1987-06-03

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like very briefly to indicate to the House my very deep personal sorrow and that of my wife at the passing of Prime Minister Barrow on the Island nation of Barbados. May I take this opportunity to join with you, Sir, and the Speaker of the Senate in extending our own family's deepest condolences to the family of the late Prime Minister Barrow.
May I say to my colleagues that Prime Minister Barrow was a great Commonwealth parliamentarian, a great Caribbeanist, a great strength for the eastern Caribbean states, and a great source of strength to democracy in that part of the world. The loss of his presence will be deeply regretted by those who pursue democracy, by those who have a compassion for their people, and by those who look to the Caribbean as it grows and strengthens. .
Many will recall that Prime Minister Barrow was the father of confederation of the eastern Caribbean states, although it did not live in the sense that our Confederation lives and, indeed, is reborn today. Nevertheless, the path that he carved out for those island nations will be long remembered and cherished by all of those who were there and by all of those of Caribbean descent, particularly those of Barbadian descent here in the great country of Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, air traffic controllers, members of the Armed Forces and RCMP officers are all entitled to take early retirement. I think this is an entirely appropriate recognition of the demanding nature of their jobs and the importance of the services they provide. But I remind the House of another group of workers who perform an equally dangerous, stressful and important job and who do not now have the option of early retirement.
I refer of course to the employees of Correctional Service Canada about whom there seems to be a consensus in this House that they ought to have the opportunity for early retirement pursuant to the unanimous recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Penitentiaries 10 years ago. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) has written to the National President of the Union of Solicitor General Employees promising his support for the early retirement option. I know a number of my colleagues on this side of the House have indicated their support and have urged the Government to act.
Frankly, I do not understand the problem. There is substantial agreement in the House that Correctional Service employees deserve to have the option of early retirement open to them. This question is one which could be dealt with quickly and easily. The ball is now in the Government's court. I urge the Government to introduce the appropriate legislation as quickly as possible.
Canada's correctional workers have waited long enough.


ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians enjoy some of the most beautiful lakes and rivers in the world. With less than 1 per cent of the world's population Canada contains as much as 25 per cent of the global supply of fresh water.
All of us derive benefit from Canada's abundance of water assets. During Environment Week we should be especially mindful of the need for adequate protection of these resources.
In the past we were as a people not as vigilant as we should have been concerning the pollution of our waterways. But we

June 3, 1987
can look ahead for a better future if we ensure sound water management.
Much has been done already. At the federal level, agreements with the United States are contributing to protection against the ravages of industrial pollution. In many of our communities, urban and rural, programs have been enacted in recent years to undo the damage caused and to clean some of our lakes, rivers and canals.
We must do more. It is up to all of us.

O)


REFUGEES
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, recent public opinion polls on refugee policy show that Canadians are maintaining their traditional open-mindedness.
Most believe that Canada should continue to accept refugees in numbers appropriate to our ability to assist them to establish themselves and their families in our country.
Polls also indicate that Canadians want the Government to deal with the problems created by the backlog in our outmoded refugee determination process. But is the Government's Bill C-55 the right response? The Bill proposes pre-selection at our borders, a system which some suspect as being aimed more at finding reasons to send refugees elsewhere than at assessing the legitimacy of refugee claims.
The Bill proposes establishing a list of so-called safe countries for this purpose, but it does not explain on what criteria the list is to be set up, how quickly it can be revised in response to changing world events, or how the Government can guarantee safety in another country.
Clearing the backlog will, in itself, discourage abuse of Canada's refugee determination process and make it easier to serve and assist genuine refugees. Canadians, who were the proud recipients of the United Nations Nansen Medal for their enlightened approach to the world refugee crisis, must think twice about Bill C-55.


MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday last delegates from across Canada began arriving in Ottawa to attend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Fiftieth Annual Conference which ends today.
Over 900 delegates representing 402 municipalities are attending the conference celebrating the theme "A golden past and a brilliant future". They have come from as far away and as diverse places as the District of West Vancouver in the West, St. John's in the East, and, of course, Swift Current, Saskatchewan.
The delegates are addressing important municipal issues, ranging from liability insurance to water infrastructure, to privatization in municipal government.
We congratulate these delegates on their commitment to their communities and their country. They and their predecessors have travelled to similar conferences over the past 50 years to discuss municipal issues, initiate ideas and to build on those ideas. These are the people who have led Canadian municipalities to a golden past. We welcome them to Ottawa and encourage them in building a brilliant future.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to call the attention of the House to a serious matter. It is the creation of an exclusive sport fishing corridor in the Rivers Inlet area, a previous commercial fishing area.
This action was unilaterally taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, contrary to the recommendation of the Central Coast Advisory Board.
This sets a dangerous precedent and process under way, where one or two local individuals can override the wishes of the majority of the community and the established advisory boards. I call on the Minister to revoke the sport fishing corridor in the Rivers Inlet area and request the Central Coast Advisory Board, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to work out an acceptable fishing plan for the area.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: In 1534, Mr. Speaker, European explorator Jacques Cartier left Saint-Malo in France and sailed across the Atlantic on his way to become the storied discoverer of Canada. Soon after, French Europeans settlers were joined by English Europeans. It took only a few centuries for the descendants of these two great peoples to cross the whole Canadian continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific to create a huge new country whose population swelled with the arrival of many nationals from other countries.
June 3, 1987

In 1867 the Fathers of Confederation gathered in Charlottetown to witness a major constitutional event. Thanks to the good will of all regions of Canada their agreement prevailed until 1982, but the 1982 agreement turned out to be incomplete.
Today, June 3, 1987, ten Provincial Premiers representing four different political Parties have agreed on a historic definition of Canada. It is a consensus with history, with geography, with the economy, with our cultures, and with our various ethnic communities. Today, Mr. Speaker, we pay tribute to the architect of this event, to Canada's statesman, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).



Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, as Quebecers and Canadians I think we can rejoice in the constitutional accord which paved the way for Quebec's endorsing of the Canadian Constitution last evening or this morning.
And like everyone else, I should think, I extend my congratulations to the Premier of Quebec, the Hon. Robert Bourassa, and to Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Remil-lard who, since the 1985 elections, has been criss-crossing the country in an attempt to convince the other Provincial Premiers that Quebec should be urged to join the Constitution.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate the Provincial Premiers who at last have come to appreciate the Canadian reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) for being the first leader in Canada to demonstrate open-mindedness with respect to Quebec's participation in the Canadian Constitution.



Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, today the most important amendment since the patriation of our Constitution was signed.
Mr. Speaker, in concrete terms this means that Quebec has returned to the Canadian constitutional fold and that our Government has kept its promise to make Canada a united country, where the rights of English-speaking and Frenchspeaking Canadians are respected.
For Quebec, it means that the province will be able to select and receive its own immigrants; to propose nominations for senators from Quebec; to propose nominations for the three judges representing one third of the Supreme Court; and to promote and protect the French character of that province, in addition to obtaining a non-derogation clause with respect to language rights.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in our history, the right to financial compensation for opting out has been enshrined in the Constitution. A great victory for the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, today is a great day. It is the first day of a united and strong Canada, open to all and attuned to the needs of Canadians. A unique Canada in the image of its Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Mr. Speaker, no more confrontation and arrogance. Make way for positive action and a modern, united and generous Canada.


CHALLENGE '87 SEED PROGRAM-CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION'S APPLICATION DENIED
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am outraged to learn that the application of the Catholic Youth Organization to the Challenge '87 SEED program has been denied.
The CYO depends upon student summer employment programs to provide one-on-one programs for exceptional children whose disability prevents them from taking part in regular camping activities. This is the only summer outlet for exceptional children, particularly those with social and emotional disabilities and severe learning problems.
More than 100 disabled children will miss out on summer camp this year because of the Mulroney Government's decision to cut off funding to the CYO.
Indeed it is truly a sad day for Canada when the Conservative Government wants to reduce the deficit on the backs of disabled children. How quickly Rick Hansen's struggle is forgotten.

June 3, 1987
Oral Questions


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I was and I am proud to be a Canadian, and from now on I will be even prouder.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers of the provinces have put in long hours of hard work to reach a consensus representing the various interests and cultures of this beautiful country of ours.

The naysayers, those "quick-blooming" critics of the last few days, were determined to undermine the political will for national reconciliation so strongly expressed in the last election. They even contradicted themselves.
However, in recognizing our differences and confirming our constitutional right to be different, this agreement to unite Canadians truly represents a superb best effort on the part of the Leaders of our Governments and particularly our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated that consultations and discussions would continue. In any case, as an English-speaking Canadian and a Quebecer, 1 would like to thank our leaders for their exceptional work, and I think we should all celebrate their outstanding success.



Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, as of today we can say that we have a real Canada, united, dynamic, stronger than ever thanks to the efforts of our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who showed exceptional political know-how and a deep commitment to put an end to Quebec's constitutional isolation.
The Prime Minister and the ten Premiers, especially Quebec's Premier, Mr. Robert Bourassa, turned a page in this country's history, and Quebec's enthusiastic and honourable entry into the Constitution marks the beginning of a chapter that will allow us to build a new Canada for the coming decades. This Conservative Government proved capable of reaching an accord with ten provincial Governments representing four different parties, thereby meeting with courage, stamina and persistence the challenge of national reconciliation. This points to the negotiating and leadership abilities of our Prime Minister, who turned into a constitutional agreement the understanding in principle reached at Meech Lake.
Mr. Speaker, I feel great satisfaction today at being a Canadian and a Quebecer, and with the support of my constituents in Chambly, may I tell you, Mr. Prime Minister-
I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for giving Canadians not two but one Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF ZIMBABWE
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to bring to Member's attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Edison Zvobgo, Minister of Justice of Zimbabwe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CROWN PRINCE OF HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN
Mr. Speaker:: I would also like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery of his Royal Highness Crown Prince El-Hassan Bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-PUBLIC HEARINGS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that he has lived a very significant event in the history of our country. When the Prime Minister of Canada comes over to shake my hand, I shake his hand, but before congratulating him we will want to study-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -the technical and legal language.
I want to ask a couple of questions about where we go from here. Both Premiers Pawley and Peterson suggested that there was a commitment to federal parliamentary hearings, House of Commons, Senate, or both, and public hearings, so that Canadians and parliamentarians can express their opinions.
Canadian Press quotes Premier Peterson as being happy with "plans for federal public hearings on the proposed
June 3, 1987

constitutional changes". He said that provincial hearings may also be held.
Would the Prime Minister take the House into his confidence as to his commitment, if any was given, to the Premiers to hold public hearings and to allow the parliamentary process to operate in some detail?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think in a response the day after the original Accord at Meech Lake to a question from my friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, 1 signalled the intention of the Government to have full debate, full participation, in the analysis of any accord that might emerge. Inasmuch as one has emerged, there is a pre-ordained parliamentary process that must be followed in regard to the House and I have signalled to the Premiers my intention to make full use of an appropriate parliamentary vehicle to ensure public participation in and consideration of this important matter.


RATIFICATION PROCESS-ACCEPTABILITY OF AMENDMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in commenting after the meeting this morning at which the 10 Premiers and the Prime Minister signed the Accord, Premier Peterson stressed, again according to the Canadian Press report, that from here on in the constitutional debate will be slow and methodical and, if the public hearings point out flaws in the deal, the First Ministers can meet again to make changes before Parliament and provincial Legislatures formally ratify the amendments.
During the Prime Minister's necessary absence the last two days, I put questions to his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, attempting to ascertain from him whether amendments would be acceptable in a parliamentary committee and whether the Government would look constructively at suggestions made both in this House, in the other place, and indeed by members of the public who may be deeply concerned with the process.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, over at the Conference Centre, the First Ministers signed an Accord, a provision of which was an undertaking by all of the First Ministers to bring forward the document to their respective Legislatures and, in my case, to the House of Commons, and to recommend it for acceptance by their respective Legislatures. In my case, it is my intention to bring forward the appropriate documents pursuant to the parliamentary requirements and I will bring them forward with the full recommendation that the House of Commons, after consideration, adopt the document in its entirety. I believe it represents a tremendous effort by 11 First Ministers over an extended period of time, and that would be my recommendation.
As I have just indicated, there will be an appropriate parliamentary hearing of this matter and that too is in train
Oral Questions
through the Deputy Prime Minister and will be part and parcel of this review.


PUBLIC HEARINGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's words do not exactly reflect the thinking of Premier Peterson of Ontario and Premier Pawley of Manitoba. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that the Quebec National Assembly held public hearings on the agreement in principle concluded at Meech Lake on April 30. In the circumstances, could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that public hearings on today's Accord will also be held here on Parliament Hill, with sufficient latitude so that Canadians can express their views on the substance of the Accord?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of parliamentary hearings would be, of course, to invite Canadians to express their views on the substance of the Accord. As far as I am concerned, after living with this initiative for more than a year, I can only say that, as a parliamentarian, I would table the recommendation suggesting the adoption of the Accord by the Parliament of Canada. And we would then see what a parliamentary committee would do. In any case, if there is a commission of any kind, it will have a specific task, and we will wait for the results. As for my commitment and that of all the Premiers, it is to bring the resolution before our respective legislatures, with a recomman-dation for approval of the full text.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE MEASURE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure about what it is the Prime Minister has just said in a manner that was quite difficult to understand. Is he saying that the resolution will be introduced like any other government measure which members of the Conservative majority will be expected to support? Will it be a measure which is really a form of executive federalism, or will we have a form of federalism in which the Canadian people can participate within which government Members, like members of all Parties, will approach the hearings with an open mind about ways in which our Constitution can be carried forward from the achievement today of agreement by First Ministers to a consensus among the Canadian people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what could be more in keeping with our parliamentary traditions than having the Government House Leader sit down with the House Leader of the Official Opposition to attempt to determine the appropriate manner of dealing with this, consistent with our parliamentary traditions. That is exactly what the House Leader of the Government will do.

June 3, 1987
Oral Questions


LENGTH OF RATIFICATION PROCESS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister about a statement made in the Senate on May 26 by the Senate Leader in which he expressed the personal opinion, as reported at page 1051 of Hansard, that it will be possible for all Legislatures to have passed these resolutions before the summer recess.
Was the Government Leader in the other place speaking for the Government, or is it an understanding that this process may and should take longer than one month?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not
know, Mr. Speaker. I did not see that statement by the Government Leader in the Senate. However, I have just indicated my view to the Leader of the Opposition as to the appropriate manner in which it ought to be handled.
The day after there were a number of questions, including two very incisive ones from the Member for Saint-Denis. In response thereto I think I covered the matter quite clearly and signalled my intentions with regard to how we could proceed if an accord were concluded. An accord having been concluded, we will follow through.


CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION-CREATION OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who indicated that the Government wants to hold hearings on the constitutional resolution. Have the Government and the provinces considered the possibility of having a committee that would include both federal and provincial Members, in other words, a truly national committee?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal consideration of that concept. In the course of our discussions, the idea may have been mentioned by some of the Premiers. For instance, the province of Manitoba, if I am not mistaken, has a special procedure in connection with certain "mandatory" parliamentary commissions. I believe the Manitoba Government has already made a formal commitment to set up a parliamentary committee in Winnipeg. Which means that this particular jurisdiction will necessarily be involved. Our intention would be, after consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, to set up the appropriate mechanism for this House.


INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, from the Prime Minister's answer I am not quite sure whether he was ruling out the possibility of having, on such an issue, a departure from traditional processes which could include a committee with federal representatives and representatives
from provinces who would conduct these hearings. I understand that the Prime Minister is leaving open to discussion this possibility to be dealt with by the House Leaders.
Has the Government given any final consideration to the question of when it plans to bring a resolution before Parliament?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, our intention is to bring forward the resolution soon, but at the same time to have the Deputy Prime Minister negotiate with his colleagues with regard to the parliamentary mechanism about which we have been talking. It is our intention to have that parliamentary committee apply to the Parliament of Canada. That is our intention and there has been nothing at variance with that discussed with the Premiers.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final question on the process. The Prime Minister says "soon". Does he mean by that later this week or, for example, next week?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we just signed it this morning at about six o'clock.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Maybe we can do it this afternoon.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We would like to do it sooner rather than later.


POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When we examine the precedents concerning constitutional amendments and the way Parliament dealt with them we realize that most of the time the amendments adopted had to do with technicalities, the wording, although there have been a few substantial amendments as well. Since the Prime Minister seems to be quite prepared to hold public hearings so that Canadians may have their say, I find it rather difficult to reconcile that with the statement he made a few moments ago when he said his objective was the integral adoption of the accord he has just made with the Provincial Premiers. This is why I wonder whether he is open to the idea of amendments so that Canadians may come here to attend these hearings in the full knowledge that their endeavours may bring results, and that they are not wasting their time by coming here to make representations to a parliamentary committee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the thrust of my response was that I was making a commitment. My objective is to recommend the adoption of the document, and that is still my intention. We will introduce it with a straightforward recommendation that the House of
June 3, 1987

Commons and the Senate adopt it as is because we believe that it is in the interest not only of Quebec but of Canada as a whole. That being said, I have already expressed our views with respect to the kind of parliamentary commission which might be appointed. We will see in due time what might come out of it.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, given his position I find it normal that the Prime Minister would introduce the resolution before the Elouse with the objective or at least the intention of having it adopted without amendments. Still I want to get back to the possibility of amendments. Although he was pleased, Manitoba Premier Pawley did say the accord is not perfect. Right after the conference, the Prime Minister of Canada himself indicated how satisfied he was to have reached this agreement, yet he admitted it is not perfect. So, without asking the Government to commit itself with respect to amendments it is not yet aware of, we would seek the assurance that at least the Government is open to the suggestion that amendments might be proposed and adopted.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it has been acknowledged by both sides that although the document is not perfect it does constitute a homogeneous entity, the result of the sustained and dedicated work of a great many people over several months now: is it not? So in these circumstances I am prepared to recommend it in full, as the other First Ministers are committed to do before their own legislative assemblies. Now then, I have already indicated that the leaders of the Government and of the Opposition will hold discussions on a parliamentary commission or instrument, and we will see what comes out of it. The Hon. Member indicates that he has no amendment to propose, that is normal today, we will see in due course.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: 
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, obviously my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Jelinek:: Ask a question and you will get an answer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Since the Minister is aware of this obvious violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: -being aware of this, what actions has he taken? Has he made representations to his counterpart in the Government of British Columbia? If not, when does he plan to make those representations?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the legal action taken in British Columbia and I think I should let the courts make their own ruling.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, for over nine months now Members of Parliament have been trying to find out what the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is all about. The Government has made some vague and nebulous statements that: "It will address problems of regional disparity and co-ordinate federal efforts in Atlantic Canada". The only federal efforts we know about in Atlantic Canada have been cuts ever since this Government took power.
I ask the Prime Minister why the Government has been so secretive about this program?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


George Baker: Why has it refused to give any information at all about this program even to businessmen who require a year or two's advance notice in order to plan? Does the Government believe in the premise that anticipation is greater than realization? It has been over nine months since it was conceived. Isn't it about time you delivered?

June 3, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would withdraw those sexist remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend mentions his concern about the secretive nature. This has been very public. There were meetings with the Atlantic Premiers. I went to Charlottetown for a public meeting with them. I met with them again in Vancouver after the First Ministers' Conference. There was a meeting this morning involving Senator Murray after the Constitutional Conference, and there is one going on now. If my hon. friend is in St. John's on Saturday, he will find out a lot more.


George Baker: I will be there for the Liberal leadership convention, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Way to go, George.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question. Thank you.


AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion said recently that multi millions of dollars have been removed from Atlantic Canada since this Government took office. There have been cuts in transfer payments. There have been cuts in programs. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Program is about to end. It will finish at the end of this month after 33 years in Atlantic Canada, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is scared to announce it.
I ask the Prime Minister will the amount of money which will be put into this new program at least match what has been removed by this very Government in the past two years? Will that amount of money be matched? If it will not be, how can the Government have the audacity to promise Canadians over and over that this will address the regional disparity problems of eastern Canada? You can't eat promises. Where is the beef?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the Hon. Member is going to be in St. John's on Saturday. I want him to know that he has my vote.


Mr. Gauthier:: It is his brother who is running.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, I will vote for the family.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Baker's dozen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is what happens when he stays up all night.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just want to tell my hon. friend something that, of course, he knows. There have been no cut-backs at all in the amounts allocated to Atlantic Canada. On the contrary, there has been a very, very sizable increase. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will represent an even further increase not only of opportunity, but of real dollars, to the benefit of Atlantic Canadians, which is something which has been long overdue by Governments over many, many years. It is an effort to reach out and to work with Atlantic Canadians with their participation, having designed the programs and mechanisms which will allow Atlantic Canadians a real role in the decision-making process which affects their lives.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The mayors of 14 of Canada's largest municipalities have written to you, asking that they have the opportunity to meet with you-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Iain Francis Angus: Sorry. Through you, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister asks whether he is prepared to meet with the mayors of 14 municipalities in Canada who want to ask him to reconsider federal funding or federal participation in rebuilding our aging cities. Will he meet with those mayors?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Hon. Member that I have personally met with representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on a number of occasions over the past two and a half years where this matter has come up. I have been very clear with them as to the position of the Government. We are in a position of major fiscal restraint. What the municipalities are asking us to do is to share with the provinces and municipalities in programs which are essentially the responsibility of the municipalities and the provinces.
1 want to take great exception to a report in the paper the other day which said the Government was reneging on promises I have made. I have never made those promises. I have been quite up front in telling the municipalities exactly where we stood as a Government. Unfortunately, this is something that we just cannot afford at this point.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET MAYORS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister
June 3, 1987

because, as he must recognize, he is the ultimate level of appeal within Cabinet, and both his Minister of Finance and his Minister of the Environment have said time and time again that the Government is not prepared to provide this funding.
Will the Prime Minister meet with these mayors so they can have an opportunity to appeal to him as Prime Minister to change the policy of his Government regarding a sharing of the income tax dollars with the property taxpayers so we can rebuild our very old and crumbling cities? Will he do that?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that when I am speaking I am not speaking on behalf of myself as a single individual nor as a single Member of Parliament, I am speaking on behalf of the Government. We have considered this. We have reviewed the proposal of the FCM. Unfortunately, as I said to them and to the House on a number of occasions, this is an expense that, in a time of restraint where we are called upon to do more than we can afford to do in areas which are 100 per cent federal responsibility, we just simply cannot afford at this time.


RENEWAL OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is in regard to the same matter. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities made a proposal to the federal and provincial Governments for a five-year program to renew municipal infrastructure, including sewer and water systems and roads and bridges, for which each level of government would pay one-third of the cost. This program would not only provide a foundation for expanded economic activity but it would also directly create 280,000 jobs in all parts of the country.
Since the provinces and the territories are supportive of the program, how does the Government justify its outright rejection of the proposal? Why will it not reconsider?
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have responded to that question in my previous answers. I think the Hon. Member may find he is a little off base when he says that all the provinces are supportive of this. What I suggested to the provinces and to the municipalities is that, since this is an area which is in their jurisdiction, if they feel as keenly as they do in presenting these proposals, surely they can get a start on it. Surely they can make a start on this as two orders of government and get on with the job, if the urgency is as strong as they suggest that it is.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we have had similar programs by the federal Government in the past when there was a need. Does the Minister not understand that this program would be an investment in economic growth which would gradually reduce
Oral Questions
the deficit? Does he not understand that most of the federal contribution would be recovered in increased tax revenue and reduced welfare spending? Why is the Government taking such a restrictive position on this matter?
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Government of which the Hon. Member was a member terminated those programs. Possibly the Hon. Member should be looking inside rather than outside for the answer to his question.
The Hon. Member has said that, surely, we have lots of money. We do not have lots of money because the previous Government wasted money year after year. It built up the deficit from $2 billion to $38 billion. It left this Government and the country in a position in which the debt was growing at the rate of 23 per cent per annum. We are getting that rate down.
But if the Hon. Member wants to take out his little pocket calculator he will find out that debt was doubled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Nine Canadians who were victims of brutal and unethical brainwashing experiments funded by the CIA in the late 1950s at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal have been seeking justice for a number of years in American courts.
In view of the commitment made over a year ago by the then Minister of Justice to consider seriously assisting these people financially, when will the Conservative Government finally move to assist the victims of these terrible experiments in their pursuit of justice against the CIA?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. It gives me an opportunity to report to the House that I have in fact been pursuing the matter with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, together with other representatives of that group who are involved in this particular litigation.
As the Hon. Member will know, the Government and my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have been extremely helpful in facilitating their access to justice in the United States. I can only say to the Hon. Member that I am in a process of consulting and looking at this matter in conjunction with his colleague. I hope that we will be able to

June 3, 1987
Oral Questions
come forward with some concrete results in the very near future.


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN SEEKING LEGAL REDRESS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister recognizes that his Government was able to come up with over $100,000 in payment to a former Conservative Member of Parliament who came up with a report saying that Canada had absolutely no legal or moral obligation to the victims of these terrible experiments.
I wish to ask the Minister of Justice this. It has been over one year now and one of the nine elderly victims has already passed away. How much longer do these Canadians have to wait before their Government will stand up for them and assist them financially in their pursuit of justice? How much longer must they wait?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate the point made by the Hon. Member. There is no legal responsibility on the Government. Notwithstanding that fact, we are attempting to analyse the situation with a view to determining what assistance might be possible.
I want to remind the Hon. Member of the fact that we have been most helpful. We have gone to very great effort to try to determine precisely the background of this matter which concerns circumstances that occurred some years ago. I think the Government has shown a sensitivity toward this particular situation. I hope the Hon. Member will appreciate that and applaud the Government for its actions up to this point in time.


DISASTERS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, June of 1987 marks the second anniversary of the Air India disaster which claimed the lives of some 329 passengers and crew on the flight which left a Canadian airport. An Indian inquiry has determined that the crash was caused by a bomb explosion in the forward cargo bay.
Can the Solicitor General explain why these 329 homicides have not yet appeared in Canadian statistical records? Will the Minister also answer this question? When they do appear will they appear in the year 1985 or in the year 1987?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the Hon. Member that I can only advise him that the crash is still under very active investigation. For that reason I cannot make any further comments on it at this time.


Mr. Nunziata:: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


REQUEST THAT ROYAL COMMISSION CONDUCT INVESTIGATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same subject. While the Conservative Party may be interested in whether or not the tragic murder of over 300-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John V. Nunziata: -Canadians might be included in statistics, we in the Opposition are concerned about justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a question, he should put it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Solicitor General this. In view of the fact that it has been nearly two years since over 300 Canadians were murdered, will the Solicitor General on behalf of the Government of Canada initiate a royal commission inquiry into the deaths? There has not been one held in Canada while there has been one held in Cork, Ireland, and another in India. Will he give an undertaking to the House that there will be a royal commission inquiry to assist the police in order to prosecute those who are responsible for those murders?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only reply to the Hon. Member by advising him, as I have in the past, that there is indeed an ongoing investigation. It is extremely active. I do not think that the interests of that investigation would be served by a royal commission at this time.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence concerning the fact that women of the Black Watch will not be allowed to parade before the Queen Mother this Saturday in Montreal.
Will the Minister ensure that the Queen Mother sees that Canada treats women as equals by directing the Black Watch to have women included in its parade on Saturday?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important question. Women will be
June 3, 1987

on parade when the Queen Mother visits Montreal on Saturday. I am expecting a list from my officials this afternoon of the functions they will be fulfilling.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISTRIBUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE WORK
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that very satisfactory answer. I would also like to ask him this.
Will the Minister ensure that every man in the militia also shares equally in its tasks, including what Captain Conway of the Watch calls "invaluable administrative work", which he apparently relegated to women only?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the administration work is not relegated to women only. Indeed, the distinction that exists within the Black Watch is that administrative personnel who are not members of the infantry were not to be involved in the trooping of the colour. Both women and men are involved in that administrative work. The distinction was not made on the basis of whether a person was male or female. But I assure the House that women will be on parade when the Black Watch is parading on the weekend.


RAILWAYS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister has made that more precise since Captain Conway said, according to his comments in the newspaper: "There's a lot of paperwork involved with this ceremony and every girl is necessary to get it done ..."
However, my question is for the Minister of Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Next question!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport will know that this is Railway Industry Week in Canada. In Hamilton on Monday we had a chance to meet with the United Steelworkers of America who were asking the Government what specific response it has to the seven-point plan of action which has been proposed by steelworkers to save the railway car industry in Canada.
Given that the Minister was asked a similar question in the last two weeks by our transportation critic, what specific
Oral Questions
answers has he for the steelworkers with respect to the Government's response to the railway action plan?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should reply in the area of national defence. However, I think it is quite obvious that the nature of the rail transportation system in Canada has changed. The demand for rail cars has changed because of the faster turn around time. The Government has taken various actions in connection with trying to improve the demand for cars. For example, as of June 1 the Department of National Revenue is tightening up the regulations that apply to the leasing of U.S. rail cars on a temporary basis.
Incidentally, CN is purchasing 200 new centre beam flat cars this year from National Steel Company which was the low bidder on a competitive tender.
The demand for cars is not present for a number of reasons and we must balance that against the fact that we want our railways to be as low cost as possible and as competitive as possible, so we are not in a position to force them to buy cars that they do not feel they need.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the next Liberal Member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain, Elizabeth Phinney, is here in Ottawa today. She specifically asked me to ask the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is it not true that the reason he is backing off on the steelworkers' action plan is because he is sacrificing the railway car industry on the altar of free trade with respect to the Americans? Is that not the real reason?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to advise the Hon. Member that the next Progressive Conservative Member for the district of St. John's East, Mr. Tom Hickey, was in the gallery earlier this afternoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am sorry that our soon-to-be colleague has left the gallery, but I will pass on to him the warm plaudits of the House of Commons.
With respect to the Hon. Member's friend who is running in the Hamilton Mountain district-futilely I hope-hopefully she does not have the same kind of phobias about free trade as are exhibited by the paranoid Member who asked me that question.

June 3, 1987
Oral Questions


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. It concerns the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The Minister knows that roughly 18 per cent of producers are presently outside the plan and that past producer contributions have been exhausted and the plan is in deficit. Is the Minister considering opening up the Western Grain Stabilization Act in order to permit those producers presently outside the plan to get into it on less onerous terms than is presently the case?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a question that is of increasing concern to producers who are outside the plan, given the fact that the fund is in a substantial deficit.
There have been representations and we have been seriously considering the suggestion that the Hon. Member makes. We will take his question as representation. I also point out that we have already made an improvement to the Act which has provided for record amounts of interim payments prior to spring seeding when farmers need their assistance the most.
We will look toward making additional improvements if we believe they can assist producers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am disappointed that the Minister who knew this question would be asked just left moments ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: It is after three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must advise the Hon. Member that that remark was quite out of order. It is after three o'clock. We started late today. The Chair tries to be as generous as possible in Question Period. Clearly, Ministers may have to leave. However, that comment is quite inappropriate. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


TRANSPORT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Considering that he is often off the track, I would like to remind him that the future Liberal Member for St. John's East, Mr. Neary, was here, as well as the future Liberal Member for Yukon.
My question to the Minister is this: Yesterday, in Montreal, over 500 employees of Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel and Laforge took part in a demonstration to ask the Conservative Government-Mr. Laberge, the Prime Minister's friend, or maybe I should say his former friend, was there-what it intends to do to put an end to the loss of jobs in railway transportation related industries. Will the Minister be satisfied with watching the parade go by or will he take concrete action to save jobs in Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the workers whom the Hon. Member is talking about work for Bombardier. I hope they will be as competitive as possible and will get as much work as possible in Canada or elsewhere. Naturally, we will do anything we can to assist Bombardier in achieving that purpose.


MEASURES TO BETAKEN SO THAT BOMBARDIER EMPLOYEES DO NOT LOSE JOBS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Minister told us that there is nothing he can do to help Bombardier, and the President of the Treasury Board has spent a lot of money. There has been the Picard Report, and a whole series of reports, but there are no jobs.
In view of the fact that his colleague has contradicted him, could the Minister indicate what concrete action he can take to prevent Bombardier employees from losing their jobs in September? Will he take action, in view of the Minister of Transport's refusal to do so?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of Treasury Board):: Mr,
Speaker, I would simply like to indicate to my hon. friend that the Commission set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Picard was completely voluntary and did not cost a cent, except for the translation of the final report. I wish to emphasize the contribution of the Montrealers who devoted their time and energy to make quite valuable recommendations to the Government to alleviate the economic ills of the Greater Montreal region.
June 3, 1987

Also, over the past few years, more jobs have been created in the Greater Montreal region than had been the case for a great many years before. The jobs, therefore, are there.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Government. It concerns the Post Office. Is the Government aware that in the inner cities of places like Winnipeg and Hamilton, senior citizens who live next to a post office must go to a drug store post office eight blocks beyond that post office, or take a bus past the post office next door in order to get their parcels and registered mail? Is that what the Government means by convenience when it establishes post offices in drug stores? Why must people go beyond the post office next door? When will it deliver decent postal service in this country?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, without in any way accepting the premise of the question, I will take it as notice and ask the Hon. Minister to get back to the Hon. Member, hopefully this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Chamber that the time for Question Period has expired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both Official Languages, the text of the 1987 Constitutional Accord, signed by the First Ministers of Canada today.
Order Paper Questions LABOUR


TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, a document entitled Canadian Position with Respect to Conventions and Recommendations Adopted at the 70th, 71st and 72nd Sessions of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, 1984, 1985 and 1986.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Sixth Report of the Canadian Section of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians.


FORGIVENESS OF CERTAIN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE DEBTS ACT
Hon. Monique Landry (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-62, an Act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the Governments of Togo and of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and also to the former East African Community.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos 90, 120 and 131.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, what was the total cost of renovating, redecorating and refurnishing the departmental office of each Cabinet Minister?
2.	What were the names of the contractors awarded contracts to perform such work and (a) in each case, what was the amount of the contract (b) were the contracts awarded by public tender and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: 1. For the
period September 4, 1984 to September 30, 1986, present Cabinet Ministers have occupied 62 departmental offices. The approximate average cost of renovating, redecorating and refurnishing each office is $15,973.
2. (a) and (b). As most of the works contracted were for minor alterations requiring no public tender (see Government Contracts Regulations), contracts were mostly awarded by individual designation, invited quotation, from the Central Contractor Index or to the building owners.
Items were mostly purchased from sole source suppliers, approved suppliers or standing offers.
For the reasons mentioned above, a detailed listing of suppliers and contractors has not been provided as it would prove to be time consuming and costly.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	For each of the past five years, how many cases of (a) Parkinson's disease
(b)	cancer have been diagnosed in Saskatchewan?
2.	How does this compare on a per capita basis with (a) other provinces (b) the national average?
3.	Do the figures for either disease depart from the average and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
1(a) Parkinson's disease. No national or provincial statistics are available on the incidence of Parkinson's disease.
1(b), 2(a), 2(b) Cancer only. Table one below shows the number and corresponding rates per 100,000 population of new primary cancers which were diagnosed in Saskatchewan residents from 1981 to 1985. The figures do not include nonmelanoma skin cancers. Comparative figures for Canada, and for the highest and lowest provinces are shown for 1981 and 1982.
Table 1
Number and Crude Rate of New Primary Cancers Diagnosed in Saskatchewan Residents, 1981 to 1985, Compared to Canadian Rates, 1981 and 1982
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985
Numbers (1)
Saskatchewan	3,346	3,415	3,358	3,565 3,755
Rates per 100,000 Population
Saskatchewan	346	349	338	354	368Canada (2)	333	335	-	-	-Provincial Range (2)	210-390	219-387	-	-	-
Notes: (1) excludes non-melanoma skin cancer
(2)	national data are not yet available after 1982.
Sources: For 1981 and 1982, Cancer in Canada, Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82-207. For 1983-1985: Figures supplied by the Saskatchewan Cancer Registry.
3. Comparison. Cancer rates for Saskatchewan tend to fall close to their average rate for all of Canada. The rates calculted in Table 1 however, are called crude rates, as they do not adjust for differences in the age structure of the populations of the various provinces.
These crude rates for Saskatchewan tend to be just above the national average, because Saskatchewan has an older population than most provinces and because cancer rates are much higher in order than in younger age groups.
In Table 2, age adjusted rates are calculated separately for males and females for Saskatchewan for 1981 and 1982. These rates, which adjust for differences in the age structure between the Saskatchewan and Canadian populations, show that Saskatchewan's rates for 1981 and 1982 fall slightly below the national average.
Table 2
Number and Age-Standardized Rates of New Primary Cancers Diagnosed in Saskatchewan Residents, 1981 and 1982, by Sex, Compared to Canadian Rates
Males	Females
Numbers (1)	1981	1982	1981	1982Saskatchewan Age Standardized Rates Per 100,000 (1,2)	1,875	1,924	1,471	1,491Saskatchewan	289	294	254	250Canada	315	316	280	275
Notes: (1) excludes non-melanoma skin cancer
(2) rates are age-standardized to the 1971 Canadian population
Sources: Cancer in Canada, Statistics Canada Catalogue 82-207.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) purpose (b) amount?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Since September 4, 1984, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs issued three grants (Grants

and Contributions Program) to non-governmental organizations within metropolitan Toronto. The details are as follows:
(a)	Purpose	(b) Amount
1.	To assist the organization in completing the production in S 16,000 both official languages of a publication intended to assist
students to better understand the functioning of the market.
2.	To ensure competent and professional advocacy of the	$150,000
consumer interest at the national levels to support training of
consumer organizations and to cover direct costs associated with the preparation of a brief on Canadian financial institutions.
3.	To ensure competent and professional advocacy of the	$110,000
consumer interest at the national level and in support of the
advocacy training of consumer organizations.


Pierre Blais: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.