1987-11-04

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, if you can believe it, the Government is so afraid to let the world know about its views on free trade that it does not even want to televise the hearings that are held in capitals across the country.
It is bad enough that we must hold the current hearings in Ottawa behind closed doors so that we will not hear, for example, directly, as we did last night in the committee, from members of the Steel Producers Association that, even though we have free trade, they do not intend to pursue American markets because they have enough customers in Canada. Furthermore, they do not have the capacity to sell more steel to the United States.
If the steel industry, which is supposed to be one of the so-called winners in this bad deal, does not intend to pursue expanding steel sales to the United States, what in heaven's name is the reason for pursuing a free trade agreement? The public should have the right to know these facts, Mr. Speaker.
The Government saw that the Meech Lake debates were serious enough to be exposed to the public in full committee televised hearings. Surely an agreement which speaks about the very future of our country is important enough to be televised across Canada both through the hearings in Ottawa as well as in capitals across the country.
Let the people decide. What is the Government afraid of? It knows that this is not a free trade deal, it is a bad Mulroney deal, and let the people see-


Mr. Speaker:: The Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett).


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is to be commended for taking action to rectify a problem that could have seriously affected the popularity of VIA's passenger train, the Atlantic Limited.
As a result of representations and negotiations undertaken by the Government of Canada, a 90-day trial period agreement has been struck with the American authorities to amend the immigration practices that have deterred many Canadians from riding the Atlantic Limited between the Maritimes and central Canada.
For a 90 day period, beginning on December 1, only those Atlantic Limited passengers detraining in Maine will be subject to U.S. immigration inquiries. Other passengers will enjoy an undisturbed and comfortable ride.
This is good news for those who enjoy rail travel and want to see the Atlantic Limited remain one of the great rail services in Canada. We should be delighted that both Canadian and American authorities recognize the importance of the Atlantic Limited to Maritimers as a vital transportation link.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow a group of 17 native veterans will be returning to Europe to pay tribute to their fallen brethren who served Canada in World Wars I and II. The memorial visit by the veterans to several Canadian war grave sites will include a traditional Indian ceremony to be conducted on this Remembrance Day at the Dieppe cemetery in France.
Many Canadians may not realize that, at the time of their enlistment into the Canadian Armed Forces, Canadian aboriginal people had no rights to vote nor could they be conscripted to defend our country. For many of these veterans it was their first experience away from their home communities surrounded by foreign languages and customs of their fellow soldiers.
On the home front, the loss of a provider and a companion meant greater responsibilities, loneliness, and hardship for

November 4, 1987
many Indian women. Upon their return from war, many of these volunteer veterans and their children were stripped of their Indian status and it is only now being returned to them 42 years later following the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act.
The sacrifices made by native veterans to serve their country were unselfish and should be a source of pride for all Canadians. The fact remains that their wartime contribution has yet to be fully appreciated. And so, Mr. Speaker, this Remembrance Day when we pay our respects to all Canadian veterans to whom we are indebted, let us remember in particular the contribution of Canada's aboriginal soldiers.


NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION WEEK
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, today is the fourth day of National Crime Prevention Week.
We are all aware of the damages caused by drugs. We must therefore make sure that our young people have the information they need to make their decisions in the full knowledge of what the consequences of their actions will be for themselves and those who love them.
Prevention starts at home, in school and in all other places where young people spend their time.
During this National Crime Prevention Week, certain communities will concentrate on the drug issue. A number of youth conferences will be held in such places as Vancouver, Edmonton and Summerside to examine the problems and find possible solutions. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, crime prevention will be one of the issues discussed at the Maisonneuve College, in Montreal.
Whatever means we take to prevent crime are restricted only by the limits of our imagination.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, for the past several months, we have seen the Department of Employment and Immigration make various cutbacks to the staff of our Employment and Immigration Centres throughout Canada
and to the budgets allocated to the various programs of the Department.
On the other hand, we have also seen how unimportant the Conservatives consider the integration of immigrants into Canadian society.
We would never have expected the budgetary cutbacks of this Department to affect such an important sector as the programs to give immigrants training in one of our two official languages. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what is now going on in the St. Maurice region.
In my constituency, fifteen people had registered for a French language training program offered by the Canada Employment Centre, which was to start on October 26.
Four days before that date, on October 22, these fifteen people were advised by the Employment Centres in the region that the French course had been cancelled because of budgetary cutbacks.
Is it not completely illogical, Mr. Speaker, to make cutbacks in programs aimed at giving some training in one of our two official languages to our immigrants so that they may function normally in Canadian society?
These immigrants are showing their will to join our society, but the Conservative Government puts obstacles in their way instead of providing them with the tools they need.
Is this not an unacceptable situation, Mr. Speaker?


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, recently Mr. Bill Pierce, long time oil man, pipeliner, and Vice-President of Interprovincial Pipeline Company, was declared "Corporate Citizen of the Decade" by Chief Gerry Antoine of the Fort Simpson Indian Band at a meeting of the Decho Regional Council.
Referring to the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, Chief Antoine told Mr. Pierce:
We do not feel that native people were intentionally abused by your firm.
Thank you for keeping most of your promises when the pipeline was under
construction and continuing this approach through the operation stage.
Judge Thomas Berger, the southern socialist, was wrong. The people of the Mackenzie Valley were right. Oil and gas developments can take place in the North to everyone's mutual benefit. This has been proven by men like Bill Pierce and Gerry Antoine.
November 4, 1987


NATIVE PEOPLES
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the most tragic consequence of the European influence on the native peoples of Canada has been the loss of their children. White child caring agencies using non-native standards have apprehended thousands of Indian children and placed them in white foster homes. Children who have lost their identity and have nowhere to go at age 17 end up on the streets.
Native people want to reclaim their children and are beginning to set up Indian child care agencies on reserves, with foster homes as well. The federal Government should be facilitating this positive development. Instead, it is starving bands for resources. It pays for the apprehension of children but provides no resources to strengthen natural families.
In Manitoba, Indian child caring agencies are expected to provide preventive support to families and train Indian workers on a budget 30 per cent less than that provided to provincial child care agencies. In Alberta, bands which want native children returned are being challenged by foster parents who are connected with the white association.
The Indian Association of Alberta has been refused Indian child welfare training programs. There are no funds for on-reserve community support services and family counselling. For native children, tomorrow is too late. I call upon the Government to provide Indian people with the resources required to make a success of both Indian self-government and Indian child welfare.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT FROM CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade welcomed the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its position on free trade with the United States. The President, Mr. Bulloch, said:
The CFIB believes freer trade with the United States to be the best way to
ensure access for Canadian exports . .. and welcomes the opportunity to
compete for new business in an enriched and enlarged market-place.
He also said that it is expected to provide significant benefits to small business.
The CFIB is an established, credible organization that speaks for 80,000 businesses across Canada. My riding of Edmonton East has a high concentration of these entrepreneurs and I have heard from many of them. They feel that the agreement is good for Canada. It is good for Alberta, very good for Edmonton, and I urge all Hon. Members to solicit the
views of their business communities. Yes, free trade is good for small business. Free trade is good for Canadians.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-PROTEST BY ONTARIO FARMERS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario farmers are ploughing into the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) free trade deal. More than 400 of them were at Queen's Park yesterday to protest the deal. The excellent Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Jack Riddell, echoed the feelings of the farmers when he said:
This deal flies in the face of the long-term heritage of this country. Family farms are at risk here.
It is quite evident that Ontario farmers have been allowed to bleed to death so that the Prime Minister can leave his mark on history. We in the Liberal Party will not allow him to soil his hands with the blood and sweat of Ontario farmers. We intend to protect our supply management system. We intend to protect the farmers of this country.

[ Translation]


DEATH OF FORMER PREMIER
[Stage Direction]
TRIBUTE BY CITIZENS OF LONGUEUIL AND THEIR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT TO MR. RENfi LEVESQUE
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Longueuil and as someone who for nine years had the privilege of having the ex-Premier of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque, as his provincial Member, today I wish to pay tribute to Rene Levesque who was a great Member of the National Assembly and a great Premier. He did much to make Quebecers proud to be what they are. He also made French Canadians prouder of being French Canadians, and Quebecers and French Canadians prouder of being Quebecers and Francophones.
He was also a great democrat. It was his decision to have his party supported by individual contributions, thus setting an example for other parties across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore want to take this opportunity today to pay tribute, personally and on behalf of my constituents, to Rene Levesque, the former Premier of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate

November 4, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Andre
Affairs has asked to make a very brief statement on a matter of privilege.


EXPRESSION OF REGRET BY MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS CONCERNING READING OF MOTION
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, 1 reacted to a lack of courtesy on the part of the Opposition and unfortunately, in so doing, I was discourteous to my Francophone colleagues.
I had asked that the long and complex motion I tabled in the House be deemed to have been read. When the Opposition refused its consent, I read the entire motion so quickly that the interpreters were unable to do their work. 1 sincerely regret any discourtesy I may have shown towards my Francophone colleagues and to all Francophones who were trying to follow the proceedings.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians all know that our climate is severe and our geography problematic. Our growing season is much shorter than in the United States. That is why we have always given our farmers seasonal protection.
Canadians also realize that it is in the national interest to have food products, from soup to nuts, processed here in Canada.
So why did the Government sign a trade agreement with United States that destroys our fresh fruit and vegetable producers and is a threat to our food processing industry? Is the Government trying to wipe out our family farms here in Canada?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the opening question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. One has to deal with reality and facts. The bilateral trade arrangement between Canada and the United States'as it relates to agriculture is a very good deal for Canadian agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: The right hon. gentleman must realize that 50 per cent of farm income comes from export sales. He must also realize the fact that, excluding grains and oil seeds, two-thirds of all farm income comes from commodities sold exclusively on the United States market.
The hon. gentleman must also realize the fact that there is no way we can continue to have a strong and viable agricultural industry in Canada by feeding a market of only 24 million Canadians. If we are to have growth and expansion, which is what we want in the agri-food industry, we must have access to the huge U.S. market of 235 million Americans.


SIGNING OF AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture kept assuring the House that agriculture would not be part of any trade deal with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Above all, the Minister of Agriculture ought to know that so-called free trade in agriculture between this country and the United States is not possible. Our farmers have a three to five-month growing season compared to a 12-month growing season in the south of the United States. He knows that that is not possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister appears to concede that.
The Minister and his colleagues keep telling us that it is too early to tell whether our Canadian system of two-price wheat will be eliminated under this agreement. The Government keeps telling us in the House that it is too early to tell which of our chicken producers, fruit producers, or vegetable producers will be destroyed. The Government keeps telling us that it is too early to tell whether our yoghurt manufacturers, food processing manufacturers, or cereal manufacturers will be run out of business by this deal.
1 will direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. How could the Government have signed a deal without caring about the long-term effects on the Canadian people, particularly on those who grow and process the food which Canadians eat every day?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman indicates that the Minister of Agriculture, that being myself, indicated to this House that agriculture would not be part of the bilateral trade arrangements. Indeed, that is absolutely false. We made our position very clear as we entered the bilateral trade arrangement with
November 4, 1987

the United States with reference to certain things which we were going to secure.
We have fulfilled each and every one of the commitments which we made to the country, and laid out in this House a motion on behalf of the Government put forward by my seatmate, the Minister for International Trade, on March 16.
We indicated that under a bilateral trade arrangement our agri-food marketing system would remain intact. We succeeded in that.


Don Boudria: No, that's not true either.


John Wise: We said that we would maintain those underpinnings which were necessary for the day-to-day operation of supply management. We delivered on that commitment as well.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Wise: Yes we did, Mr. Speaker. They say that we did not and that is an indication to me that they do not understand the supply management system of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman could ask the next question.


EFFECT ON HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, by withdrawing seasonal protection for our horticulture industry, that is, the growers of vegetables and fresh fruit, and our flower industry, the Minister has allowed Canadian agriculture to be thrown into a free market with the growers in the southern United States.
We have incessantly asked the Minister for International Trade and the Deputy Prime Minister for answers on the effect of this trade deal on our farmers and our food processors. We have received no concrete answers for the thousands of Canadian farmers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on. We want answers.


John Napier Turner: We have received no answers for the 230,000 workers in our food processing industry in Canada. That is not just irresponsible, it is absolutely frightening.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Come on, ask a specific question.


John Napier Turner: I suppose I should not be surprised because this is the first Government in Canadian history that contemplates putting a tax on food.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is hesitant to interrupt on a lead question, but the preamble is long. Would the right hon. gentleman put his question, please?


John Napier Turner: Does the Government not care whether food for Canadians is grown and processed in Canada, and if it does care, why did it sign this agreement with the United States?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, as a fifth generation dairy farmer I am disappointed in the right hon. gentleman because I really thought he had a greater indepth knowledge of Canadian agriculture.
We indicated when we entered into the agreement that we would reserve the right in Canada of Canadian producers to decide what marketing system best suits their own needs. We also fulfilled that commitment.
The hon. gentleman raises the issue of horticulture. We have a better deal for the Canadian horticultural industry over the next 20 years under the bilateral trade arrangement than it has had in the last ten.
The hon. gentleman should know that the law officers of the Crown have ruled ultra vires our ability to impose and to utilize in the interests of Canadian fruit and vegetable growers regulations such as Sections 56 and 57, and Section 61(1).
This agreement will give us the authority to proceed with the appropriate amendments to the CAPS Act which will provide us with the required legislative framework to impose regulations such as Sections 56, 57, and 61(1), which, for the hon. gentleman's information, are in the interest of the Canadian fruit and vegetable growers in order to provide that seasonal protection during time of harvest. We have not had that in the past and we have suffered because of the inaction of that former Government in the many years it was in office. As a result of the trade arrangement, we can go forward.
In addition-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Wise: -the horticultural industry in Canada will have that protection for 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Minister that only a Tory Government could achieve the destruction of the family farm-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -at the same time as totally jeopardizing a $40 billion food processing industry that provides employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Only a Tory Government could accomplish so much at one time in the destruction of the Canadian economy.

November 4, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Elon. Member could contain his preamble to setting the facts of the question. The Elon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Macdonald Royal Commission report explicitly states that agriculture should be exempted from any free trade agreement because of the complexity of merging the supply marketing and subsidy programs. We now have an example of the entire food processing and food development industry in Canada becoming subject to jeopardy. Why does the Government not follow the recommendation of that commission and exempt agriculture from this agreement?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we did not want it exempt from this agreement because we are interested in growth, and productivity, and financial viability in the future of Canadian agriculture.
The Hon. Member mentions placing the future of the family farm in jeopardy. If anyone placed into jeopardy the wellbeing of the family farm in Canada it was that Member's Government when it was in office and allowed interest rates to go from 9 per cent to 24 per cent. That was the measure that placed them in jeopardy.
If those Members were that interested in some of the people and some of the farmers in this country who are in financial difficulty, if they really care enough to take a minute to look at them on a case-by-case basis, they would find that, almost without exception, their difficulties trace directly back to that interest rate increase from 9 per cent to 24 per cent when they were in office.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I only remind the House that this is a Minister of Agriculture who is presiding over the largest number of farm bankruptcies in the last 50 years.


EFFECT ON FOOD SUPPLIERS AND PROCESSORS
Lloyd Axworthy: I want to ask the Minister a specific question. In a statement today the Grocery Products Manufacturers Association points out that both the suppliers and producers and the processors of breakfast cereals, yogurt, ice cream, pasta, bread, canned fruits, vegetables, baked goods, frozen meat pies, and soups will all be put in jeopardy because of the free trade deal.
Was the Government not listening to the farmers and processors of these particular ingredients when it signed the free trade agreement? Why was the Minister so deaf to the interests of a S40 billion industry that is now being put in jeopardy by this deal?


John Wise: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. We were meeting with farmers and all the people
in the agri-food industry, the processors and so on, while the hon. gentleman was reading newspapers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: The hon. gentleman should realize that we have had the ITAC committee, the International Trade Advisory Committee, the SAGIT committee, the largest on food, agriculture and beverage, the largest SAGIT of all, and that the SAGIT committee voted unanimously to support exactly what we have achieved in this agreement. So we followed the instructions of the SAGIT committee.
The hon. gentleman should realize as well, as it relates to some of the questions in the minds of the processors, that if one looks at the supply management commodities, and one finds this quite often, if they change the label from three to four colours on their package, or from four to five colours, or from two to three colours, they have incurred a greater cost to the product than the entire contents of the can. The hon. gentleman is baffled. If he knew the industry he could follow me very well-


Some Hon. Members:: Time.


John Wise: -because it has been estimated that the additional cost-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Wise: Well, they do not want to listen. It has been estimated by independent sources that the additional cost-


An Hon. Member:: Come on!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Minister has gone on for quite some time.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON ENERGY SECTOR
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today it was learned that some 62 per cent of Canadians believe that the Americans got much more in this deal than did Canada, a figure I am sure will grow the more Canadians learn about it. On October 8 in this House the Minister responsible for International Trade in replying to a question from myself said-and I want to ask the Minister if he, as Minister of Energy, agrees with it-and I quote from page 9820 of Hansard:
I can also assure him that any rights the provinces had before this
agreement concerning their own policies they will have after this agreement.
She was talking about rights in the energy sector. Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources agree with what the Minister said on October 8?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that when Canadians get to understand the free trade agreement with the United
November 4, 1987

States, particularly as it relates to the energy sector, they will realize just how much we need this agreement to guarantee supplies in our own country.
Second, Mr. Speaker, nothing whatsoever in the agreement leads the Canadian Government to believe that constitutional amendments will be required. Therefore the powers vested in the provinces under the Canadian Constitution are still the same.


EFFECT ON PROVINCIAL POWERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a set of questions and answers prepared by officials in the Minister's own Department-to whom they were sent I am not sure-dealing with the same question, and the answer is entirely different. The proposed question in the notes being distributed is:
Can provinces continue to price their energy resources differentially intraprovincially versus extra-provincially (including exports)?
That is the question being asked. The wording of the suggested answer is interesting:
The official answer to this-is:
"It is our expectation that the provinces will not take actions incompatible
with the spirit and intent of the free trade agreement".
It does not answer the question at all. It then goes on, interestingly, to say the following: "The question of provincial compliance with this agreement is a very sensitive issue which the Prime Minister wants to deal with himself'.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to understand. Will the Minister tell us what is going on? He has just given us one answer today in the House that is at variance with what is being said by someone in his Department who is preparing notes, and the suggestion is that the Prime Minister is going to deal with it. Are provincial powers changed in energy or are they not? Answer it.


Mr. Shields:: No. It is that simple.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the socialist party should realize that there are thousands of public servants in my Department and that I do not know the opinion of each and everyone of them. Second, since he was kind enough to refer to a document, I wish he would table it in the House. I am not personally familiar with it and I should like to study it.


PROVINCIAL COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the question is not necessarily whether the Minister has read the
Oral Questions
text. What I am interested in is knowing what the truth is. Time after time the Prime Minister of Canada says one thing, the Minister says something else, and we find out the truth is somewhere else. That has got to change.
The clear assertion, which is in the Minister's document, not mine, is that the question of provincial compliance with the agreement is a very sensitive issue with which the Prime Minister wants to deal himself. That comes from the Minister's Department. I repeat, it is not mine.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Why don't you table it?


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Minister telling us that his Department does not know the answer as to whether provincial powers are changing or not?


Some Hon. Members:: Table it.


John Edward Broadbent: Or is he going to repeat that the powers remain the same? What we want is some consistency and we want some truth on this side of the House.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, not being familiar with the contents of the document to which the leader of the socialist party is referring, I can hardly respond. It is even difficult to vouch for its authenticity. I believe the best way to proceed would be to table it. I will examine it and tell him whether or not, first the document is authentic and, second what is the value of the suggestions.


PROVINCES' POWERS TO SET PRICES
John Edward Broadbent: I would be happy to do so if there is agreement to table the document. It is normal that Ministers do that, but I would be happy to do that and send him a copy.
But, setting the document aside, I want the Minister to answer the question. Considering that in the elements of the document he has, the "Elements of the Agreement", it suggests that the Americans will have access to our energy at prices that cannot be at any variance with prices in Canada, considering that is what the Americans believe as well, and considering that that does change the provincial Governments' rights as they exist now, why is the Minister trying to pretend that these powers are not changing? And why is it left to the Prime Minister to deal with this "sensitive" matter?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, since the leader of the socialist party is again referring to a document in his preliminary remarks, a document I do not have, I cannot answer this question because I do not know on what the Hon. Member's question is based.

November 4, 1987
Oral Questions

ROLE OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD^SURPLUS TEST


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is likewise directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and these documents he does have. In a speech in St. John's on October 8 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said: "Those who do not understand think that the National Energy Board will be reduced to a monitoring function". If they do think that, they come by it honestly because in the document the Government handed out, in the preliminary transcript, it says:
With respect to existing measures, Canada has agreed to (1) limit the
application of its "surplus test" for energy exports to a monitoring function-
Does the Minister know what he is doing? Does he have any idea what the Government is giving away to the United States? If he does, will he come clean with the Canadian people?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, under the agreement, the National Energy Board will continue to receive export applications. The Board will still have the power to refuse an export permit or to reduce, under certain circumstances provided by the agreement, the quantities shipped abroad, in case of a shortage, for instance, or if it becomes necessary to implement an export reduction policy. This is exactly what the National Energy Board can do right now.
However, Mr. Speaker, this Government has provided deregulation of the energy sector quite apart and independently from the free trade agreement. It is in the framework of this de-regulation that the discretionary powers, or rather the powers of intervention of the National Energy Board could be changed, amended or suspended according to the marketing policy of the Government.


DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has no power to protect the energy requirements of the Canadian people. Because of the proportionality in the preliminary agreement, a certain percentage of energy has to go to the United States-


Jack Wendele Shields: Not true!
Why are the Minister and the Government sending letters all over Canada with misinformation which is misleading the Canadian people, information that is directly contrary to what is set forth in the Government's own preliminary agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I read this morning the article reporting the heated comments of my hon. colleague. 1 believe that if anyone lacks any credibility in his analysis, it is the Hon. Member sitting on the other side of the House.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the major concern of this Government is to provide security of supply for the Canadian public. In this context, the free trade agreement will allow greater and more dependable development of our natural resources. Canadians will enjoy better security of supply under this agreement than with the policies of the previous Government, which brought Alberta to the brink of bankruptcy.


PROVINCES' RIGHT TO DETERMINE PRICES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, that was a fascinating attempt to avoid the issue on the part of the Minister of Energy. I wish to ask the Minister this question. The fact is that right now the provinces have the right to sell to their own consumers energy at lower prices than if they export it. Will that right continue, yes or no?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, this is a clear and specific question and the answer is in the Canadian Constitution which confers certain powers to the provinces.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PROVINCES' POWERS TO SELL ENERGY AT LOWER PRICE TO LOCAL CONSUMERS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, how very interesting that the Minister should choose not to answer in the House. So again I will ask the question, hoping to get an answer.
Can the Minister tell us what powers the provinces now have to sell energy at lower price to local consumers? Will such powers continue to exist?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yes, it does. In relation to the percentage that was sent to the United States in the preceding three years, the United States has the right to that same percentage at that particular time. There is nothing the National Energy Board or the Government will be able to do after the agreement is signed.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, provincial powers and responsibilities with respect to natural resources stem from Canada's constitutional text. Nothing in the free trade agreement changes that or leads the Government to believe that it will be necessary to amend the Canadian Constitution.
November 4, 1987


DEATH OF FORMER PREMIER
Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. At a time when Quebec is mourning the sudden loss of a truly exceptional man, Rene Levesque, the illustrious defender of the French language who has made us proud to be Quebecers,
1 would like to know whether he can give the House the assurance that flags will be flown at half-mast tomorrow during Mr. Levesque's state funeral, as a last tribute?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can give that assurance. The Prime Minister has personally requested that the flags on all federal government buildings throughout Canada be flown at half-mast tomorrow, the day of the funeral. The Hon. Member should know as well that, consistent with tradition, flags on federal government buildings in the Province of Quebec have been flying at half-mast.
Mr. Speaker, you will know that I contacted you early this morning and I asked that the appropriate moment of silence be observed tomorrow, the day of the late Rene Levesque's funeral, out of respect for him and the people of the Province of Quebec and Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-FARMERS' FUTURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the Minister of Agriculture. He asked us to look at reality, to look at the facts. I may remind him that on Monday, his official translator, the Minister of State, had a chance to do exactly that when he met with 1,800 farmers in Victoriaville, where they told him their future was in jeopardy.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he has been misleading farmers by telling them that agriculture would never be affected, and why it now takes three pages in his agreement to say that farming will not be affected.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, those statements attributed to me are absolutely and completely false. Let me respond in this way, and perhaps the Hon. Member might understand. If we did not have secure access to the U.S. market for Canadian hogs, a large percentage of which are produced in the Province of Quebec, then hog production in Canada would be reduced by about one-third.
Oral Questions
That would be completely and totally devastating, not only to Canadian agriculture but to Quebec agriculture as well. Incidentally, the spokespeople for the hog industry are extremely supportive of this agreement.
With respect to another commodity which is very important to Quebec and Canada, cattle, if the Canadian cattle industry did not have access to the U.S. market, then it would shrink by one-third. That would be very devastating to Quebec agriculture and to Canadian agriculture.
I am indicating to the Hon. Member that we want growth in the Canadian agri-food industry. We get growth by getting access to a large market ten times the size of Canada's.


PORK PRODUCERS-$10 SURTAX-MEASURES TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is trying to reinvent the wheel. Canadian hogs are already going to American markets, with the Canadian food products and animals that are sold over there. His agreement has done nothing.
I want to ask the Minister, who is talking about hog producers, what his agreement has done about the ten dollar surtax.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if anyone thinks that we will have the same trade environment with the United States in the next decade as we have had in the last 20 years, then they are just simply whistling in the dark.
What the hon. gentleman should be doing is standing up to applaud us for maintaining supply management. Some 74 per cent of agriculture in his province is supply managed.


Jean-C. Lapierre: And you are screwing it up!


John Wise: He should be up commending us for maintaining the underpinnings in supply management. He should also be up complimenting us for maintaining the right in the future for Canadian farmers in his province and the other nine provinces to determine what marketing system best suits their own needs.
In case Members opposite do not know about underpinnings, let me tell them-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Wise: -there are two sections in underpinnings. We will see how interested they are.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: They are not interested!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 4, 1987
Oral Questions


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Minister knows full well that Government decisions concerning the award of contracts for ship building and maintenance contribute to exacerbate regional antagonisms. The fight over the second part of the frigate contract is proof positive of that. My question is this: When will the Government finally decide to make up its mind concerning the construction of those six frigates?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Supply and Services):: course, Mr. Speaker, the decision has yet to be made. A number of bids are now under review and an announcement will be made when Cabinet reaches a decision.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Undoubtedly the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the Minister of Transport announced in the last few days the refit of Coast Guard vessels in his Province of Newfoundland at Marystown, which will keep men working there while the yards at Port Weller and Port Arthur are awaiting work and lying practically idle.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that the Minister of Finance will meet this year with representatives of the shipbuilding industry to accept their representations that the exemption from duty of large fishing vessels be lifted so that there will be work in the Atlantic yards on the construction of these boats and that the government work can be spread over other yards, including those in Ontario?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, this is another case of an Hon. Member who does not have his facts straight. He ought to know that when a ship like the Simcoe needs repairs costing over $5 million, obviously bids are invited from the various shipyards in this country. That is what happened in the case of the Simcoe, and the best bid was approved. That is the way to help fight regional disparity, by providing for healthy competition. That is what this Government has been doing since 1984, Mr. Speaker, and that is how we have been able to create over 900,000 jobs in Canada.


FUTURE OF VICKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister who was talking about awarding contracts. This morning, 300 workers from Vickers in Montreal came to express their disapproval of the Conservative Government's failure to act in this respect. Could the Minister inform the House-after all, this is the third time these people are here! Could the Government, and the Minister who was already making plans with the previous Minister of Supply and Services to close down a shipyard in Quebec-could the Minister inform the House, in the presence of the workers' representatives who are here today, whether the Vickers yards will continue to exist? If so, is the Government prepared to immediately announce it is awarding them a contract so that 500 workers at the Vickers yards can go to work?


Michel Côté: First of all, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to be frank, we shall be frank. In 1984, when we inherited a disastrous economic situation, especially in Canada's shipyards, this Government was certainly not responsible for that situation. Seventy-four Members from Quebec had neglected to defend the interests of Quebec's shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, consider initiatives like Bill C-22, which they have the nerve to turn down, and all in the interests of Quebec taxpayers, Mr. Speaker!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE WORK FOR SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this morning Vickers employees and their representatives booed the Minister and the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for their inaction. Surely the Minister knows that a welder will never weld an aspirin. What they need is a ship contract, not pills. The Minister is the one who needs pills. What I and those people want to know is this: Seven ships are waiting to undergo repairs in 1988, so those people want to know why you wait until the year before the election to award patronage contracts? Why do you let them go hungry and force them to go on social welfare benefits, why not have these ships sent for immediate repairs in all Canadian shipyards so as to prevent these workers from going hungry?


Michel Côté: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we did not wait for my colleague's representations before meeting with the workers. I met with them the first time they asked, at 11.30 this morning. I did not really need the intervention of my colleague.
Second, Mr. Speaker, when making reference to the Government's concern over the future of Canadian shipyards people should know-as my colleague does-that we are in a position to award various contracts from coast to coast precisely because our Government assumes its responsibilities. We will continue to defend the interests not only of Quebecers but of all Canadians as well.
November 4, 1987


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to direct a question to the Minister of State for Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
Last night the Deputy Minister of Finance confirmed that the Finance Department arranged a series of meetings between the Hongkong Bank and Revenue Canada prior to a deal which the Auditor General says was structured to allow the bank to avoid $100 million in taxes.
Why did the Government play such an active role in a foreign bank's attempt to avoid paying taxes? Surely the Minister must recognize that in these matters Revenue Canada and Finance must remain neutral.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member read his question because the convoluted reasoning, even from the reading, is beyond description.
First, the Hon. Member knows that any citizen of Canada can go to Revenue Canada for a conversation about taxes. There is nothing strange about that.
Second, the Department of Finance indicated last night through the Deputy Minister that Revenue Canada's telephone number was given to the bank and it pursued the advice it sought.
Third, and most important, what is incoherent about the premise of the Hon. Member's question is that he would have liked us to have structured the deal artificially in order to create taxes. Why in the world would the Government of Canada or CDIC pay someone who is not giving a guarantee for a guarantee? The payment went to the offshore owner who was giving the guarantee. The Canadian subsidiary was not giving the guarantee, therefore the funds were not forwarded to it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the House must commend the Minister of State for Finance for his clarity in answering questions regarding the Hongkong Bank! I think he has had to clarify three different clarifications since he started to speak on this particular topic.


ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the point is that $200 million was given to the head office of the Hongkong Bank in such a way that it did not have to pay tax, while the costs associated with the takeover will be tax deductible. Therefore we have $200 million going in as non-taxable income, yet all the costs associated with it are now deductible for tax purposes.
Oral Questions
My question is basic and simple. It deals with the integrity of the Finance Department and the Government. Surely the Finance Department must not even appear to be involved in setting up a tax avoidance scheme. Surely it is like the cops running their own drug ring. The Finance Department is there to protect the integrity of the tax system-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the integrity of the tax system was totally protected in this particular case. The Hon. Member knows that any Canadian citizen is allowed to have the advice which Revenue Canada gave. The subsidiary was not in a position, as the Hon. Member knows, to provide the guarantees we were seeking. It was to the party from whom we were asking for the guarantee that we sent the money.
What we must remember is that as a result of this deal we ended up saving CDIC $400 million. If there had been a liquidation, the Hon. Member must remember, $600 million would have disappeared, plus 1,500 jobs, plus all the branches, plus a regional banking institution.


SHIPBUILDING
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is really supplementary to the questions put by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, except mine is a voice for Atlantic Canadians.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It deals with what some of us have known for weeks and what is now public, namely, there seems to be some tinkering going on concerning the award of the contract for the second batch of frigates.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure Atlantic Canadians and every taxpayer of this country that millions of dollars will not be squandered on a political fancy and that the contract will be awarded on the basis of merit, value, performance, schedule, and industrial benefits? Everyone knows this is the Saint John Shipbuilding Company.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, ch!


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. As I said earlier, there has been no decision at the present time. Several proposals are under evaluation. We take into consideration certain factors like the best price, best quality,

November 4, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Manly
best technology and time of delivery. I can assure the Hon. Member that these factors will prevail in the decision.


Mr. Gauthier:: And the best number of votes!


CHOICE OF SOLE SOURCE NEGOTIATOR-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. A few days ago the Minister for Forestry in New Brunswick said on television that the Saint John shipyard had been chosen as the sole source negotiator. What does that mean?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, a number of proposals are now being assessed and considered by Cabinet. When a decision is reached, as to the contractor and sub-contractor, as the case may be, such decision will be announced.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns his tax deal given to the Hongkong Bank. In light of Mr. Stanley Hartt's testimony of yesterday, can the Minister tell the House why it is that the Deputy Minister of Finance took an active part in organizing a meeting between the officials of the Hongkong Bank and the Revenue Department whose sole purpose had to be known to everyone, namely, tax avoidance?
Why did the Finance Department take on that role if it was not to give a tax break of $200 million, courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada? I would like clarification, not circumlocution, this time.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the only circumlocution this House has heard on this issue is the accusation of tax avoidance. Any Canadian, I repeat, unless the Hon. Member wants to change this, any Canadian can go to Revenue Canada for a ruling. The Deputy Minister of Finance gave the phone number, he did not attend the meeting and, as a result we saved 1,500 jobs and kept a regional financial institution.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise that the time for Question Period has expired. The Hon. Member, for Cowichan- Malahat-The Island on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring an issue before you which affects my privileges as a Member of this House and my ability to serve my constituents.
Coming from a coastal community, I have a great deal of concern for the safety of fishermen and their families as do other Members of my Party, including the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), all of whom have raised the issue of fishing vessel safety in this House and have urged action.
On Monday, November 2, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) wrote to Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament with ridings affected by marine transportation policy. He indicated in the letter that the main thrust of a coastguard study into fishing vessel safety would be released yesterday, November 3. The letter signed by the Minister was inadvertently sent to the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River and was attached to an information kit for Members of Parliament set up by the coastguard. It has not been received by other Members of coastal communities, including the Hon. Member for Skeena and myself who are on the same floor of the same building as the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.
This letter formed the basis for the question that was asked of the Minister of Transport yesterday by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher). I find that the Minister of Transport is playing cheap partisan politics with the safety of fishermen.
1 ask you to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, to inspect the letter, and if there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the necessary motion for referral to the proper committee.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member in all good conscience should withdraw the charge that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) would play cheap politics with the safety of fishermen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: He should withdraw that comment. It is a totally inappropriate comment and it is most undeserved.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the insinuation left by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) that I have received material ahead of time, I can assure the Hon. Member that the material arrived in my office in this
November 4, 1987

morning's mail. I was interested about what material was coming but I did not see the material until this morning.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify the point made by my hon. colleague. The memo was addressed to the Progressive Conservative Members of the House of Commons only. In other words, regardless of when it might have arrived on the Member's desk, it was destined to a select group of Members of the House of Commons. That was the point my hon. colleague was attempting to make.
It is obvious that this is favouritism, and when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) directs mail on a very critical item only to certain political Members of the House of Commons, we obviously find that our privileges have been breached.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands (Mr. Manly) and others Members. I will consider the matter and report back to the House.


ALLEGED MISUSE OF THE WORD PARLIAMENTARY-RULING OF MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am now prepared to report on two questions of privilege, the first brought some days ago by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), and the second is a matter of privilege brought by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). I shall deal first with the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who rose on September 22, 1987.
The issue he raised concerned what he alleged was a misuse of the word "parliamentary" by the service known as the Parliamentary New Service.
In presenting his argument, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell cited the case from May 6, 1985, where the words "Member of Parliament" were used by other than the currently elected Member for that riding, and the Speaker ruled that a breach of privilege had occurred because the Member could be impeded in fulfilling his duties if confusion existed in the minds of his constituents as to who the Member really was. That particular ruling is of interest, but I have to advise the Hon. Member regretfully that I did not find it of assistance in the present case.

Also, the 1983 incident referred to by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) had to do with a newspaper advertisement which the public could have seen as a quote from Hansard, which it was not . The sacred nature of Hansard has always been protected, and while the press is at liberty to quote from it, they must do it truthfully rather than try to mislead the public by altering or falsifying the record as published in the House of Commons Debates.
Ruling of Mr. Speaker
A similar case occurred in 1960 when the Sperry and Hutchinson Company reproduced the Debates of the House and the Speaker ruled that anything that relates to control by the House, present or future, over its own reports, having the possibility of abuse of such publications in mind-which is easily imaginable-required the Speaker to allow to go forward by finding at least prima facie grounds for complaint. This is found in the Journals of the House, February 16, 1960, at pages 157 and 158.
In 1965, the Steelworkers Hamilton Council-PAC News used the cover of the Debates in its newsletter. The Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege and based his ruling on the 1960 case.

However, in none of those matters do I find any parallel with the point raised by the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. All the cases referred to involved deliberate attempts at misleading the public by falsely depicting a document as a quote from Hansard. Truly, such is not the case in this instance.

There are a number of previous rulings which dealt with incidents concerning "parliamentary task forces" composed of members from only one Party caucus. In the "Parliamentary Task Force" case of December 10, 1979, the issue revolved around the question of the use of public funds for examinations conducted by members of one political Party. In the 1980 case, the issue concerned the use of the term "parliamentary task force" for what was essentially a special committee. In the first case, Speaker Jerome stated:
-in my opinion the greater wisdom would be to ensure that in every casewhere public funds are used to support such a committee-such a committee
consist of Members of more than one Party in the House.
As can be seen, these two cases do not directly apply here. There has been no allegation that public funds are involved in the Parliamentary News Service.
The most direct pronouncement on the use of an expression relating to Parliament is found in Statutes. The Act respecting the use of the expression "Parliament Hill" was given Royal Assent on May 19, 1972. The purpose of this Act was to prevent the commercial use of the words "Parliament Hill".
In the case being raised by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, however, the question at issue is whether or not the use of the word "parliamentary" by itself should be restricted in any way by the House.
As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) pointed out to the House, the dictionary defines "parliamentary" as "of or relating to Parliament", and of course "Parliament" is defined as "the Council forming with the Sovereign the supreme legislature consisting of the House of Commons

November 4, 1987
Ruling of Mr. Speaker
and the Senate". Therefore, anything describing or relating to either Chamber or the two Chambers together in conjunction with the Queen could be termed "parliamentary".
Does the use of the word "parliamentary" in the Parliamentary News Service not describe the fact that the news covered by the service relates to or concerns Parliament? I think that is true. The news it provides may be, in fact probably is, selected with a view to enhancing a particular perspective. Does this alter the fact that it relates to Parliament? Any newspaper or broadcaster in the country always has been and continues to be free to select those items emanating from Parliament which they believe to be of interest to the public. Because this place is an institution composed of partisan, political people, there are often opposing viewpoints reflecting in its proceedings. I would think there are few Canadians who are not aware of that fact.

The question before me is whether the use of the term "parliamentary", in this instance, is a breach of privilege or some sort of contempt of the House.

Hon. Members all know that privilege is a narrowly defined procedural expression. To quote from Erskin May's Parliamentary Practice, it is:
-the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a
constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by members of each
House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions,
and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.

Having examined the recorded precedents and studied the substance of the matter raised, I am not convinced that the rights or privileges of any Member have been breached. I have not been convinced either that the dignity of Parliament or the integrity of its proceedings have been compromised by the use of the term "parliamentarian" in this case. I cannot therefore conclude that this is a genuine question of privilege.

I do feel, however, that a legitimate concern has been raised by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Both the Chair and indeed all Hon. Members of the House should be conscious of the need to protect and enhance the reputation of Parliament and of this House and be vigilant in their duty in this regard.
I might say to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell that sometimes the line between the position he is taking and that which is permissible can indeed be very fine. I would say that to the degree possible, when others are using the word "parliamentary", they might take into account that very fine distinction.
I thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell for raising the matter and I also thank all those who participated in the discussion. There is nqt, however, in the Chair's view, a breach of privilege in this instance.
I might say to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell that he has probably done the House and the public some service in bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair.
I now turn to another matter of privilege.


ALLEGED IMPROPER ACQUISITION OF LETTER-RULING OF MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: On October 28, 1987, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) rose on a question of privilege. The issue he raised related to a letter referred to by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) during Statements by Members earlier that day.
I asked the officials responsible for providing printing services to investigate the matter concerning the printing of the letter in question. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) submitted a two-page letter and an attached petition to the printing unit in the Wellington Building on Friday, October 23. These two documents were reproduced in 2,700 copies according to the Hon. Member's request and they were returned to the Member's office on Monday, October 26.
The employees involved in printing, folding and handling of this request have provided assurances that they did not retain or distribute copies of this material to anyone other than the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. I should further note that in submitting this request to the printing unit, neither the Hon. Member nor his staff gave any indication that the material was either confidential or sensitive.
It may well be that the Hon. Member or his staff did not feel that that was necessary. However, had the Hon. Member indicated that the material was sensitive or confidential, the procedure that would have been taken is that it would have been produced under tight supervision and returned to the Hon. Member in a sealed package, which would have included any waste or damaged copies that resulted from the printing and folding operation.
I cannot find that any irregularity occurred in this instance, nor can 1 find that that any Hon. Members' privileges have been breached in any way. However I thank the Hon. Member for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. It may well be that again that this matter having been brought to the attention of the House, the same problem will not happen again.
I would say to all Hon. Members that if there is any difficulty with security in the printing of material on behalf of any Hon. Member, it would be helpful if any such instances were brought to the attention of the Chair. Hon. Members will realize, having seen the facilities where printing is done, that it does take some extra special effort to have absolute security. I hope that this report back to the House is of some satisfaction to the Hon. Member and I thank him for raising the matter.
November 4, 1987



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth reports of the Striking Committee.
Mr. Speaker, if the House so agrees, I intend to move concurrence in the thirty-eighth report later today.
[Editor's note: for text above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


CONCURRENCE IN THIRTY-EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House so agrees, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay):
That the thirty-eighth report of the Striking Committee, tabled earlier in this House, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I have four motions which have been discussed with the other House Leaders and I would like to present them now. The first is:
Business of the House
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be authorized to travel to Kingston, Ontario from Sunday, November 22 to Wednesday, November 25, 1987, inclusive, for the purpose of holding hearings, visiting correctional facilities and observing panel hearings of the National Parole Board in relation to the Committee's study on sentencing and conditional release, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
I think you will find unanimous consent for that motion to be put immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the next motion is with respect to Bill C-77.1 move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the proceedings on Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, which took place in the House on Monday, November 2, 1987, be nullified, and that, the entry on the Order Paper and Notices under Government Bills (Commons) be changed to indicate that the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of the Bill had not been duly moved, seconded and proposed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and we are prepared to support this motion.
I simply want to take this opportunity to thank the Government. There is no requirement that we start over in a more appropriate way, and we simply want to say we appreciate this initiative.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this order reflects the discussions held among House Leaders and represents a constructive way to have this Bill considered in the normal fashion. Therefore, I think it is the right thing to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
November 4, 1987
Petitions

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the next motion deals with the proposed presentation of the report on tax reform from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, on Monday, November 16, 1987, at 12.30 o'clock p.m., the House shall revert to "Presenting Reports from Committees" for the sole purpose of enabling the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to present the Committee's report on tax reform; and
That, immediately following the presentation of the said report, the House shall revert to the business which was interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis) have unanimous consent to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House Leaders at the request of the Subcommittee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, and the following motion takes into account those discussions and the request of the committee. I move:
That Standing Order 89(2) be amended by deleting paragraph "(e)" and by adding the following new paragraph:
"(y) Status of Disabled Persons;"
and that the paragraphs be relettered accordingly;
That Standing Order 96(3) be amended by adding the following new paragraph:
(g) Status of Disabled Persons shall include, among other matters, the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian Society."
and;
That all the business of the Subcommittee on the Disabled and the Handicapped be transferred to the Standing Committee on Status of Disabled Persons.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I realize time is getting short and presumably before the week is out we will be considering other orders permitting the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to travel and hear witnesses on the free trade proposal. I would simply like to suggest to the Minister that he use his good offices to ensure that as the committee determines places in which to hold hearings, consideration be given to travelling to the Yukon as well as the Northwest Territories.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise my hon. friend that as a result of what happened in the House yesterday, I took the initiative to mention to the committee Chairman that there was a feeling that the committee should include the Yukon in its travel plans. He advised me that they were being welcomed by witnesses in all provinces because of great acceptance of the free trade agreement and he thought he could fit the Yukon into those proceedings.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand that members of that committee are meeting tonight to work out, if they can, some consensus on travel. I hope the committee will accept the position that our Party is taking that the committee travel to both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, but I think we should await the results of those discussions.


PETITIONS
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has asked me to present this petition and I also want to present it on my own behalf.
The petitioners humbly sheweth that nearly one million francophones outside Quebec will not be able to watch the Calgary Winter Olympics in French on television; that the compromise suggested by the CRTC of offering the French television broadcast to cable distributors is unacceptable as not all francophones communities outside Quebec have cable television; and that French-speaking Canadians will pay their share of the $200 million allocated by the Conservative Government for the organization of the Calgary Winter Olympics;
November 4, 1987

Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Conservative Government to keep its commitments to linguistic minorities in Canada by making available in both official languages and in all communities throughout Canada the televised broadcast of The 1988 Winter Olympics, which will be an international event.
And your petitioners will ever pray, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to present several petitions signed by taxpayers in my riding who object to the Conservative Government proposal aimed at taxing food. Whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life and the imposition of this tax would have the effect of further penalizing the elderly, low income families and, of course, the unemployed and younger people in our society;
Wherefore these constituents object to this Conservative Government proposal and urge it not to levy a sales tax on food products.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Patent Act