who are outside the country may be presented as evidence to the extradition judge. He is not entitled to weigh this evidence, that is, to decide whether or not he will believe it. He must accept the evidence at face value since the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be attached to evidence are properly matters to be determined at trial. The extradition judge in accepting the evidence at face value must determine, however, that there is sufficient evidence to require the fugitive to be tried in the requesting state.
In the case of Mr. Leonard Peltier, extradition was sought by the United States under Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty of August 9, 1842, between Her Majesty and the United States of America and under the supplementary Convention between Her Majesty and the United States for the extradition of criminals of July 12, 1889.
An extradition hearing is normally based upon sworn affidavits of witnesses and other documentary evidence. The requesting state produces duly authenticated copies of warrants and indictments seeking to establish the identity of the fugitive and a prima facie case respecting all criminal charges, and the foreign law which must establish a serious criminal offence. The fugitive's defences are limited since the purpose of an extradition hearing is not to establish the innocence or guilt of a fugitive but to establish a sufficient case for trial in the requesting state.
The fugitive may attempt to prove that he is not the person who is wanted in the foreign state. However, he will not present evidence to establish his innocence. He may argue that the crime in respect of which his extradition is sought is not an extraditable offence, or that the offence is one of a political character, or that there is not sufficient evidence to require that he be put to trial.
In the reported case of The United States v. Sheppard, Mr. Justice Ritchie of the Supreme Court of Canada described the standards which must be met at a preliminary hearing in Canada in order for a case to be set for trial, the same standard in the opinion of the court applied to an extradition judge in ordering that an extradition should be granted. He noted:
The justice in accordance with this principle, is, in my opinion, required to commit an accused person for trial in any case in which there is admissible evidence which could, if it were believed, result in a conviction-
He also noted:
-credibility in my view must always be a question for the jury and if the function of an extradition judge is equivalent to that of a judge in determining whether or not a case should be left to the jury, it follows that credibility is not within his sphere-
As well he noted:
I cannot accept the proposition that a trial judge is ever entitled to take a case from the jury and direct an acquittal on the ground that, in his opinion, the evidence is "manifestly unreliable". If this were the law it would deprive the members of the jury of their function to act as the sole judges of the truth or
April 9, 1987

falsity of the evidence and would thus, in my opinion, be contrary to the
accepted role of the jury in a legal system.
As you can see, Mr, Speaker, determining sufficiency of evidence is really the only function of an extradition judge. Determining the falseness of the evidence adduced at the hearing does not seem to fall within the purview of an extradition judge.
It should also be noted that if the United States presents a case which meets these standards, Canada is bound by the treaties to extradite. Unfortunately there is no basis as a matter of law for the Government of Canada to intervene before U.S. courts to make an application for Mr. Peltier's return to Canada, even if there were grounds. There is no procedure in law for seeking the annulment of extradition proceedings.
As I said in my opening remarks, it appears that the matter of extradition law is very straightforward and offers no opportunity for another option. Of course that would be the first matter with which the House would have to deal in trying to take another look at the situation.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today calls upon the Government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of extradition proceedings in this regard.
At the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for his dedication and commitment to the case of Mr. Leonard Peltier.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), a former Solicitor General and Minister of Indian Affairs at the time, for having the courage to acknowledge before the House the mistakes that were made by his Government. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a real example of courage and of exceptional dedication to the cause of justice in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank all the other Members who supported the motion.
In supporting this motion I would like not to review the facts, something which has already been ably done by previous speakers, but to examine something of the legal, political and psychological environment that leads us to the motion before us today.
It seems to me that the charges Leonard Peltier fled the United States to escape, the charges which were instanced when he was returned to the United States, courtesy of the Canadian judicial system, arose out of a situation of obvious hazard, a situation that indeed verged on civil war. As my colleague, the Hon. Member of Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), pointed out and so eloquently described, thus it is
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
ever when an essentially alien system seeks to conquer established forms of political organization by dividing. What happened was obviously the result of the division between the legally established authority supported by the United States Government, however lacking in support among its own people, and those people who held to the traditional, time-honoured and always-existing practices and traditions of Governments and social organizations within society.
The moving of a motion to return Mr. Peltier to Canada is not an attack on the judicial system of our great neighbour to the South, the United States of America. All judicial systems of law enforcement are made up of laws and regulations instituted, interpreted and applied by human beings. We are all fallible. As Martin Luther King said, within the best of us there is some evil and within the worst of us there is some good. In moving this motion, we do not propose that in some way the Canadian judicial system is superior to that of the United States. We simply say from a deep level of understanding that indeed both are capable of error, and that in this case there was a grave error made both in the United States and in Canada.
We have a parallel before us in the case of Donald Marshall, a native Canadian who spent 11 years in prison on a charge of second-degree murder for a crime to which another person later confessed. This should be used as an example of the fact that no one has brought this motion forward from any feeling of superiority. Without being flippant, Mr. Speaker, I would say that you had to be there. It is not possible for any one of us in this Chamber to say that we could understand the emotional, psychological and political climate that led to the invasion of Leonard Peltier's community. Nor could we understand the climate of paranoia which led to the laying of charges and the eventual framing of Leonard Peltier before a Canadian extradition hearing.
As the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) said, this was a case of treaty fraud. In a case of treaty fraud, it behooves us as Members of Parliament to raise the fraud with the other party to the treaty, not in the spirit of retribution or in the spirit of recrimination, but in an attempt to right a wrong that has been done, that if not righted will stand between us as something that would divide these two great peoples.
It is my understanding that Article 9 of the extradition treaty would allow Canada to negotiate through diplomatic channels for the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada for the new extradition hearing which is sought. My friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior said that to say that there is no procedure is no excuse.
After all, international organizations in Canada and the United States have supported Mr. Peltier's efforts for a new trial. The U.S. National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Amnesty International, 55 members of the United States Congress from both Parties, Don Edwards who is the Chairman of the Sub-committee on Constitutional Civil Rights in the United States, the Right Reverend Robert Smith who is Moderator of the United Church, the fourth Bertrand

April 9, 1987
Extradition of Leonard Peltier
Russell Tribunal which was held last year in Holland and 74 international religious institutions have been joined by some 20 million signatures sent to the White House in an attempt to seek a new trial for Leonard Peltier.
Let us look into the psychology of relationships between our two countries. Should we pass this motion and should Canada seek the return of Leonard Peltier to Canada from the United States Government? If we are to do it, it would be essentially a gesture of friendship to the United States and a gesture of confidence in the people of the United States. Let us look at the psychology. We all know that at times of great trauma, both individuals and organizations go through phases. There is the phase of denial and there is the reliance on pride, particularly in organizations which are afraid to move until all are ready to move.
Eventually in that cycle of denial there comes a point at which the facts are too persuasive, a point at which the motive of conscience is too powerful for pride to resist any further the pressure of reason. At that point, we can be overwhelmed, we can change and we can begin to seek reconciliation. We can begin to admit that errors have been made in the past and we can begin to start to correct those errors. I deeply believe that that is the case in the matter of Leonard Peltier.
The United States Government has admitted that affidavits used to extradite Mr. Peltier were false. To quote an article in the Yale Law Review written by Mr. Privitera:
If sovereign nations are to trust one another in carrying out their treaty obligations, there must be an obligation of fair dealing, good faith, and- representations in the tribunals of another sovereign.
He goes on to state:
Implicit in any workable contract between nations in which they agree to submit evidence in support of probable cause to the courts of either state must be an understanding that the parties will not defraud one another.
Let us as Canadians and Members of this House give the Government of the United States that opportunity.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is their intention to allow this motion to come to a vote or to talk it out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: First, that is not a point of order. Second, this is Private Members' Hour and there are a few other Members who would like to speak. I know that the former Solicitor General, who has been here for many, many years, realizes that this is Private Members' Hour. There are still two or three members who would like to add a few remarks to this very important debate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask that government Members keep in mind that if this Bill is to go to a division we have about eight minutes in which to do that. I would hope that at perhaps five after this matter could go to a division. I think it is important.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is debate.


Gabriel Fontaine: affidavits were filed from witnesses for the United States Government, including the two affidavits of February 23 and March 31, 1976, by Myrtle Poor Bear, in which she stated:
1.	That she had accompanied Leonard Peltier to the Jumping Bull Hall near Oglala-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a tradition and practice in this House that Members may use notes for reference. The member is reading a speech which was probably prepared by some bureaucrat. The practice is that you have notes and refer to them, but you do not read a speech prepared by some bureaucrat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has the floor.


Gabriel Fontaine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, to start again:
1.	That she had accompanied Leonard Peltier to the Jumping Bull Hall in Oglala, South Dakota, during the first week of May, 1975;
2.	That about one week after their arrival, Peltier and a number of other individuals started to plot the murder of all officers of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs or the FBI that might come to the area;
3.	That Peltier appeared to be leading the plot;
4.	That certain responsibilities were allotted and a detailed escape route established;
5.	That, the day before the murder of the FBI officers, Peltier told her the FBI officers would be in the area to serve an arrest warrant and she should prepare to escape after the expected shots took place;
6.	That she saw Leonard Peltier fire on men she believed to be FBI officers; and
7.	That she saw Peltier again in August, that they referred to the murder of officers and that he told her he had lost his head, had opened fire and shot at them.
The affidavits by Myrtle Poor Bear were not the only evidence introduced during the extradition hearings. Other evidence was submitted confirming Mr. Peltier's guilt, which lead the judge to conclude there was sufficient evidence against Mr. Peltier. The evidence included the gun issued to the murdered FBI officer, Jack Coler, that he carried on duty and which Peltier had in his possession. They included the bullets of a Colt A.R.-15 rifle found in his car and in another vehicle on which Peltier's fingerprints were taken. The Colt A.R.-15 rifle was similar to that used in the murder of both FBI agents. Finally according to the testimony of two eyewitnesses, Peltier had fled the scene of the crime with such a weapon.
Adjournment Debate
On the basis of those pieces of evidence, Justice Schultz concluded in a long written decision that the conclusive evidence warranted the extradition of Peltier on two charges of murder. Moreover, he concluded that other pieces of evidence were sufficient to allow him to include in the extradition order another murder charge and one of a burglary. Nobody has ever suggested that the extradition based on those last two charges were irregular.
Mr. Peltier submitted to the Federal Court of Appeal under Clause 28 of the Federal Court Act a request that the decision rendered by Justice Schultz be repealed. The hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal was held in October, 1976. Previously, Mr. Peltier's lawyer had made an application to obtain the permission to introduce another piece of evidence. That piece of evidence was a third affidavit. This was in fact the first affidavit made by Myrtle Poor Bear on February 19, 1976 which had not been introduced during the extradition hearing held before Justice Schultz in Vancouver. In that affidavit, Myrtle Poor Bear said that she had left the area where the Jumping Bull hall was located the day before the two FBI agents had been shot and had never returned there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this Order is being dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on February 11 in the House I raised a question of deep concern and frustration to my constituents. It related to a Correctional Service contract with Exodus Link Corporation to provide private parole supervision. I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to terminate funding to Exodus Link Corporation until a more suitable location had been found outside the boundaries of Parkdale-High Park.
In order to comprehend the full extent of the problem and the reasons for strong and persistent community opposition toward the location of this facility in Parkdale-High Park, it is important to provide some background on the manner in which this issue has been handled.
On September 12, Correctional Service Canada signed a contract with Exodus Link Corporation for the provision of

April 9, 1987
Adjournment Debate
private parole supervision for up to 80 conditionally released offenders. The contract did not specify a location for the attendance centre other than it was to be in Toronto. We were told that Exodus Link then began the search for a location. After investigating several sites, it applied for and received a building permit for 2050 Dundas Street West in Toronto. That action was completed prior to any consultation with the community or its elected representatives.
The choice of 2050 Dundas Street West as a location created significant and justifiable concern when the plan came to light. Had consultations taken place with elected representatives prior to the decision, Exodus Link and Correctional Service Canada would have been advised of the over-saturation of social assistance and rehabilitation facilities in Park-dale-High Park. They would have known of community concerns about the crime rate in Parkdale-High Park. They would have been warned of the negative impact of locating between 50 and 80 convicted criminals in this area. However, by their own admission, Exodus Link officials conceded that the secrecy surrounding the plan was by design in order to prevent any controversial input from the community or its elected representatives. It was a blatant cover-up.
Not only was the project conceived in secrecy and the community kept in the dark, Exodus Link misrepresented important facts when advising Correctional Service of its plans. Exodus Link told Correctional Service officials that there were only 10 halfway houses in Parkdale-High Park. They told CSC that there had been consultation with a community advisory council when in fact no such consultation occurred. No mention was made of the number of group homes, alcohol and drug addiction rehabilitation homes or young offenders and crisis care facilities which are located in the area. The facts confirm the argument put forward by the community that Parkdale-High Park is over-saturated with facilities which draw upon the community and its support systems and cannot provide the very community support and input which is imperative for the Exodus Link project to be successful.
In responding to my question, the Solicitor General advised that he would reduce the number of parolees referred to this location by 40 per cent. This would reduce the number of parolees to 50 from the original number of 80. Who is the Minister kidding? The bottom line is that Exodus Link will cause a substantial influx of convicted criminals into the area on a daily basis. The community does not and will not accept this answer. In his reply the Minister stated that site selection was the responsibility of Exodus Link. The question which begs to be asked is should Exodus Link have been given such responsibility in the first place? Why was Exodus Link allowed to develop the criteria for the facility without guidance and supervision from Correctional Service Canada and without input from community resources?
We cannot expect the community to accept the position that the federal Government did not choose the location and, therefore, is not responsible for the consequences of the
decision. What kind of response is this to the community's justifiable concern? Where is the accountability? What happened to responsible decision making? The Minister and Mayor Eggleton have been duly warned that locating Exodus Link in Parkdale-High Park is a time bomb which can result in tragedy and with serious and long term consequences for the community.
Parkdale-High Park residents have made a determined effort to provide a safe and secure environment for themselves and their families. They are willing to accept the responsibilities of good citizens and bear their fair share of safe social assistance projects. In return, they ask to be treated fairly and to be consulted in matters which affect them. In all conscience can the Minister deny that request? Failure to comply with the request of the community can only be interpreted as showing the same contempt for the electorate as that shown by Mayor Eggleton. It is an adoption of the same elitist attitude.
My constituents have made their position abundantly clear. Residents have signed petitions by the thousands and have picketed Exodus Link daily in order to demonstrate the depth of their frustration and anger. To date, the Solicitor General has not acted in any meaningful way to address the community's demands. His April 8 decision to renew the contract which expired on March 31 has escalated the level of frustration within the community. I can assure the Minister that the residents have no intention of abandoning the fight. They are concerned about the quality of life in their neighbourhood. They are fighting for a secure and safe environment, which is essential to ensuring a healthy, normal family life within our community. We are fighting for the life of our neighbourhood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to respond further on the issue raised by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer). The Hon. Member urges the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to intercede on behalf of the residents of Parkdale-High Park who object to the presence of the Exodus Link Attendance Centre at 2050 Dundas Street West.
As the Solicitor General has already stated on two occasions in the House, the Correctional Service has no say in the location of halfway houses operated by private agencies. The Correctional Service is responsible for funding agencies capable of providing the required supervision and accommodation to offenders on conditional release. As long as the agency is providing the services in a locale where there is a demonstrated need for them, the choice of location of the halfway house or centre and its relationship with the community are for the agency to determine in consultation with municipal officials and in accordance with local by-laws. This is the salient point in this matter. The responsible authoritative body
April 9, 1987

is the City of Toronto, which has granted the licence to Exodus Link Corporation to operate the centre.
Exodus Link Corporation has co-operated fully with the City of Toronto in meeting its by-laws and has obtained the necessary licence to operate the centre. In fact, the city recently re-examined the centre's permit as a result of local opposition and has maintained its decision. In the meantime Exodus Link officials have continued their efforts to liaise with community members and to reassure them about the presence of the attendance centre.
It is true that members of the community opposed to the centre continue to demand that the centre be put in another ward. However, it is noteworthy that the centre's program is not being challenged.
No one expects the Parkdale residents to adjust overnight to the centre. It is only normal that there are concerns about what the centre will mean to the community. Being mindful of local citizens' concerns and anxieties, the Solicitor General has directed that referrals to the attendance centre by the Correctional Service be reduced by 40 per cent. Moreover, Exodus Link will be monitored closely by the Correctional Service to ensure that the facility is functioning effectively. Further, Correctional Service has agreed to a three-year freeze on any further halfway houses in Ward Two and to follow the guidelines set by the City of Toronto for crisis centres as it has in the past.
Many halfway houses have encountered similar opposition and have come to be accepted when the community found that they posed no threat to it. This was acknowledged in a recent editorial in The Toronto Star and The Toronto Sun, but acceptance takes time to grow and agencies such as Exodus Link deserve a chance to prove themselves to the community.
I am confident that, over time, the attendance centre will become as much a part of the fabric of the neighbourhood as some 180 halfway houses have become in communities all across Canada.


SHIPYARDS-(A) INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT IS DELAYING CONTRACT AWARDS TO THREE QUEBEC SHIPYARDS. (B) INQUIRY WHY CERTAIN WORK HAS NOT YET BEGUN
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to follow-up on a question which I directed earlier to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) about the tragic situation which now exists in Quebec shipyards. For over a year now-by the way that the bush league Member from Levis, who was shouting earlier, has chosen to leave the House instead of defending the interests of his constituents-workers, business managers and communities have been calling for action on the part of this Government to save Quebec shipyards. Each time, instead of a reply all we get is some kind of promise, which is consistent with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) attitude, nothing but lies and promises never fulfilled.
Adjournment Debate
At the Davie shipyards in Lauzon there are hardly 50 to 100 workers there. People there were told four times by the Regional Industrial Expansion Minister and the bush league Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), whose picture has been hanged in effigy out there, that the Caribou II ferry would be built for sure. Construction was supposed to start two months ago. Lately, however, people have been told that because Marine Atlantic had changed its plans, Caribou II would only be built in September and October 1987. The 3,000 Davie shipyard workers are not even entitled to unemployment insurance any more. They have to rely on social welfare while the Government, the Hon. Member and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have one thing in mind: travelling, squandering and patronage.
The same situation prevails at the shipyards in Sorel. Once again, the Conservative Member for that constituency has done sheer nothing. To be honest, I must admit that he had first invited some workers of the CSN, under the presidency of Mr. Lamoureux, to come to Parliament Hill. This Conservative Government once again sent out three or four jumping jacks to greet them and make lots of promises, leading them to believe that they would be given some work, that there existed some plans for them. What happened afterwards? As it turns out, there will be 300 lay-offs at the Sorel shipyard. The Government will have achieved nothing.
What about Vickers, another shipyard in Montreal? The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), him again, gobbled all the promises made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Right now, at this very moment, there is not one single marine worker on site at Vickers. Sad to say, Mr. Speaker, those 5,000 workers and fathers, who learned an honest trade as welders or fitters, will not be able to get new training overnight to enter another labour market. They have commitments, families, children in school. Those heads of families are being humiliated today through lack of planning by the Government, and are reduced to apply for welfare. Some will even be forced to abandon their houses because the fact their spouses are working make them ineligible for welfare benefits.
I am anxious to see what the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary will be. Friday, I went to the Lauzon shipyards. I went there to see for myself what was really going on, not only to hear the recriminations and grumblings. Mr. Speaker, I have pictures here which show the exact location of the drydocks, where there normally would be ships and people working on the cranes we can see. The yards are empty, lifeless. Same thing in the three shipyards. And I ask myself whether the Parliamentary Secretary who answers will say that, yes, the construction of the Caribou will start in May at the Lauzon Davie shipyards, and that 1,000 to 1,200 workers will be called back. The National Defence contract, under the TRUMP program, for the Algonquin and the Iroquois ... I only have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker . .. Work on these two ships is going to start in the months ahead and we want to

April 9, 1987
Adjournment Debate
be sure that the contracts are given to the Davie shipyard in Lauzon-there will be some subcontracting done by the Vickers shipyard in Montreal-so they can give work to the 2,000 to 2,300 people they normally employ and to the 500 to 600 employed by Vickers in Montreal. We also want the tenders to go out as quickly as possible for the other two ships included in the TRUMP program.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Conservative Members from Quebec are. I do not know for whom they speak, but if you look at all the Quebec tenders, very few succeed. We are always had, we get only crumbs, promises and more promises. Take for example-and I will end on that, Mr. Speaker-the shipyards, the Gulf refinery in Montreal East, the International Banking Centre, the space agency. It is always the same, Mr. Speaker, "nays" or promises.
Now, we want action and I can't wait for the Parliamentary Secretary's answer. When are we going to get jobs for the shipyards in Quebec?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the present Government has done very well, given the abominable mess left by the previous administration as a result of several years of massive neglect of the shipbuilding industry throughout Canada.
The issue raised by the Hon. Member is of course a very important one to the Government. Let me summarize the action taken by the Government to ensure the long-term viability of the shipbuilding sector in the Province of Quebec.
As a result of problems experienced by the single largest shipyard owner in Quebec, the Government facilitated the acquisition by Marine Industrie Limitee of the eastern marine assets of Versatile Corporation, thereby ensuring that contracts already awarded to the companies in jeopardy could and would be proceeded with. This action also ensured employment for several thousands of shipyard workers in this very important sector of the Canadian economy.
The Hon. Member will recognize, if he so chooses, that the completion of a transaction of this magnitude by MIL of three large companies from Versatile Corporation, namely, Davie, Vickers, and Systems, is a very complex matter. It required input not only from the commercial sector but also from the Quebec Government and union members themselves. I am happy to say that with the co-operation of all concerned the transaction was completed and an agreement was signed in late January. The new owner can now operate its assets and develop them.
In order to be more specific, let me say that I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that work on Caribou II is now progressing in a normal way. Much of the preparatory work which needs to be undertaken to build a vessel had to be stopped because the former owner of Davie did not have
sufficient financial resources to proceed with the work at the time, and the Hon. Member knows that.
Contrary to the Hon. Member's belief, the second vessel being built for Marine Atlantic is not an exact duplicate. Modifications have been made and engineering work is required to effect those changes. Now that the ownership of the yard is on a more solid basis, detailed plans are in fact being prepared, materials for the building of the vessel are being ordered, and some fabrication has been already started in the shops.
Let me assure the Hon. Member that we are doing everything possible to ensure that work on the vessel is reflected on the shop floor. I think the Hon. Member's cause is right and just in that respect. The workers are being recalled and, when the company resumes full operation on the basis of the contracts already signed, it is interesting to note that it should be able to employ some 2,000 workers by late 1988 or early 1989.


BILINGUALISM-PUBLIC SERVICE-COMPLIANCE WITH LINGUISTIC REQUIREMENTS BY DEPUTY MINISTERS. (B) POLICY ENUNCIATION-EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on March 31, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his report in the House of Commons. And on April 1, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) a question about some comments made by the Commissioner who was critical of the apathy and lack of direction on the part of the Government on the subject of official languages. More specifically, I asked him whether or not the Commissioner's criticism of arrangements made by his Department in alleviating linguistic requirements for senior management did not suggest a definite set-back. Mr. Speaker, the question was self-evident since the Commissioner blamed the Government for its inaction and on the same morning, The Globe and Mail reported that the Government has recently allowed Deputy Ministers and senior civil servants to ignore more easily the linguistic requirements of their position.
Now, the President of the Treasury Board looked surprised I had the document at hand, the official document No. 80097879-80 of the department dated February 20, 1986. Appendix B of that document states that "Treasury Board approval is no longer required concerning the exemption from level B linguistic proficiency in the other official language as far as appointments are concerned in two groups of management executives within a bilingual region".
I will quote the guideline word for word from page 6 of that document:
i) applications from employees appointed to a bilingual position within the management group (EX) in a bilingual region who request that they be exempted from level B proficiency in the other official language as a condition of employment and,
April 9, 1987

ii) applications for exemption from level B linguistic proficiency requirements concerning appointees at the position of Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) in the National Capital Region.
And Deputy Ministers were invited to deal directly with the Public Service Commission which, in turn, and I quote: "which, in turn, would report to the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury Board".
Mr. Speaker, to me that looks like a step backward. It looks like the Minister and the Department for which he is responsible have issued definite guidelines to personnel officers, allowing them to deviate from, to water down language requirements, and that worries me. I asked the question because, Mr. Speaker, we all know that when a senior manager, a superintendent or a senior person in charge of a department who is responsible for a number of subordinates does not have the requisite language qualifications, that person cannot converse correctly with the employees in the official language of their choice, their language of work. I will get back to that later, because that is another very important issue and may cause problems in communications between employees and management.
The question today is: Why this retrograde measure? Why these weak guidelines that fail to demand that administrators meet the position's requirements and thus be able to converse with their employees?
Mr. Speaker, this week I found further evidence of this reluctance when reading certain comments by the Public Service Commission on the language of work, and I would like to share with the House what I would call a serious anomaly. In 1985, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission appeared before the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. In his brief to the committee, the Chairman at the time Mr. Edgar Gallant submitted, and I am reading from the brief, "the three fundamental objectives of Government policy in the area of official languages in the Public Service: bilingual service to the public, equality of status of both official languages as languages of work-I repeat: "equality of status of both official languages as languages of work"-and finally, "equitable participation by both language groups in the Public Service". I certainly have no quarrel with that!
This year, Mr. Speaker, the present Chairman appeared before the committee, and we read practically the same text, word for word. I quote: "three fundamental objectives of Government policy in the area of official languages in the Public Service: bilingual service to the public, equitable participation by both language groups-those two are the same-the last one, Mr. Speaker, has changed: "respect for both official languages in the job environment". We are no longer talking about equality of status of both official languages as languages of work but about respect for both official languages in the job environment. That is a euphemism, it is ambiguous and it may be a smoke screen. Maybe managers are going to respect the language of their employees, but they will say: Your language does not happen to be mine, and you will just have to speak my language. And there is going to be more trouble, because we have just seen that Treasury Board
Adjournment Debate
has reduced language requirements for senior managers. And as I pointed out, the Public Service Commission has changed the Government's guidelines and objectives. It is no longer "equality of status as the language of work" but "respect for both official languages in the job environment". As a mandate and as an objective, Mr. Speaker, it is much weaker.
And I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why this Government, after promising amendments to the Official Languages Act, after making a formal commitment in two Throne Speeches, and after giving me in this House the assurance that there would be no reluctance to implement the Act, why is this Government issuing directives to senior officials reducing language requirements, and why is this Government, through the Public Service Commission, significantly lowering the commitment that a Canadian citizen working in the Public Service is entitled to use his or her own language at work. This is not only a matter of respect, it is a matter of work equality, it is the right for the individual to use, and it is not I who says that, it is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is the individual's working language that is the decisive factor and that language should prevail.
I am concerned Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Government, I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to answer, to state clearly that I am mistaken, that the Government has no intention of reducing language requirements, that such a directive from Treasury Board is an error, that they are going to withdraw it, and that on the other hand, they will specifically revert to these goals, serving the public in the customer's language, Canadians working in their own language, and fair representation. This means that all Canadians, whether from the east, the west, the centre, the north or the south would have the right to work for the Canadian Government and in a way that is fair.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as requested by my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier, I am going to tell him that he is wrong, that our Government is more concerned than ever with the language of work of Public Service employees. Some progress is being made, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier has worked very hard for this. But may I remind him that when I was elected in September, 1984-I am willing to share my personal experiences with him just as he shares his with me-in spite of the previous Government's good intentions and efforts to implement a bilingual policy such as the one we know today, I very quickly realized that, being a Quebecer representing a nearly 100 per cent Francophone area, that the officials he is referring to and about whom he is concerned most of the time had difficulty speaking both languages.
Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is well aware, nobody is against motherhood. He was referring a while ago to equality. It is true that we are all equal, but there are haves and have-nots. Mr. Speaker, we are 27 million Canadians building a country and of course there are more Anglophones than Francophones. We are

April 9, 1987
Adjournment Debate
working at the problem. I know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in particular is very much involved in this language issue, and I agree with him so does my Government, as well as the President of Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on the need to protect French as an official language and as a language of work. This has never been challenged, quite the contrary. We saw evidence of that in the position taken by the Prime Minister in Manitoba. We saw evidence of that again recently.
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) knows to what extent we want to be involved. Despite whatever little progress may have been accomplished before and since 1984, despite good faith and what has happened since we took office, surely he will admit that we are more than willing to take part in democratic work with the Public Sercice Commission. In all honesty and while respecting and protecting the rights of anglophones and francophones according to their language of work, I think the Public Service Commission can be given a mandate to monitor
the situation. But, Mr. Speaker, he also knows very well that this guideline does not apply to deputy ministers. Sure it applies to assistant deputy ministers, but they will have to take level B equivalence courses, and he is fully aware of that. He also knows that with respect to the linguistic issue, the way he will staunchly defend the cause . . . and he knows that Members from Quebec and Members of this House will also speak up on the language issue-will always ensure that fair balance will prevail, that the situation will gradually improve. The ultimate purpose is to show to all Canadians that we live in a bilingual country, that every individual has the right to services in his own language, the right to work in and expect respect for the language of his choice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, April 10, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers