1987-11-05

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), I wish to table in both official languages a document entitled Federal Water Policy, a statement of the federal Government's philosophy and goals for the nations freshwater resources and its proposed ways of achieving them.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the final report of the official parliamentary delegation of the Canadian section of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group which attended the twenty-eighth annual meeting in Vancouver of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group from June 4 to June 8, 1987.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fortieth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime).


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.

[DOT] (mo)

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the House Leaders and 1 think you will find that there is agreement that the following motion be proposed having to do with the vote on Bill C-22 later this day:
That the deferred division on the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs respecting the Senate amendments made to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters thereto, be taken at 3.30 o'clock p.m. this day.

November 5, 1987
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House 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?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment so that this does not repeat itself. I was not able to be here at the appointed time last night to ask you to defer the vote until today. I had another engagement and was out of the House, but the House Leader of my Party went to the Speaker at that time.
I believe the Speaker then has, according to my interpretation of Standing Order 13(4)(a), the authority to decide what time the vote will be taken. Most of us presumed that the vote would be at three o'clock but it is being changed to 3.30, and I do not have any trouble with that, but I take it that the Speaker still has the authority to decide when a vote will be taken when that vote has been deferred. I want that made clear.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider the matter the Hon. Member has raised. I think I have the answer, but in view of the fact that it has been raised, I will look into it and return to the Hon. Member. In the meantime, I take it the Hon. Member is in agreement.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to the House a petition signed by a great number of constituents who all express dissatisfaction over the fact that French television broadcasts of the Calgary Winter Olympic Games will not be available to a great many residents of rural areas in Canada. All your petitioners humbly call upon Parliament and urge the Government to respect its commitments towards the linguistic minority by making it possible for Radio-Canada to broadcast the Winter Olympic Games.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by the required number of people. The petitioners state that, whereas close to one
million Francophones residing outside Quebec will not be able to watch French television broadcasts of the Calgary Winter Olympics, the CRTC compromise under which French television signals would be made available to cable companies is unacceptable because not all Francophone communities outside Quebec have cable service, whereas French-speaking Canadians will pay their share of the $200 million earmarked by the Conservative Government for the Calgary Winter Olympic Games. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government to respect the commitment to Canada's linguistic minorities by providing all communities from coast to coast with the possibility of watching in both official languages broadcasts of this international event, the 1988 Winter Olympic Games.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition which meets the requirements of the provisions of Standing Order 106.
Whereas the federal Government has imposed 25 new taxes or tax increases on Canadian taxpayers since September 1984, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
Whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life and the imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing various categories of taxpayers such as the elderly, families, the unemployed, low and middle income taxpayers, and youth;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 5, 1987


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the alleged question of privilege raised yesterday by the Elon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly),
I wish to advise you and all Hon. Members as follows:
First, every Member of this House, on November 3 at about 1 p.m., received a press release outlining the key elements of the fishing vessel safety report prepared by the Canadian Coast Guard. This package included the release and executive summary plus the 41 recommendations.
Second, the report itself was of course available to all Hon. Members in the mail room and also in the distribution centre.
Third, the Official Opposition transport critics plus certain government and opposition Members, received the above package plus three additional pages with information concerning the purpose of the study, background information and the implementation strategy.
Therefore, it is clear that the Minister gave a release to all Hon. Members and a bit more information in detail to certain Hon. Members in all three Parties. No favouritism was shown at all to government Members, and I submit that the privileges of the Hon. Member Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands were not violated. I therefore trust that he will rise and withdraw his statement that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is playing cheap partisan politics with the safety of fishermen.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that these materials were circulated on November 3. I have a letter here dated November 2 and it is addressed to Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament with ridings affected by marine transportation policy. Included with the letter was a briefing book from the Canadian Coast Guard.
To the best of my knowledge, I have not yet received a copy of this package, which is from the Coast Guard and which is presumably designed to help Members who live in ridings affected by this new policy have a better understanding of what is involved. I submit that the situation remains as I laid it before you yesterday. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has been playing favouritism on an issue of vital importance to all Members with fishing communities or people involved in the industry in their constituency.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to arrange for my friend, or any other Member, to receive the bit of additional information that was provided to the NDP critic, the Liberal critic, as well as another NDP Member. If they simply let us know, we will provide them with the extra 11 pages, I think it is. of information.
Privilege-Mr. Manly
Nonetheless, the Hon. Member seems to be shifting his ground to alleging the Minister of Transport is showing favouritism. I reject that as well, and the Hon. Member should rise and withdraw his original statement about cheap partisan politics. No Minister of Transport is ever going to play cheap partisan politics with the safety and lives of fishermen.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not at all sure that anything is advanced by hearing more argument as to the facts. I have the point of the Hon. Member and will consider it. He has been invited to rise. Whether he wishes to respond to what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has said, I am not sure, but I will certainly hear him.


James Douglas Manly: Just for your information, Mr. Speaker, the additional material is not two or three pages. It is 18 pages in the Coast Guard study information kit on fishing vessel safety for Members of Parliament. This is the material that was included with the letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary can help me. As I understand it, the information attached to the letter dated November 2 which went to some Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament was at the same time sent to critics of the other two Parties. Am I correct in that?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. While the letter was dated November 2, it was not sent until November 3, after the date on which it was available to all other Members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: It think the Chair can settle this. There is apparent concern on the part of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) that perhaps the Minister had been favouring one side of the House over the other by sending out some material that did not go to every other Member. It would seem to me that it may not have gone to every other Member, and it does seem to have been delivered not on November 2 but on November 3. The word of the Parliamentary Secretary must be accepted and it seems that the information was given to all Parties although perhaps not to every Member at the same time.
In any event, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands indicated, if I heard him correctly, that perhaps the Hon. Minister of Transport was somehow in this particular exercise doing something that was not in the interests of fishermen and other people travelling across the waters of the West Coast. I do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to comment on that one way or the other. That may be the Hon. Member's opinion. However, most certainly, under the circumstances, what we have here is an argument over distribution of some information.
With the greatest respect, the Chair cannot see how the Hon. Member's privileges, in the sense of his capacity to carry on as a Member of Parliament, have been in any way impaired. Therefore, I have to say with respect to the Hon. Member that I find it is not a question of privilege.

November 5, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Nickerson POINT OF ORDER


ALLEGED UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, last night a rather unfortunate occurrence arose when one Hon. Member of this House accused another Hon. Member of being treasonous. I refer you to page 10750 of Hansard. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is quoted as having said:
However, I want to say that what I have been reading is tantamount to
treason coming from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) when he speaks about the crustaceous denizens of the other place. It is
tantamount to treason.
Immediately after that was said I rose and brought it to the attention of the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair at the time. Unfortunately, his attention had not been particularly focused when the words were uttered and the matter was allowed to slide.
I would refer Your Honour to other occasions when this has been found to be unparliamentary terminology. That was the case on November 19, 1957, as shown at page 1248 of Hansard, and also on July 14, 1959, as shown at page 6015 of Hansard.
I wonder if it might be possible for you, Sir, to review Hansard, the transactions of last evening, and make a determination of whether or not what was said was unparliamentary. If it is found to be unparliamentary, then I ask that you request the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt to withdraw those remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) has asked the Chair to consider Hansard and the words expressed and the context in which they were expressed. I most certainly will do so and report back to the House at an appropriate moment.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to respond to two questions of privilege.

I think two questions of privilege were raised concerning the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I would like to answer both those matters. Would you like me to start with the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), or the one put forward by the Hon. Member for
La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais)? Both of them were raised at quarter past three which seems to be designated now as "let's hit Lanthier time." Which one would you like me to raise first?


Mr. Speaker:: I think out of an early morning generosity of spirit, I can indicate to the Hon. Member that the choice is his.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the more recent of the two before dealing with the question raised last week.
Mr. Speaker, regarding the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) last Tuesday, when I was temporarily absent from the House because of a previous engagement in the beautiful riding of LaSalle-which I could have postponed, by the way, if the elementary parliamentary courtesies had been observed and I had been given as little less as one half-hour's notice-I feel it is my duty to set the record straight and refute some very frivolous allegations that were made in an unfortunate debate the principal party concerned was unable to attend because he had not been asked or even been advised that it would take place.
On October 6, at a regular weekly meeting at the Department of Public Works attended by the Minister, the Deputy Minister, the Chief of Staff and senior officials concerned by the meeting's agenda, I said goodbye to all these people after announcing my resignation as parliamentary secretary.
The same morning, when I got back to my office, I dictated a short letter of resignation and asked my senior assistant to get in touch with the Prime Minister's Office to explain my decision, in line with the approach suggested by my colleagues for seeking the candidacy for the position of Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
On the 7th, I signed my letter to the Prime Minister's Office and received an acknowledgment a few days later. In any case, copies were sent here immediately by one of my assistants while another assistant phoned the debate through so I could listen on my car phone on my way to Montreal.
In the course of this debate it was also alleged I was being paid as a parliamentary secretary even after my election as chairman of a standing committee of the House of Commons. There is really no problem here, Mr. Speaker. The appropriate adjustments will be made as soon as our payroll system has been advised of the status changes affecting my salary, if that has not already been done. There is certainly nothing out of the ordinary about all this. I would also like to make it clear that my business and personal assets as well as my wife's assets were still in a blind trust, as a cautionary measure. My paychecks and various allowances are regularly deposited to my wife's bank account by my assistant, in complete confidence, after a cursory check by me.
November 5, 1987

It has already been proven that these questionable allegations simply do not hold water, and in any case, it is a well-known fact that the Department for which I worked very hard as a parliamentary secretary does not report in any way to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which is exclusively concerned with the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Ministry of State (Immigration), the Department of Labour and the Ministry of State (Youth). So even if I had remained parliamentary secretary, I would still be eligible to be elected as chairman of any committee other than the committee dealing with my Department.
As for the gratuitous allegations of lying that were made- all in vain, I can assure you-I do not intend to even consider them at this time.
[DOT] (U30)


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the Hon. Member would withdraw the word "lies". There may be things that were incorrect and things that are absolutely wrong, but I know the Hon. Member would not want to suggest, no matter how wrong or incorrect he may think someone else has been, that they would deliberately lie. I would ask the Hon. Member to set that straight on the record, to withdraw that particular word, and carry on with his explanation, which is very helpful to the Chair.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw if you understood that I was accusing the other Party of lying. However, what I am saying is that I was accused of lying. I will not comment on that.


Mr. Speaker:: I may have misunderstood the Hon. Member and I apologize for that.
[ Translation]


Claude Lanthier: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is not that my honorable friend has lied, but that he has suggested that I had lied and would not respond to his charges.
Since I feel, as do many other Members of this stately Chamber, that these charges were laid in the heat of an argument on the futility of a childish, if not underhanded or malicious revenge; since the new and complicated business transacted by our important standing committee is obstructed by such futile procedures; since the very substance of the basic principles of the parliamentary reform was strictly adhered to; since the independence of a standing committee must be ensured; since the complete description of the true facts have been presented; and since more of the privileges of any Member of this dignified Chamber has been abused, even indirectly, I respectfully urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this question of privilege at your earliest convenience, in order to restore within the very important Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, a true climate of healthy co-operation between all its dedicated and very competent members.
Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
Following my election as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, Mr. Speaker, the committee was immediately asked to consider an important proposal concerning the unreliability of a member of our research team. It was therefore moved and debated that this member of our research team, who is an outside consultant under contract, be fired on the spot.
Following debate, the question on this motion having been put, five Members voted for and five against. As Chairman of the Committee, I refused to cast the deciding vote, because I felt I was not as fully informed as I should to assume the responsibility of this major decision.
Mr. Speaker, one of the main points being discussed was this: Some Members claimed that a researcher should be at the service of the committee in general through its Chairman, while others felt that a researcher under contract could just as well help individual Members carry on their own personal investigation.
Since these two factions of my beloved committee expressed diametrically opposed views, after protracted debate on the question and as committee chairman seeking to achieve a consensus I suggested that an outside consultant be hired to undertake a full inquiry into this matter and submit a report to the committee before year's end. While waiting for the consultant's report, and with a view to respecting as much as possible the rights of all committee members, I also asked that the services of the researcher remain available to individual committee members, after request to, consultation with and approval by the committee chairman.
Unfortunately I was unable to obtain such consensus on this solution which I deemed reasonable, all the more so since it was provisional, temporary and basically respectful of all rights and privileges of members acting in good faith. But a vote was then held on this resolution incorporating the basic points of my consensus proposal; the result was five for and five against, so I exercised my right to cast a vote.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the thrust of the proposal.


Mr. Warren Allmand moved:: That the Chairman be given the option to engage a consultant, to assist in the evaluation of the Committee's research needs and to report to the Committee by December 31, 1987.

And then there was another proposal:


Mr. Andrew Witer moved:: That during the course of the evaluation of the Committee's researchers and research needs, no member of the Committee engage any of the researchers without the consent of the Chairman.

November 5, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two very important facts arising from these events which should be considered in reaching your decision. First of all, the Eton. Member who raised the question of privilege in the Elouse had agreed to this half-a-loaf solution when a consensus was sought. Furthermore, since that time, nearly a month ago, although meanwhile a steering committee has been appointed, two deputy chairmen have been elected, the committee has been sitting regularly twice a week to deal with the complex and important matters submitted for consideration, I have received no request, either verbally or in writing, for retaining the services of a researcher on an individual basis.
Since then, a consultant was hired by the committee. I am referring to Mr. Jos Maingot of the Law Reform Commission, a former member of the legal team of the Speaker of the House of Commons. This consultant, whose integrity, competence and experience were immediately recognized by all members of our committee, is now working with the chairman and the clerk of the committee in order to hasten the results of this investigation to meet an even tighter deadline.
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to breach the rights and privileges of a committee member or any Member of this House. I therefore respectfully seek your decision on this matter, and I assure you of my unqualified respect for the elementary principles of natural justice. I am not a lawyer but merely an engineer who wants to be reasonable and find ways to settle differences and reach a consensus among all members of my committee.
Mr. Speaker, this morning, since two questions of privilege were before the House, we decided to cancel the committee's regular meeting until you reached a decision. Without wishing to hurry the Chair, we would appreciate it very much if you would give us your decision on these two questions as soon as possible.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 will not take any time to speak on the second point that was raised because I think other Members who were present at the meeting are far more able to do that.
However, in relation to the first point, I would ask you to review Hansard or the "blues" later. I believe you will note there that the Member in question alleged that another Member raised a question of privilege, the motivation for which he attributed to vengeance. I think that such a reference is definitely against the rules of the House. One cannot attribute such motives to another Member whether it is in debate, in reference to a question of privilege, or anything else.
I would ask you to review that. While I am not the Member who was attacked by that statement, I feel that all parliamentarians are affected if that kind of remark is allowed to be made without being responded to.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the Hon. Member's point and I will consider it. I might point out that this ought to be a procedural argument, and comments are sometimes made in these arguments which go beyond procedural points. They are of very little help to the Chair and create other difficulties, because other Members rise and exercise their undoubted right to comment on them. If they are out of order, it just gives the Chair another matter to deal with.
However, I am very conscious of the strong feelings that have been exercised in this matter. It would be helpful to the Chair that any comments that Hon. Members make in assistance to the Chair in this matter be kept on the procedural points.
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has been able to join us. He may not have been able to hear all of the intervention of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).
Out of courtesy to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), he may want to consider the remarks in Hansard before making any further comment. If that would be of assistance to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, I will adjourn this matter for a sufficient time for him to be able to examine the remarks of the Hon. Member for LaSalle.
I would say the same thing to the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). It might expedite the matter. However, if the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is seeking the floor, I will hear him briefly at this point.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a discussion on the question of privilege. However, I must say that I find it passing strange that we were scheduled to have a standing committee meeting at 9.30. We invited witnesses-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member's co-operation. I understand that the meeting was cancelled. I have seen the notice. A reason has been given. It is not for me to say whether the reason is adequate or inadequate.
However, we have a serious question of privilege before us on which the Hon. Member has spoken. I would ask Hon. Members not to get into something else until we at least have a chance to settle this.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into it. But I want to say that I am not prepared now to respond to the points that the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) has made. First, if I had known that it was going to be dealt with at 9.30-and I am sure there are other members from the committee who would have wanted to be here to deal with it- then I would certainly have done so.
November 5, 1987

I would ask that we put this matter over until all parties who are affected by it can be here. As you know, I have discussed this with you and waited for that, so that we can all be here to have a discussion about the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Elon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), of course, is co-operating with the Chair. I think that would be the appropriate thing to do.
The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) seeks the floor again, but I am wondering if it might not be best if we just adjourned this until other Hon. Members who are interested have an opportunity to examine carefully what the Hon. Member for LaSalle has said.
At this point, I think I will adjourn the matter and bring it back to the House as soon as it is convenient for all those who are involved.

I see the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) has risen from his seat. Perhaps he would consider the Chair's suggestion to adjourn debate on this matter for the time being. I will recognize the Hon. Member for a short comment.


Mr. Jourdenais:: Mr. Speaker, actually, I have a question about the suggestion you made just now to get back to this some other time. Is it customary to ask the people involved, the person who raised the question of privilege, to be present when the other person or the Member against whom an attack was made-if we can call it that? I was not aware the question would be raised, and if someone hadn't called me, I would not have know what was going on. Is this normal procedure or is it just how things turned out this morning?


Mr. Speaker:: Occasionally, a question of privilege is brought before the Chair without notifying the other parties, but it is, of course more courteous to do so.
In this particular instance, I suggested adjourning the debate for the time being since several Members, including the Hon. Member for La Prairie, were unable to be here to listen to the comments by the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).

Unless the Hon. Member for LaSalle has some helpful comment, I would ask him also to go along with the Chair's wish to adjourn the matter.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, regarding the remark made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russel (Mr. Boudria), if it will help the Chair to reach a decision, I am willing to withdraw the remarks the Hon. Member found offensive.
And as for lessons in courtesy, I reserve the right to pick and choose my teachers among the Members of this House.
Animal Pedigree Act


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion by the Hon. Member for LaSalle is probably very sensible, and I thank him for making it.

I am going to exercise the discretion of the Chair and adjourn this matter. I will notify all Hon. Members when it is appropriate to carry on the discussion. Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-67, an Act respecting animal pedigree associations, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Simikameen):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this Bill which will replace the Livestock Pedigree Act with the Animal Pedigree Act, and which carries implications for the Canadian livestock industry which is such an important element in the economy of the constituency of Okanagan-Similkameen, the area I represent.
Since the Bill was tabled in June we have heard from industry representatives regarding modifications they would like made to the Bill before us. As a result of these interventions by industry leaders, the Minister has prepared draft amendments and has proposed that these draft amendments be considered later in committee.
We want to ensure that the best possible legislation is enacted to serve the pure-bred industry. Amendments to the Livestock Pedigree Act are long overdue. The old Act has been in force since 1900 and was last amended in 1952.
For almost 90 years the Livestock Pedigree Act has been regulating the activities of the 68 Canadian breed associations serving Canadian agriculture. The Animal Pedigree Act would update and replace the old Act with new legislation in order to better address today's realities in the livestock industry.
The main purpose of the Act is to promote breed improvement and to protect those raising or buying registered animals. It is estimated that the gains made in livestock productivity due to genetic improvement amount to roughly 1 per cent a year. That works out to be worth about $200 million a year for the Canadian livestock industry. Improved productivity has also enhanced our exports of Canadian breeding stock and semen. For example, in the past decade, Canadian exports of bovine semen have more than quadrupled. Recent figures show

November 5, 1987
Animal Pedigree Act
that exports of livestock and livestock products are worth well over $1 billion annually.
Livestock is an integral part of our agri-food system. There are solid economic reasons for the Government to ensure that the best possible livestock records are maintained. The new Animal Pedigree Act would retain the provisions of the old Act regarding animal pedigree associations authorized to keep pedigrees and to register animals of specific breeds. However, the new Act would also allow establishment of associations to keep records and to identify animals of evolving breeds. This is an important addition designed to encourage the best possible records and pedigrees of evolving breeds.
Livestock producers have been requesting these revisions for several years. The livestock industry has changed much since 1952. The new legislation is designed to meet today's requirements. The new Act will provide better protection to both buyers and sellers of livestock by strengthening Canada's livestock registration system.
1 would also like to point out that the provisions of the new Animal Pedigree Act, as contained in this Bill, have met with the full concurrence of the animal industry. Consultations with all sectors of the Canadian pure-bred animal breeding industry have been going on since 1982. Therefore, I am confident that this legislation will serve the animal industry well. In turn, it will be a real service to Canadian agriculture.
I will briefly outline the major new provisions contained in the Bill now before us. First, the new Animal Pedigree Act will more clearly define the basic purpose, powers and duties of animal pedigree associations. The new Act provides for the formation of the Canadian Livestock Records Corporation. This new corporation would replace the Canadian National Livestock Records which currently has the status of an affiliation whose legal powers and status are unclear. Third, the new Canadian Livestock Records Corporation would keep pedigrees for pure-bred animals and for animals in the process of evolving into new breeds. Any interested livestock association could avail itself of this service.
The Act also defines a pure-bred animal as having at least 87.5 per cent, that is seven-eighths, of its inheritance from one breed. However, additional associations could make this more restrictive if they so desired. The Act also provides for the recognition of new breeds of animals. It makes provisions for embryo transfers and artificial insemination.
The Act provides for the amalgamation and dissolution of breed associations. It also includes an expanded offences section. It specifies time limits for transferring certificates of registration or identification after a change of ownership, and sets penalties for exceeding those time limits. In addition, the level of fines under the new offences section is to be determined by the value of the animal to which the offence relates. The maximum level of fines under the new provision would be raised to $50,000 from the old $500 maximum set back in 1952.
The new Act also updates provisions under the old Act in line with current federal corporate law legislation. Taken together, these revisions will provide better protection for both buyer and seller of registered or identified animals. In fact, the revisions will strengthen Canada's livestock registration system and could potentially increase world demand for Canadian livestock.
In summary, the Animal Pedigree Act will provide greater protection for the buyer of livestock, more realistic penalties for violations of the Act and more flexible rules for breed organization. This is a long awaited piece of legislation which deserves the support of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Debate.


Mr. Althouse:: If there are questions, I have some.


Don Boudria: We cannot have questions for the first speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), I think, is putting the question as to why are there no questions and comments. Under the procedure, the first three speeches are up to 40 minutes and there is no comment or question allowed on them. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor on debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on Bill C-67 on behalf of the Liberal Party. This Bill, of course, has been some time in the making. Members will know that the Holstein Association has been lobbying for this legislation for some time now. In fact, it wrote to the now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) some months ago asking for his support to ensure that this Bill would come up for discussion in the House of Commons in a short period of time.
In fact, I have a letter here that was sent by the Holstein Association of Canada dated May 13, 1987, in which it is asking my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), for his support in ensuring that this legislation will be discussed in the House of Commons in a short period of time. Therefore, needless to say, although a long period of time has elapsed between the time this lobbying effort was commenced and today, we do not intend to delay the Bill unnecessarily. Therefore, we will not debate this Bill in any manner that would prevent it from going to committee.
My wish is for the Bill to go to committee as soon as possible. I would like to take this opportunity now to indicate that my own personal preference is that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture rather than sent it in the customary way to a legislative committee. Apart from everything else, the Standing Committee on Agriculture is chaired by our distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark), who is very knowledgeable in
November 5, 1987

such issues, as are most, if not all, the members of the Agriculture Committee.
It is my view that the Bill would receive a better hearing there. It would be heard by people who have a greater understanding of the issues, not to mention the fact that our committee is well assisted by technical staff and support staff who are also very qualified. For those reasons my own personal preference would be that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture rather than to a legislative committee.
Although I have indicated that the Holstein Association of Canada is in favour of this Bill, and that I support the work of the Holstein Association of Canada, I do have a bit of a vested interest in supporting it because there are more dairy farmers in the riding that I represent than in any other constituency in Canada. I suppose that that enables me to have a better appreciation of the Holstein Association and the Holstein clubs in various counties across the country.
Although the Bill does enjoy the kind of support that I have just described, it should be noted that a number of groups have serious questions about particular clauses in the Bill. I recognize that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture have indicated both publicly and privately in one case that there are amendments which the Government is contemplating and will be bringing forward at the committee stage. It is my hope that these amendments that will be proposed before that committee will alleviate the concerns that some people have expressed in the past.
For instance, the Appaloosa Horse Club has indicated that there are measures in the Bill which it finds would need important amendments in order to make the Bill acceptable. The Appaloosa Club in a letter which it sent to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) dated August 13, 1987, indicated that it had been wanting improvements to the legislation but that it had never been consulted since the draft Bill was put together, or at least since the efforts were commenced to put a draft Bill together in December of 1985. It felt that this lack of consultation had created conditions which perhaps had affected it in a negative way and that now amendments would be necessary in order to make the Bill acceptable.
One such amendment is the following, and I read from the letter that the club sent to our colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, in which it is stated that Clause 59(g) of the Bill would need to be amended because, and I quote from the letter, "this means that commercial livestock breeders will not be able to identify, promote, or advertise to sell livestock that are not registered to a specific breed". In other words, livestock which is not registered could not be advertised for sale, as the club understands that particular provision of the Bill as it is presently drafted. That may be a clause of the Bill to which the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and the
Animal Pedigree Act
Government are prepared to offer certain amendments in order to correct this potential deficiency.
The club also noted that Clause 54 of the Bill could use some amendment as well as Clause 59(j). The Appaloosa Horse Club of Canada, needless to say, is of the opinion that the legislation should be amended. I read to you, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the letter in which it is stated:
In conclusion, it is the opinion of the Appaloosa Horse Club of Canada that if Bill C-67 is passed in its present form, the Association, as well as its members, would be adversely affected.
We would encourage you to have this Bill sent back to committee so that we, as well as other Associations, can have more input to Bill C-67, to make it better for the Canadian Livestock Industry.
In other words, notwithstanding those shortcomings, the club is not advocating that the Bill die on the Order Paper, or that the Government withdraw the legislation, but merely expressing the view that the Bill could and should be amended. As I read the information package that was sent to us, it would be willing to participate constructively in order to have amendments brought forward at the committee level.
In conclusion, I want to indicate that our Party does not wish to delay this legislation at all. It is our hope that it will be going to committee as soon as possible. In my own personal view, we should make an exception this time and not send it to a legislative committee. Of course, there is nothing specifically wrong with doing that, but it would be better, I think, for the legislation and we could provide better amendments and have more constructive and better participation if, by exception, we send this Bill to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on behalf of the Liberal Party. I may point out that although this Bill has taken far too long to reach the floor of the House, we appreciate the Government's decision to finally consider the second reading stage of this proposal. We have no intention of prolonging debate. We hope the Bill will be referred to committee very shortly, and as I said earlier, my personal preference is to have the Bill considered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture instead of a special legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker, that being said, I hope all Members of this House will co-operate in having the Bill referred to a committee of the House as soon as possible, so that we can make the necessary amendments, as was pointed out to us by the Appaloosa Club, and perhaps other organizations would also like to suggest some changes if we have hearings before a parliamentary committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Nickle Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) rising on a point of order?

November 5, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Nickerson POINT OF ORDER


ALLEGED UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Earlier this morning the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) rose on a point of order referring to remarks I made yesterday. He quoted me as saying, as reported at page 10750 of Hansard:
However, I want to say that what I have been reading is tantamount to treason coming from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) when he speaks about the crustaceous denizens of the other place. It is tantamount to treason.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic said that I was being unparliamentary in the use of the word "treason". I meant that remark, Mr. Speaker, completely tongue-in-cheek. As everyone knows, no one can be treasonous when referring to the other place. I wish to withdraw it unconditionally, if it has hurt the feelings of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), I make no bones about that.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, and especially thank him for having sought the counsel of the Chair before he rose on this elegant withdrawal.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-67, an Acting respecting animal pedigree associations, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak at second reading on Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Animal Pedigree Act. This is a technical type of Bill, and because of its technical nature, the House probably would have been best advised to have sent it on from here to the Standing Committee on Agriculture to hear witnesses and the proposed amendments which I understand the Government has been preparing.
The contents of the Bill are very important for the animal industry in this country. There have been no major amendments to this rather old Act which began in 1900 and was last amended in 1952. Since that time there have been a number of very important technical changes that have occurred in agriculture which have made the keeping of livestock pedigree records somewhat different from what was the case as understood by the Acts previous to 1952.
Since that time there have been a number of technical changes, for instance, frozen semen is now very much in use. It
was not in 1952, and it was only beginning to be developed in the early 1950s. Embryo transfer technology is now available and used in the more expensive animals. This permits a particularly good female of the desired type to produce many calves in the course of a year. Less desirable animals will carry that embryo to full gestation and the calf will be born being of the original mother's blood lines, but having been nurtured and raised by a totally unrelated cow.
Those types of things make keeping of records for livestock more challenging. Therefore, it is the intention of the Department of Agriculture to attempt to tighten up the process by making the proposals that they have in this Bill.
Many of the major livestock breeds are in full accord with this particular set of changes, however a number of the breeds that are getting to be known or are developing have some difficulties with the Bill as it stands. Some of those difficulties are understood by the Department, I am told, and it will be presenting amendments to the Bill before us today as soon as it gets to committee.
Unfortunately, at this stage we in the Opposition do not have the exact copies of those amendments before us, so we will have to await the hearings in the committee to see what is proposed. Once we have seen those changes, we will be able to determine how quickly the Bill should go through. There are a number of groups and breed associations that have some technical problems with the Bill as it now stands. Depending on their reaction, we will be able to decide whether the proposed amendments will permit the Bill to go through committee relatively quickly.
In the past, this particular Act has applied to most of the standard barnyard animals on the farm from cattle, horses, goats, sheep, hogs, et cetera. The new Bill is designed to be expanded to include dogs, chinchillas, and foxes. I am told, Mr. Speaker, that cats are not yet included.
The main changes to the Bill are the establishment of two types of associations. There will be those types of associations that are incorporated with respect to distinctive breeds of animals, and there will be a second set of associations which will be incorporated in respect of evolving breeds. Those who are aware of the Hays' Converter, a new breed of cattle that was developed some 15 or 20 years ago by the late Senator Hays and his associates, will be aware that that is the term being used for an evolving breed for the purposes of this Bill.
Under this Bill, it will require four generations of closed breeding in order to constitute a new breed, and it must be seven-eighths pure. It is mostly beef breeders who are involved in the production of those new evolving breeds. However, theoretically it could apply to any species.
Under this Bill, there will be three main standards set. There will be a pure bred designation; animals could be designated registered; and the third designation would be identified. Those are the three terms that will be used for the
November 5, 1987

purposes of this Bill in identifying the level of credentials behind each of the animals registered.
A pure-bred animal will now be one that is seven-eighths pure. An animal containing 50 per cent and more can be registered under this Bill. This will include NIP animals which before were classified under the identified category. Under the changes proposed in this Bill, the term "identified" will now only be used for evolving breeds.
Associations must be formed on a national basis. Local organizations will no longer be permitted. Therefore, this Bill gives the Minister slightly more discretionary powers as to the types of associations that might be formed. Associations cannot impose fines or monetary penalties. This will be left to the Department itself, and to the over-all Livestock Records Corporation.
Associations are now authorized to keep semen and embryo records and to issue those certificates. This was something that was not absolutely clear under the old Act. Many of the associations did do this, but it was not required under the old Act and it is now. Since this technology is very much available and applicable, it is a good step forward in the registration of livestock pedigrees.
Under this Bill, an association must apply to the Minister for official recognition of any new breed. The major change in the bookkeeping side that comes from this particular legislation, is a change in the Canadian Livestock Records Corporation, which is a central livestock registry. It will be the successor to the current Canadian National Livestock Records. The old agency was not a legal entity. The new one that is being prepared in this Bill will be a legal entity. It will cover the registration services to associations where the association decides now or in the future not to provide this service itself.
Under the Bill the Minister will have the authority to perform an inspection or inquiry if there are irregularities in the association's affairs, or suspected irregularities. There are clearer rules for offences and fines. The maximum fines have been substantially increased. The fine on summary conviction will be $25,000, and the fine on an indictable offence will be $50,000.
It has been reported that most of the dairy breeds are quite pleased with this particular direction. Some of the beef sections are showing a few concerns with Clause 59(g) which makes it illegal for an association to sell an animal of a breed that is not registered or eligible to be registered. This concerns some of the beef associations, because they have been operating under slightly different rules. For instance, it is fairly common practice to sell a commercial grade Charolais that cannot be registered, a practice that has been going on across most of the country. We are told that the amendments being proposed will perhaps be able to handle this problem.
Animal Pedigree Act
In addition to the question of frozen embryos and frozen semen some other problems have arisen in the registration of pure-bred pedigreed livestock in Canada. I am not sure that some of these issues have been dealt with thoroughly by this proposed legislation, nor do we know at this stage whether or not the amendments will deal properly with it. Some of the viewers and perhaps a few people in the House will be aware that there has been a fairly long-standing controversy over the registration of a particular Hereford bull called Perfection. It was found much after the fact that his parentage was in some doubt. Under the technology of the day it appears, from a thorough search of the records of the Hereford Association of the United States, and consequently Canada, that his mother had produced far more progeny than it was technically possible to produce back in those days, and so the registration of the bull was in some doubt. This has had fairly large financial implications on Canadian breeders because two of his progeny were sold to Canadians. They won great honours in the show ring and were sold for very high prices. Now the registration of the descendants of those bulls has been put in doubt. A rough calculation shows that some $350 million worth of lawsuits are at stake over this bull and his progeny.
I am not sure that, with Bill C-67, we will be able to solve the problems concerning this animal and his offspring. We are expecting that some proposals may come in the amendments, and we will await the presentation of them to find out if, in fact, a solution on handling the descendants of the old fellow in Canada is possible.
For Canadian producers of Herefords and their association we have generally taken the view in Canada, after some vacillation, that an animal not eligible for registration in the United States would not be registered here. Because Perfection originated in the United States, our Hereford Association initially banned his progeny, relented, and then reinstituted the ban. We do not know whether the proposed amendments will solve the question of registering animals that have come down to us through Perfection. This Hereford bull looked very good and appears to have very good breeding behind him. But there are some doubts as to his mother.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think I am using correct parliamentary language in this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Similar though different problems have arisen with the Hereford Domino 15-G and the Sundance lines. These bulls have presented a somewhat different type than is normal for Herefords to present. There is still some doubt within the association as to whether owners of the descendants of those bulls should be permitted to continue to register them as purebred animals under the old Act.
We are awaiting with interest the amendments being proposed by the ministry to see whether these problems can be

November 5, 1987
Animal Pedigree Act
properly addressed when they come before us at the committee level.
The problem the Appaloosa horse people have been presenting to us along with some of the Arabian, the quarterhorse owners, and other recreation type horses, is one of dissatisfaction and uncertainty with the proposals in the Bill. I expect we will be hearing directly from those associations at committee stage. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture is fully aware of their problems. I know that some of these groups have been in touch with the registrar and others and that the proposed amendments which the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Similkameen (Mr. King) referred to in his opening remarks will deal with their problems. Briefly, the Appaloosa people are worried that they may have to close their books because the Bill does not appear to allow outcrosses. The Appaloosa people are now using quarterhorses and thoroughbreds quite routinely as a means of upgrading the quality of this relatively new breed, relatively new at least in terms of being a registered association, and they have concerns about what the Bill might do for them.
As well, we have information from some of the breed associations that are afraid that the requirements for using registration services might affect them negatively. Some of them have just installed computers on the assumption that they would be able to farm out part of their computer space to other breed associations. A strict reading of Clause 59(g) indicates that that would be rather difficult to do, though there are some second opinions that think there might be a possibility of selling or assigning shares in the computer company, setting up a second company to get involved in the business of providing services to breed associations, but that is still not clear to some of the breed associations. They are hoping that that will be clarified when the amendments come before the Agriculture Committee or, if the House insists, the legislative committee handling this legislation.
We are prepared to have this legislation go through this House relatively quickly in the hope that the committee, whether the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which generally would deal with something as technical as this, or a legislative committee, will have good and adequate time to hear the concerns of the various breed associations and the people who are affected by this Bill.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, we have waited a long time for Bill C-67 which contains amendments to the Animal Pedigree Act.
Let me reiterate what the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) said. We plan to move expeditiously at this stage of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) indicated in his opening remarks that the Government has quite a wide range of amendments to put forward. Obviously they will address a number of the concerns which my colleague from Humboldt- Lake Centre articulated. But other points ought to be made.
While we are prepared to move expeditiously with this Bill today, because there was not an earlier agreement, it will be going to a legislative committee. Because of the extreme technicalities involved in this Bill and certainly the advantage inherent in having people with considerable expertise discuss the clauses of this legislation, perhaps the Government ought to give some consideration to sending Bill C-67 to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for it is on that committee that some of the best agricultural expertise in the House of Commons exists. Having looked at Bill C-67 in detail, I think we will need all the expertise we can get to be able to react to it in an intelligent and productive way.
The Animal Pedigree Act is an updated version of an Act that has been around for a long time. It was first introduced in the year 1900. It was virtually unchanged until the major amendments that were made in 1952, and subsequent to that, there have been virtually no changes to it at all.
Obviously things in the livestock business have changed since 1952. There have been significant changes in terms of improving the quality of breeds, and specifically in the use of frozen semen. The influence of that on breed registration is very important, to say nothing of the technology of embryo transplant.
In my own area of central British Columbia, the raising of livestock is a major industry. There has been experimentation in embryo transplants at the federal research station. As well, there has been research in British Columbia on the extended use of frozen semen. This has caused a great deal of concern on the part of those associations interested in specific breeds of cattle because of the impact this will have on other livestock in the future.
In the various associations interested in livestock breeds, there is a recognition that an upgrading of the Animal Pedigree Act is in order and it is a reflection of the tremendous amount of change being experienced by the livestock industry. While this Bill was primarily designed with cattle in mind, it will also include new animals. The Act as it is presently constituted involves cattle, horses, sheep, goats and hogs but now, in the words of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), this Bill will reflect changes requested by the various sectors of the industry and will be expanded to include dogs, chinchillas and foxes.
I regret the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has not decided to deal with cats. The cat lobby has been active lately and has indicated an interest in amendments to include cats. I am very serious when I say that the points the cat lobby raised with us are significant. Perhaps at the legislative committee or at the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the concerns of the cat community could be brought forward.
The fact that this Bill has been designed primarily for cattle is certainly reflected by the fact that Mr. David Clemons, the present Secretary of the Holstein Association of Canada, was
November 5, 1987

the major architect of this legislation. At this point, I would like to recognize the work Mr. Clemons did in facing this particular challenge and the incredible amount of expertise he brought to bear on the preliminary drafting of this legislation. As a matter of fact, I suspect that it was only because Mr. Clemons visited the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) on June 17 that this Bill was actually tabled. Again, in dealing with this Bill that is so important, we must recognize the role that Mr. Clemons played in the development of this legislation.
There are several changes in the Bill. Highlighting the changes, there will now be two types of associations, those incorporated in respect of distinct breeds of animals, and those incorporated in respect of the evolving breeds. Most of us are aware of the Harry Hays Converter which of course was an evolving breed by definition in that the evolving breed is a group of animals in the process of evolving into a new breed. Ex-Senator Hays, a well known Albertan, has certainly been helpful in developing this new breed in western Canada.
There must be four generations of closed breeding of an animal for it to constitute a new breed and it must be seven-eighths pure. This primarily affects beef cattle, and as my hon. friend from Calgary will know, the movement toward seven-eighths pure has been important to the livestock industry.
There are now three main standards, pure-bred, registered and identified. Before this Bill, the term "registered" only referred to pure-bred animals. Now a pure-bred animal will be one that is seven-eighths pure. An animal 50 per cent pure and up can now be registered, and this will include the NIP animals which before were classified under the identified category. The identified category will now be used only for the evolving breeds to which I referred earlier.
According to the legislation, an association must represent a group on a national basis, not simply on a local basis. This has caused some consternation with some of the newly forming groups in areas of Canada that are regionally oriented and perhaps have a more regional perspective on livestock breeding. Nevertheless, an association will have to represent a group on a Canada-wide basis and I suspect, in considering the importance of developing strong and very productive breeds, that this is probably in the best interest of everyone in the long run.
The Minister, however, has slightly more discretionary powers as to the type of association that can be recognized, and we can only hope that the Minister of Agriculture, whoever he or she may be in the future, will act with a great deal of prudence when it comes to deciding on recognizing an association, particularly one that is not totally national in scope.
We are all well aware that an association cannot impose a monetary penalty but is now authorized to keep semen and embryo records and to issue certificates for both of these. As well, we recognize that an association must apply to the Minister for official recognition of a new breed. Again, I hope
Animal Pedigree Act
that will provide us as interested parliamentarians, particularly those on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, with an opportunity to be kept abreast of any new developments in new breeds.
A major change in the legislation is the establishment of the Canadian Livestock Records Corporation, more commonly referred to as the CLRC, and a central livestock registry, which is the successor to the Canadian National Livestock Records. Before, the Canadian National Livestock Records was not a legal entity. Now it is important that it become a legal entity. The new corporation is the only one authorized to provide registration services to the various associations when an association decides not to provide this service itself. Obviously this is very important, particularly recognizing the significant initiatives being taken by various associations on these matters.
Also, the Minister will now have the authority to perform an inspection or inquiry if there are irregularities in an association's affairs. It has concerned many of us for many years that the Minister did not always have the ability to act when irregularities were alleged. Now the Minister will have that opportunity.
As far as the various livestock groups are concerned, the dairy industry views it as a good piece of legislation, probably because Mr. David Clemons was so involved in the drafting stage. The industry has some concern about some minor drafting errors and omissions, but we can deal with those in committee. It is concerned about being prohibited from punishing members because it would make it difficult to offer better rates for others. That seems to be pretty straightforward.
As far as beef is concerned, Clause 59(g) makes it illegal for an association to sell an animal of a breed that is not registered or eligible to be registered. It is currently common practice to sell a commercial grade Charolais that is not registrable. According to Luc Begin, chief animal registration officer with Agriculture Canada, this would be allowed on condition that the animal is clearly listed as a commercial grade.
Going back to the comments of my hon. friend from Humboldt-Lake Centre concerning the progeny of Perfection, it is unlikely that they will have their own percentage registry. Most likely, records will be kept for each of the offspring, and if Perfection is reinstated in the U.S., then the central registry will have copies of the records and owners will be able to apply for registration. This whole issue has caused a great deal of concern, particularly in the Canadian Hereford Association. The controversy began when the two Hereford Associations in the U.S. decided that Perfection's pure-bred status was questionable. They in a sense expunged him of all his progeny in the various registries. That included several championship bulls, including two with Canadian owners. As my colleague indicated, nearly $350 million worth of lawsuits

November 5, 1987
are under way. I guess the Canadian Hereford Association waffled somewhat because first it banned Perfection and then allowed its progeny back into the Canadian registry pending the outcome of the U.S. lawsuits. They will be reinstituted once the ban is clarified.
Clause 59(g) is also of concern to horse breeders. The Appaloosa Horse Club of Canada, in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, interpreted it to mean that commercial livestock breeders would not be able to identify, promote, advertise and sell livestock not registered to a specific breed. If that is so, breeders could lose a great deal of money. I guess the question we must ask is how the amendments will quell the fears of both horse and cattle producers. That will obviously have to be answered once the Bill goes to committee.
The Minister should also explain the effect, if any, it could have on horses which have dual registration in both the U.S. and Canada. The owners of Appaloosa, Arabian, quarterhorses and other recreation-type horses are extremely dissatisfied with the Act and have voiced this concern in phone calls and letters to the office of our agriculture critic. Mr. King of the Appaloosa Horse Club believes it would force his association to close its books because it would not allow outcrosses and quarterhorses and thoroughbreds routinely crossed to improve the quality of this fledgling breed. Of course, the Appaloosa breed has been developing significantly throughout the country and these concerns have to be met by the committee studying this legislation.
Certificates would have to specify the exact percentage of other breed in the crossings, and the horse clubs fear their opportunities for international sales would be squashed because the animals would not be considered pure-bred by American buyers.
One could go on at some length on all of the concerns about this Bill, but since we are simply dealing with the principle of the Bill, and we have outlined a number of concerns today and will outline more in committee, we should move the Bill into committee as soon as possible.
We have waited a long time for these amendments and we are pleased to see that we can now proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: One o'clock it is. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, several hundred Vickers workers from Montreal East came to demonstrate on Parliament Hill. These workers did not ask for unemployment insurance, they did not ask for social welfare benefits, they asked for jobs. These people want to work.
We in Montreal East have about 22,000 unemployed workers, we have about 10,000 people on welfare rolls, we have an unemployment rate of 12.4 per cent as compared with 9.6 per cent in 1981, and we are facing the possible loss of 3,000 more jobs. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has been making studies for three years and reports are piling up. Now is the time to take action. Now is the time to award repair contracts for the ships Simcoe and Tracy. Now is the time to designate Montreal East under the Program for Older Worker Adjustment. Now is the time to open an office to help restructure and upgrade major concerns. Now is the time to set up a special manpower training fund for companies undergoing restructuring.
Mr. Speaker, since August 1986 the Conservative Government has done away with the early retirement programs which enabled textile and footwear workers to retire early as a result of plant shutdowns, and we have been waiting patiently for over a year. These people now have neither unemployment insurance benefits nor jobs, and they have to sell their houses to be eligible for welfare payments. It is unbelievable how this Government is neglecting workers.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, this past week in Kingston The Whig-Standard published a series of
November 5, 1987

articles on Operation Falcon as a result of a 10-month news investigation. These articles demonstrate that this was in fact the "Falcon Fiasco" which damaged the beautiful birds it was intended to preserve as well as many Canadians who are internationally known experts and proponents of falcon preservation.
These Canadians include the Owl Lady, Kay McKeever, recipient of the Order of Canada, and David Mossop, a leading Canadian expert on falcons, who was charged despite RCMP objections. The charges were later dropped for lack of evidence. Mossop is out of pocket thousands of dollars because of the incompetence and bungling of the Department of Justice in this area.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had a convicted falcon smuggler on its payroll working in Canada as an undercover agent without any knowledge whatsoever of the Canadian federal Government or provincial enforcement agencies. This is illegal and is a breach of Canadian sovereignty, yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has lodged no formal protest whatsoever.
I call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. FInatyshyn) to launch a full inquiry into the falcon fiasco which would answer questions such as why the plea bargaining by federal prosecutors allowed North America's two biggest wildlife smugglers to go free, including one who claimed to have made a profit from his fines.
There must be an investigation immediately to get to the bottom of this very serious matter, to produce a full public report, and to ensure that the objectives of preserving these precious and beautiful birds were not subverted by those who would destroy Canadian sovereignty and attack Canadians who have worked for many years to save these precious birds.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, on November 11 Canadians of Polish origin will be celebrating the sixty-ninth anniversary of Polish independence. In 1918 Poland regained her independence and became a sovereign nation after suffering 120 years of foreign oppression and occupation. Despite the ravages of war Poland maintained her dignity and resolve in order to take her rightful place once again among the Commonwealth of Nations.
In 1939, however, Nazi fascists and Soviet communist tyranny snuffed out the precious freedom and independence which for over two decades the Poles had so diligently maintained. Today, even in the face of adversity, that spirit of freedom still burns bright within the hearts of the Polish people.
As we celebrate our own Remembrance Day, let us join with Canadians of Polish descent to commemorate this day and to pay tribute to their national courage and resilience.
Freedom extracted a fierce toll from Canadian soldiers during the two World Wars and we must never forget the lesson they taught, that freedom and democracy are nonnegotiable commodities and must be restored wherever they are denied.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National, in its latest cut-backs on the railroad on Cape Breton Island, has cut out the last railcar inspector in North Sydney.
[DOT] (M05)
There are no more rail car inspectors in North Sydney even though there is a great deal of traffic from North Sydney to other parts of Canada, since rail cars must go through North Sydney to pick up the containers that arrive on Atlantic Marine ferries.
There will be no rail car inspectors to inspect those cars. Instead, inspections will be carried out by brakemen. Although CN has been worried about derailments in Atlantic Canada, it will now exacerbate the situation by not inspecting these cars.
Of course the real reason for the elimination of inspectors is that it does not want cars to be repaired in Sydney, as it would mean keeping workers on the job in Sydney to do these repairs.
Now the cars will go all the way to Moncton, perhaps with cracked axles or other deficiencies, which will be a danger to the cars and, of course, to human lives.
I ask Canadian National and the federal Government to reverse this terrible decision and maintain at least one rail car inspector in the town of North Sydney.



REMEMBRANCE DAY


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, November 11 is Remembrance Day, a day commemorating those Canadian men and women who died in two World Wars, the Korean War, and in our peacekeeping efforts throughout the world.

November 5, 1987
In recent years Remembrance Day has taken on a more significant role for Canadians, especially among our young people.
In Edmonton, community groups, citizens and children march together with veterans and Legion members to the Cenotaph to lay the commemorative wreath, after attending church services.
In most schools in my city, special programs are held commemorating this day. Veterans, bedecked with their medals, deliver speeches and answer questions of students. Last year over 17,000 young people were addressed by veterans.
War is not glamorous, but we must remember and appreciate the sacrifices made by our fellow Canadians who served, that we might enjoy the democracy and freedoms we have today. Lest we forget.



AIDS DISEASE-CALL FOR NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, recent media reports that some private schools have embarked on mandatory AIDS testing for staff and students highlight the Government's failure to develop a comprehensive adequately funded national AIDS educational program and action guidelines to combat ill-advised hysteria.
Provincial Governments have succumbed to misdirected strategies, particularly Premier Vander Zalm's notorious Bill 34. The federal Government reportedly is considering mandatory testing for all immigrants. And some of this country's correctional services are implementing the death penalty by default with their refusal to permit the distribution of condoms to inmates.
The false sense of security engendered by such moves is a sure-fire recipe for promoting a plague.
Numerous community based AIDS groups which are federated under the Canadian AIDS Society are the effective vanguard fighting the spread of AIDS in Canada. But the Government has been niggardly, dilatory, and half-hearted in its support for these already available educational agencies.
Ignorance and narrow minded, prejudiced attitudes pose the real danger to the health of all Canadians. I call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to make adequate funding available immediately for comprehensive AIDS educational programs throughout Canada.



REMEMBRANCE DAY


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, next Wednesday, across the country Canadians will pay tribute to all those who fought in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. We will remember those who gave their lives for the sake of freedom.
Following the Second World War, thousands of mountains, lakes and streams across Canada were named for men killed during that particular conflict. The object of the Mountain Project in Chilliwack, British Columbia, which took two years to complete, was to honour servicemen from the Chilliwack area by publicizing the local mountains named for them.
An engraved wooden cross was placed on top of each mountain or beside a lake or stream of each one so-named, and their biographies were published in the Chilliwack Progress.
A total of 67 crosses were placed by groups such as Chilliwack Search and Rescue, Chilliwack Outdoors Club, Boy Scouts, prison camps, and Camp Chilliwack.
I applaud their efforts in making sure we do not forget the great sacrifice many men and women made for Canada's peace and security.
We shall not forget.



DEATH OF FORMER PREMIER


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Over the past two days, Mr. Speaker, Quebec, Canada and certain other countries of the world have been unanimous in their tribute of respect and admiration for Rene Levesque. Unfortunate though it may be that such unanimity is evidenced only during periods of mourning or crisis, this very human trend attests to the strength of a few men and women who, through their work and accomplishments, manage to douse for a while the flames of division and struggle among human beings.
I for one can only join in this spontaneous move which rallies men and women of every social class and every political persuasion. I do not think I would be exaggerating if I were to suggest that if Jean Lesage was the father of the quiet revolution, Rene Levesque was and will ever be the father of Quebecers.
A courageous, persistent and honest man, Rene Levesque faithfully reflected typical Quebecers. His most outstanding achievement was undoubtedly to offer Quebecers his services as a political leader who first and foremost was humane and
November 5, 1987

ever mindful of ordinary people. Through his activities as popularizing journalist and populist leader, Rene Levesque was able to heighten, among the humblest members of our society, the sentiment of pride to be Quebecers.
We are all indebted to him. And if a strong nation is the legacy of the involvement of men and women selflessly devoted to their fellow human beings, Rene Levesque will always stand prominent among great men in our national pantheon.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has selected a principal contractor for the construction of six frigates, the second set of a total of twelve.
The Department decided to deal with the contractor who had the additional of the expertise acquired in building the first six frigates. The contractor wants the frigates built in his own yards, alleging it would cost $80 million more per frigate if he had to share the order with other shipyards.
I urge the Department of National Defence to ask the principal contractor to provide hard evidence of this additional expense, which I think is debatable.
In dealing with this issue, the Department of National Defence should consider that expertise in building frigates should not be limited to a single firm. Who would take over if things went wrong in that particular yard?
In any case, strategically, technically and economically, there is not a single country where the armed forces rely on a single supplier. We should certainly not be the first!



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, last March the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in his opening address to the First Ministers' Conference, stated that the explicit recognition of the right to self-government is an essential prerequisite to any constitutional amendment. Within weeks of those remarks, the Prime Minister was well on his way to cementing a constitutional deal that ignored his own public commitment.
On a policy level, the Conservative Government then cut off constitutional funding for aboriginal groups before the ink was
even dry on the Meech Lake Accord. Canada's aboriginal people know it was principally the intransigence of Tory and neo-Tory provincial Governments which denied them the constitutional changes they sought to restore self-government to their communities.
Now that Quebec has been welcomed back into the Canadian constitutional family, the need to recommence constitutional negotiations on aboriginal self-government is even more pressing. The Government should immediately make a formal approach to the provinces in pursuit of this worthy and worthwhile Canadian objective.



EDUCATION


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the City of Saskatoon was very pleased to host the National Forum on Post-secondary Education which was held last week. I was privileged to accompany 500 delegates from across Canada in meaningful debate regarding the future of our education and youth in this country.
I wish to congratulate all those who participated, and extend special congratulations to the Secretary of State (Mr. Crom-bie) and the National Forum Committee for the outstanding organization of this conference. The forum committee will be presenting a report which will include recommendations to the Government for future discussion at the Council of Education Ministers.
This was an historic event as it was the first time that two levels of government collaborated on the future of education in our community colleges and universities, with the participation of people representing youth, education, labour, industry and all levels of government.
With the recently negotiated free trade agreement, qualified employees will be needed in Canada to remain internationally competitive. I believe the results of this forum will lead our labour force into the next century as leaders in the international market-place.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), and I were recently contacted by a number of our constituents about the closure of the Canadian Embassy earlier this year in Quito, Ecuador. These constituents, many of whom have family and friends in Ecuador, are concerned about the

November 5, 1987
Oral Questions
hardship this will cause to Ecuadorians who are seeking immigration to Canada and for those seeking visitors' visas.
I am informed that the waiting period for an appointment with an immigration officer in Bogota, Colombia, the nearest Canadian Embassy to Ecuador, can be as long as six months.
The Government says it is closing this embassy and others for reasons of financial restraint. But the savings to be had are paltry when compared to the loss of reputation Canada sustains as an actor in international politics.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has said: "In every case we can continue to serve Canadian interests as effectively under the new arrangements as is now the case". I reject that explanation. There is simply no substitute for having a person in a country experiencing the daily life of an unfamiliar society.
I urge the Government to reconsider the closing of the embassy in Ecuador and the embassy closure policy of the Government in general.



NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION WEEK


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, today is day five of National Crime Prevention Week. Over the last few years we have seen a positive community response to the difficult problems of crime. Programs such as Neighborhood Watch and Crimestoppers are examples of co-operation between police and community members, co-operation that is necessary to prevent criminal activity.
Other effective crime prevention measures can be traced to concerned organizations. Governments have put in place harsher penalties for drinking and driving in response to input from groups such as MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and SADD, Students Against Drunk Driving.
As well as congratulating effective programs and organizations, we must call for an increased effort to get at the root causes of crime. Economic causes such as poverty, lack of education, unemployment, and social factors like family breakdown and community apathy all contribute to the growing problem of crime.
Events are taking place across Canada this week that are calling attention to these problems and proposing long-term solutions. The only way to control criminal activity in the long term is to strengthen communities, community ties, and to link individuals and citizens' groups with a common purpose. Such concerted and united action must be on the front line against crime.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.



THE LATE RENE LEVESQUE, FORMER PREMIER OF QUEBEC

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence out of respect for the late Rene Levesque, the former Premier of the Province of Quebec.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that it has been the stated policy of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy to pursue Canadi-anization of our energy sector. In fact the stated policy of the Government is that takeovers of Canadian energy companies that are valued at $5 million or more are subject to review. Yet the Minister of Energy's own briefing notes indicate that as of January 1, 1992, indirect acquisitions of energy companies in this country will not be subject to any review whatsoever.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government allow the Americans to take over our energy sector? How can the Government allow our energy sector to become Americanized when its stated policy has been to Canadianize the energy sector?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we should define "indirect acquisition". Indirect acquisition would mean that that energy company or that energy industry was already owned by a foreign company and, therefore, there would be no change in the balance of ownership that is presently there now.


ENERGY SHORTAGES-PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the indirect acquisitions of Canadian companies are of Canadian companies and not foreign companies.
Not only have we been misled about the availability of a final draft of the energy text in the agreement, not only have we been misled about Canadianization, but according to the Minister's own documents any measures to protect Canadian consumers "can be overridden by a challenge under U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping legislation".
November 5, 1987

Why has the Government signed an agreement to take away from Canadian consumers protection against energy shortages?
Mir. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade): This agreement does not take that protection away. We still have the National Energy Board that monitors the amount of energy we have here. It still grants the export licences for export of product from Canada. The control is there.
I might remind the Hon. Member that the Canadianization policies of the energy industry are grandfathered within this agreement. So what he is telling the Canadian people is not correct.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON PROVINCIAL RIGHTS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from the Minister of Energy's own briefing notes. Those are not my notes, they are the Minister of Energy's notes.
As a result of the free trade agreement, not only will the rights of Canadian consumers be subject to American court challenges, but the rights of the provinces over their own energy reserves must be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada if they are to be honoured.
How could the Government of Canada sign a free trade agreement that would take away from provinces like Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Alberta, their own rights over their energy resources? How could the Government tie up energy investment in this country for years while those questions are being reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is wrong again. That is three times. Three strikes and you are out.
Let me remind the Hon. Member of what the Minister said on October 8, 1987. I quote from page 9820 of the Commons Debates'.
I can only repeat that in our energy negotiations we secured access for all
forms of energy which this Government has put in place. I can also assure him
that any rights the provinces had before this agreement concerning their own
policies, they will have after this agreement.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHY BILINGUALISM AND CULTURE NOT PART OF EXEMPTIONS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to any of the Members opposite who would care to field questions on the Mulroney deal.
Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday, we had witnesses on behalf of the Coalition quebecoise who mentioned a major point omitted by the Agreement from the Canadian Government. On page 15 in the section on standards, it is permitted to
Oral Questions
adopt standards and regulations to protect health, safety, the environment and national security.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary why bilingualism and culture are not included in this section.


John Horton McDermid: I disagree again with the findings of the group that appeared before the committee yesterday.
The free trade agreement will have absolutely no impact on the current requirements for bilingual labelling and for the provision or use of manuals in French, none whatsoever. Bilingual labelling and French language consumer information will not be negatively affected by this provision at all.


QUERY WHETHER EXEMPTIONS WILL BE CLEAR IN FINAL TEXT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I shall address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister as it is very important for all Canadians. Is it true that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this will have no effect on bilingualism and bilingual labelling? Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that the exemption will be clearly, precisely and specifically stated in the final text?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think when the final text comes out and the Hon. Member reads it-I hope he does read it because I am not sure he has read the agreement yet- he doesn't have to give me dirty hand signals-I can tell the Hon. Member that it will be very clear that they will not be affected in any way, shape or form.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes or no?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the President of the United States has now signed an agreement between his country and Japan allowing for the transportation of plutonium over Canadian territory. I understand that the Canadian Government has asked to be consulted about this agreement.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Have our friends, the Americans, responded to our request for consultation and have we seen the agreement? What is our response to it?

November 5, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can rest assured that there will be no plutonium flights over Canadian territory unless the Canadian Government gives its consent to such flights.
The U.S. can sign an agreement with Japan and Japan can sign an agreement with the U.S. They can sign an agreement together, and they can sign it with 10 other countries or 100 other countries.
There will be no overflights over Canada with respect to carrying plutonium unless the Government of Canada finds that it is safe, that it is in order to do so, and gives its consent, of that the Hon. Member may be assured.
As to consultation, yes, there has been consultation. The United States knows that Canada has the right to restrict or refuse overflights of plutonium which, by the way, are at least several years hence because there is nothing contemplated in the near future in any event.


CONSULTATION WITH UNITED STATES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should wait until the very last minute.
The Minister of Transport says that we have been consulted. Does that consultation, I repeat, include the details of the agreement? When the Minister of Transport says that we must be assured of safety, does that mean containers will be used that will withstand not a 400 kilometre per hour impact, but the 700 kilometre per hour impact that is likely? Does it include the preparation of landing strips in the North and the necessary facilities for handling crashes in the North if that should happen?
Are these the criteria that will be applied in adjudicating whether Canadians will accept the overflight of plutonium over Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members love crying "wolf' on the other side of the House. "Wolf' is constantly being cried in this issue.
Japan and the United States signed a nuclear co-operation agreement on November 4. No proposal has been made that they fly plutonium under that agreement over Canadian territory. They agree that if they are going to make any such proposal in the future Canada will be consulted and will have the right to review the proposal.
It is agreed that we have the right to restrict or refuse any overflights across Canadian territory. That is agreed to by both Japan, the United States, and by all other international bodies involved. If there were any such proposal there would have to be a transportation plan, and an appropriate pass for transporting the plutonium must be developed. Those activities could take a number of years.
We are just as concerned about any possible accident with plutonium as is the Hon. Member. There has been no such
proposal. If there ever is such a proposal, we will determine whether or not it is safe, whether or not it is in the interests of Canada for such overflights to be permitted, and it is recognized by all concerned that we have the right to decide that.


REQUEST THAT CANADA REFUSE PERMISSION FOR OVERFLIGHTS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister to say that we are calling "wolf' is not only silly but irresponsible. We are talking about the potential overflight of what could be termed plutonium dustbombs which would by wind, if a crash were to occur, lead to the contamination of the entire northern environment and serious health effects would last for many, many years indeed. Rather than lodging a notice that maybe we will, maybe we will not approve such overflights, rather than conjuring up notions of crying "wolf', is it not time to simply say no, we will not subject the North to that kind of hazard?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, isn't life simple when you are in the Opposition? You simply tear up agreements, you simply say no and that is all you do. You do not recognize the fact that there are international Conventions to which Canada is a party which require certain courses of action to be taken.
If you are in the Opposition, you will not listen to the fact that there has been no proposal for any such overflights. You will not listen to the fact that the United States and Japan have agreed that we must be consulted and consent, and you apparently do not want to listen to the fact that there has to be a transportation plan and a safe cask in which to move that material for it even to be considered.
We will not say an anticipatory no when we have never been asked to say yes or no. It would be ridiculous and contrary to our international obligations to do so.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The people of Canada are asking.


John Carnell Crosbie: Anticipatory hysteria.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER SPEAKER, RIGHT HON. ROLAND MICHENER
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of a former colleague who served our country with distinction as a Member of Parliament, Speaker of the House of Commons, High Commissioner, and Governor General, the Right Hon. Roland Michener.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 5, 1987


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, following the imagery used by the Minister of Transport in his reference to the wolf, if he has read that fable to the end he would realize that at the end of the story the wolf does show up. He might want to be a bit more careful in his statements in which he seems to be more concerned about Japan and the U.S. than Canadians and our environment in the fragile North.
The Minister's case seems to rest upon the question of safety. There is no way that one can be assured that those safety standards work until an accident occurs. If an accident does occur over the Canadian North, then the game is over.
Why does the Minister place so much importance on the standards to be applied to this flight over the Canadian North instead of taking a clear-cut position now by indicating to the international community that Canadians will not even entertain an application, as the Opposition has been urging the Minister to do since last August?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have just heard again from Little Red Riding Hood. The position is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: One has to assume that a question is asked for some purpose and therefore I should be allowed to reply.
The situation is that dangerous goods, including plutonium, are regulated in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization Convention to which over 100 countries belong, which stipulates that states retain the power to apply their domestic regulations concerning the carriage of cargo to international overflights. We also have to keep in mind that we have already filed with ICAO what is called a state variation, which requires our approval for any overflight transporting fissile material across Canadian air space.
We have to understand that there has been no proposal for any such overflight. It would be contrary to our obligations under these international treaties for us to say no when we have not even received a proposal.
When and if a proposal is received, it will have to be looked at very carefully, and unless it meets the strictest standards of safety that apply to all carriage of dangerous goods, it would not be entertained. But we will not say no before a proposal is even made. That would be the height of ridiculousness, absolutely and incredibly ridiculous. Even the hon. gentleman did not act like that when he was in government.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Transport had carefully read his instruction notes since last August, he would not be taking such a shaky, wishy-washy position today on the floor of the House of Commons. He evidently does not know
Oral Questions
his file because, if he did, he would not rise in the House and say today that we have to wait for an application before we take a stand. My question to him-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


CONDITIONS FOR MAKING DECISION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is a very clear and straightforward question. Will it take an accident, a disaster, and irreparable damage to the fragile Canadian environment in the Arctic area for the Minister to take a position and decide to deny these flights over the Canadian North?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think it was Dalton Camp who had something to say about the family the hon. gentleman is named after, and he is acting like a cashew nut today.
I repeat, no one has made any such request. No one has made a proposal for such an overflight of Canadian territory and we will not deal with it until they make such a proposal. If they make such a proposal at this time, we would have to say no because at the present time there is no suitable cask in which to carry that material which would withstand the impacts that would have to be regulated and so on, so the answer at the present time would have to be no.
Who knows, there has been no proposal, but in several years' time there may be a safe way of transporting this material. That is the present position. We will listen to the hon. gentleman's fears and alarms and those of the hon. gentleman from Windsor when the time comes.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON PROVINCIAL POWERS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record says in a report today on its front page that Ottawa appears to be preparing to force provinces to put the U.S. trade deal into effect. The paper quotes a Justice Department lawyer who said that there is no limit as to the nature of the provincial legislation that could be disallowed.
In view of this very serious report, is the Minister of Justice prepared to make it very clear to the provinces that there will not be any recourse on the part of the federal Government to disallow powers such as that to try to bludgeon the provinces into this unfair trade deal?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the Kitchener- Waterloo Record of today.

November 5, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I realize that. I was reading the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. In response to the specific hypothetical question put by the Hon. Member, I can only say that it is certainly the position of the Government that the treaty or the agreement itself is within federal jurisdiction and federal competence.
It has been stated, with respect to areas which impact on the provinces, that we are satisfied the provinces will indeed cooperate and do the things necessary to give full effect to an agreement which brings so many benefits to Canadians. I hope the Hon. Member will understand the progress this Government has made in federal-provincial relations, which progress is so different from federal-provincial relations in the past.


Steven W. Langdon: The reason the Kitchener-Waterloo Record has this front page report is because the Minister for International Trade just visited Kitchener and was not able to satisfy the reporters from that paper-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -that the Government would not take this course of action.


GAS DISTRIBUTION AND PRICING POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, is it because of this uncertainty about disallowance, which the Minister did not actually deal with, that the Minister of Energy, outside the House yesterday, said the question of who controls gas distribution and pricing policy in this country may ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the Hon. Member's allegation about the incompetence of the reporters of the Kitchener newspaper. Anyone who knows the Minister for International Trade will know that she answers all questions with great effect.
With respect to the question of provincial involvement, may I remind the Hon. Member of the very extensive discussions, briefings, and the amount of time spent by the Prime Minister personally with the provinces, step by step, as this process unfolded over the course of the last few months and years. This consultation with the provinces is unparalleled. They are not taken by surprise by this arrangement. They have been kept fully informed. I think this is a terrific deal for all provinces and all of Canada and I know they will support it.


USE OF FEDERAL POWERS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. It is reported-


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Where?


Lloyd Axworthy: -that the negotiations over the final text are being held up an inordinately long time. One reason for that is because the U.S. has not received from the Canadian Government any firm assurance that the provinces will implement that part of the agreement which falls within their jurisdiction. The Minister for International Trade said the federal Government expects the provinces to implement it. We are now into a major federal-provincial conflict over this fundamental point.
The Minister did not in any way deny the fact that the federal Government may use its declaratory or other powers under the Constitution to force the provinces to follow this agreement. If that is not the case why will the Minister not get to his feet and say so? Why will he not say that the provinces have the right to veto this agreement in areas under their jurisdiction?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the provinces, even those opposed to the agreement, have said they will not scuttle it. Premier Peterson has made it very clear that this is within federal jurisdiction, and that although he philosophically opposes it he would not scuttle or destroy the deal. We understand why. He realizes that this is going to be very good for Ontario, but philosophically he cannot handle it.


Lloyd Axworthy: It strikes me that it was not a philosopher who wiped out the Tory Party in Ontario last summer. It was a very pragmatic politician.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that we are well into Question Period and well behind in the number of Members who have been recognized. I am going to ask Hon. Members to limit their preambles to the facts necessary to the question and then put the question.


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister who I hope will speak on behalf of the Government. Speaking of the Province of Ontario, today it tabled a report prepared for it by the legal firm of Blake, Cassels & Graydon, a distinguished group of legal experts, particularly in trade. That firm reported specifically that the dispute settlement mechanism is so flawed that not only will it not guarantee access, it will provide even further problems for Canadians in gaining access. It will deny the provinces and individuals their right to normal redress in the courts on trade disputes. The litigants in any trade dispute will be denied their constitutional rights.
Considering that serious flaw which has been pointed out by legal experts, is it not proper for the Government to admit that this mechanism is not worth the enormous price Canadians will have to pay? It will not work and will in fact do more damage to Canada than what we have now.
November 5, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it has been acknowledged here in Canada, in the U.S., and throughout the world, that the dispute settlement mechanism negotiated during the bilateral trade talks is a very unique achievement, one that will probably set the stage for further activities of this kind around the world.
I am not surprised that the Province of Ontario would draw the conclusion it has. I understand that during the course of the hearings the provincial Government entertained only those who were opposed to the free trade arrangement rather than those who would present a balanced point of view. It is obvious that they would come to that kind of conclusion.


ENERGY SECTOR-PROVINCIAL RIGHTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, as he knows, the Minister of Energy said that the Supreme Court of Canada may have to decide whether the energy part of the trade deal violates provincial constitutional rights to control resources. I have here a copy of the briefing notes for the Minister of Energy which, by the way, I confirmed have been sent to his office and he knows about them.


Mr. McKnight:: How did you confirm that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They also indicate concern about provincial rights.
I want to ask the Minister why, on the one hand, the Minister of Energy believes this issue may have to be decided by the Supreme Court, but on the other hand is still saying these rights have not been trampled upon? His own officials are saying there is some concern in this area.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Government position is very clear. I do not know if the Hon. Member was in the House a little earlier in Question Period when I read this, but I will read it to him again in case he was not. It is found on page 9820 of Hansard of October 8. To quote the Minister for International Trade:
I can only repeat that in our energy negotiations we secured access for all
forms of energy which this Government has put in place. I can also assure him
that any rights the provinces had before this agreement concerning their own
policies, they will have after this agreement.


ALLEGED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRAFTS OF AGREEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what the Minister has been told. The briefing notes say, and this is a very senior official in the Department-


Some Hon. Members:: Who?
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -that the question of provincial compliance is a very sensitive area and the Prime Minister himself should be dealing with it.
On page three of these briefing notes the Government acknowledges that there is now a discrepancy in the area of incentives for future gas and oil exploration between the original draft and a more recent detailed draft which weakens the Canadian Government's position to pursue incentives independently in this area. Does the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge the difference between the original draft and a more detailed draft? Can he also tell the House whether or not he would agree to have this more detailed recent draft referred to the special committee now studying the deal so we can compare the original draft with the much more detailed draft which is probably much closer to reality?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has made it very clear and I will simply emphasize what he has said. The provinces own the resources. They possess all rights derived from that ownership. It is up to the provinces to decide whether or not to sell those resources. They remain responsible for the management, production, and conservation of those resources. I am not sure how much clearer we can be on that point. That simply re-emphasizes, in more elaborate fashion, what the Minister for International Trade said in this House.
The committee is seized of the issue which the Hon. Member is raising about different interpretations. Clearly that is the most appropriate place to obtain this kind of detailed information. I am sure that the committee will have the opportunity to call all the expert witnesses it wishes to call. I understand that the Chairman of the Committee has been very co-operative in that regard. That is where the Member should seek that information.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He ought to know that one of the richest fishing grounds in the world is on the Georges Bank off Nova Scotia in the Gulf of Maine. The Deputy Prime Minister ought to know as well that thousands upon thousands of Canadian fishermen earn their living from the sea.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking to the primary producers in Nova Scotia and to this House that no oil and gas exploratory drilling permits will be allowed and that,

November 5, 1987
Oral Questions
in particular, Texaco will not be allowed to drill on the Georges Bank?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, there is at present in place a process for reviewing proposals by companies such as Texaco. The Government, and myself in particular, have said repeatedly that no such drilling will be authorized by myself should it in any way jeopardize the interests of fishermen in view of the very precious resources on the Georges Bank on which they depend.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we know that when it came to standing up for the fishermen in Newfoundland in the Canada-France deal the Government caved in to France. We now know that when it comes to standing up for the fishermen in Nova Scotia the Government is prepared to cave in to multinational corporate interests in the United States.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans give a clear and unequivocal commitment today that there will be no drilling whatsoever and that he will communicate to Texaco and the Nova Scotia Government the decision that there shall not and must not be any drilling on the Georges Bank?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the impatience of the Hon. Member. I wonder where he was when his Party was in government and many initiatives were taken and agreements signed such as one with France which impaired in perpetuity the interests of the fishermen in Atlantic Canada. He should not try to set an example in matters of this nature.
The Government has taken strong and vigilant initiatives to protect and enhance the fishery and the economic benefit which it has brought to his province and to Atlantic Canada since the Government took office.


David Charles Dingwall: You're a wimp.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning Professor Jackson Davis released results of a study commissioned by Greenpeace, Operation Dismantle, Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group on the effects of a possible accident resulting from the visit of a nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessel to Esquimalt. Plutonium concentrations of up to 10,000 times acceptable limits would be carried through the Greater Victoria area with up to 3,400 latent cancer deaths resulting.
In view of these disastrous consequences-even though the probability of such an accident is low-will the Government hold a public inquiry weighing the benefits of visits to Canadian ports by nuclear powered or armed vessels against the possible disastrous consequences of such visits?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Hon. Member allow me to take that question as notice. I will certainly take his representation into consideration and perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he returns to the House tomorrow, might be able to respond to it more fully.


RESULTS OF GOVERNMENT INQUIRY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Government at least release the results and details of its own inquiry into the safety aspects of such visits to Canadian ports? Will it make public the evacuation plans which are supposed to be followed in the event of such a disaster?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly bring this to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last June, during a by-election in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and promised $1 billion in new funding for that agency over five years. This week the President of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce called into question the Prime Minister's commitment not to shelve existing programs to pay for the new Atlantic agency.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House today that the Industrial Regional Development Program will not be eliminated, shelved, or scaled down when its current mandate expires on March 31? Will he further assure the House that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will indeed be funded by new money rather than a reallocation of existing regional development funds?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a case of anticipatory crocodile tears by the hon. gentleman who seizes on a rumour to place a question in the House, as is the usual practice of the Opposition.
November 5, 1987

The position of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is very clear. It has been allotted $1.5 billion in new money to be spent over the next five years to encourage business development and job creation in Atlantic Canada. It will not be used on infrastructure. It will not be used to clean out Halifax Harbour or to make St. John's Harbour odour free.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why, are you leaving town?


John Carnell Crosbie: It will not even be used to make the hon. gentleman odour free. There are not sufficient funds to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Angus:: That answer stinks.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that the only way to make St. John's Harbour odour free is to have the Hon. Member move out, but I will not say that because I would be responding in kind.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESIDENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rick Des Brisay, President of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce, reports that based on a survey of the business community in Atlantic Canada 74 per cent of that business community rates the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as only fair to poor in dealing with regional development. The so-called rumour to which the Minister refers has spread right across the business community of Atlantic Canada.
Does the Minister realize, as he should, being the very bright boy that he is on occasion, at least with his Gillette-like tongue, that the shell-game that he and the Prime Minister are playing with regional development money in Atlantic Canada is further deteriorating the confidence of the business community in a region where unemployment is already too high? Can he give me a straight answer without going crazy with his Platonian tongue?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would need a lawn mower to get the fur off his tongue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am disappointed in Mr. Des Brisay's comments. Mr. Des Brisay is constantly making critical comments about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It is time for him to give that agency a chance. Its success will depend upon the initiatives of Atlantic Canadians because the decisions will be made in Atlantic Canada. The money is available but they must come forward with suggestions on how to expand their businesses and create new businesses.
Oral Questions
Local initiative is required. If the local initiative is there, it will be a huge success. If it is not, it will be a failure. It is up to the people of Atlantic Canada to take advantage of it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WATER RESOURCES
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Opponents of free trade have raised the spectre of Canadian water being siphoned off to the United States as a result of the bilateral trade agreement. Will the Minister advise the House of the Government's response to this concern?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of water has never been negotiated in the free trade talks. The subject of water is not part of the free trade agreement, nor will it be.
Earlier today the Deputy Prime Minister tabled in the House of Commons a federal water policy which makes very clear the federal Government's opposition to large-scale water exports to the United States or to any other country, for that matter.
We oppose such large-scale exports because, first, Canada is not a water-rich country. We need the water for our own purposes. We can ill afford to export our water for other countries' purposes.
Second, the inter-basin diversions that would be required to get the water from Canada to foreign markets would be devastating to the environment of Canada and to Canadian society, especially in the North where the ecology is so delicate and where native peoples would be particularly vulnerable.


WINTER OLYMPICS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. It concerns yet another plan by the United States Government to undercut one of our programs.
The U.S. Mint has announced its plans to launch its own Olympic coin program in direct competition with ours. Does the Minister agree that this action by our so-called friends south of the border will undermine Canada's Olympic coin

November 5, 1987
Oral Questions
program and hurt our ability to finance the Calgary Olympics? If so, has he been in touch with the United States Government to tell it to keep its hands off our programs?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, first, this Government agrees with free enterprise and the opportunity for each country to do what it wants.
In the case of this specific coin program, I want to tell the Hon. Member that the United States is a little late because our coin program is well ahead of schedule. Our sales in the United States are only 17 per cent of the total program. Most of our sales come from Canada, Europe, and Asia. Therefore, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Olympic coin program in the United States will not harm our program. In fact, our program is already over the hump.


Iain Francis Angus: We on this side of the House recognize that part of the problem is the Government's belief in free enterprise. That is why you sold us out to the United States' Government.


CANADIAN POSITION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, how many times will the Government give in to the United States and allow it to do whatever it wants without protecting the people of Canada and their interests? How many times?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member and other Members a fact of life. We in Canada have been able to build the best facilities in the world for the Calgary Olympic Games. We will put on the best Winter Olympic Games in the history of the Olympic movement, and we are not protected by anyone. In fact this is a typical example of how Canada can benefit from a freer trade agreement with the United States.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POLL RESULTS
William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade. It relates to the recent Decima poll on free trade as reported in The Toronto Star yesterday.
It says that 62 per cent of Canadians say that the free trade deal is better for Americans according to this survey, yet it says that only 44 per cent of Canadians know that we have signed a free trade agreement. There is a great deal of confusion.
Does he feel that the report was slanted in a way that might inadvertently mislead the Canadians to my left, and can he indicate that there are certain American interests who fear the
exact opposite, that Canadians have a better deal than the Americans?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I read that article in one of those famous Canadian newspapers, The Toronto Star. Many of the figures in that particular survey were not reported. The good news was not reported.
For example, 70 per cent of Canadians believe that prices will be lower, 57 per cent of Canadians believe that as far as energy is concerned the free trade deal is a good one for Canada, and 51 per cent believe that there will be more jobs as a result.
I am not surprised that 62 per cent of Canadians think the Americans got the better of the deal today, but it is interesting to note that after this particular survey was taken we find that auto parts manufacturers in the United States, the energy industry in the United States, the AFL and CIO in the United States say that Canada got the best deal and they are opposed to it in the United States.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In light of the criticism by Royal Commissioner Mr. Justice Deschenes of the failure of the Government to advance its war criminal policy to the stage of laying charges, especially in the 20 cases that were identified for urgent action, what is going wrong and when can we expect some charges to be laid?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Justice Deschenes was saying the same thing that so many Canadians have said. Naturally, there is an impatience with respect to a resolution to this matter due to the fact that the previous Government did virtually nothing. It was acknowledged by his Prime Minister in a meeting yesterday with a closed group of people that he had a lot to confess for as a good practising Catholic.
As far as we are concerned-


John V. Nunziata: Shame on you!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I believe we have in fact moved in this matter with resolve and disposition.


Ms. Copps:: What does his religion have to do with anything?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Bill was proclaimed on October 30. This is November 5.
November 5, 1987


Sheila Maureen Copps: What does his religion have to do with anything?


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have been moving quickly, according to a very-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is not a religion issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -with respect to a review and an investigation of these files.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is outrageous!


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have had matters of agreements-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Absolutely outrageous!


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If the Hon. Member for Hamilton does not want to hear this-


Mr. Ouellet:: Tell your guys to shut up.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Religion has nothing to do with this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre.


DESCHENES COMMISSION REPORT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Trudeau did in fact say that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: And religion has nothing to do with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: She has as much right to speak as you do.


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


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If Mr. Trudeau did in fact say that his Government gave the matter a lower priority, it remains a fact that there were more concrete results during the Trudeau Government than there have been from this Government which says it gives the matter a high priority. Results are promised, but where are they?
The Deschenes report recommends that there be prosecution in 20 cases that were identified as being cases for urgent action. When will there be some results?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, again, this is a misrepresentation of the Deschenes Commission report. He said that there are 20 cases that required extra attention because of their nature. He said that each of those cases required further
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata
investigation, further action, and most of the cases involved investigation for evidence behind the Iron Curtain.
What we have done is to move with dispatch with the legislation. Second, we have made very good gains with respect to getting the safeguards that the Deschenes Commission recommended with respect to getting evidence behind the Iron Curtain. We are negotiating agreements to protect the rights of Canadians in this regard.
Third, we are fully involved in the investigation of these cases and we are carrying them on with dispatch and resolution, which is more than I can say about the previous administration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That concludes Question Period.


PRIVILEGE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Justice(Mr. Hnatyshyn) suggested that a former Prime Minister's religion motivated his action with regard to the Nazi War criminal issue.
I want the Minister of Justice to stand and apologize. He suggested somehow that because the former Prime Minister was a Roman Catholic, he did not take the action that was necessary to bring that matter to justice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I made no innuendo or imputed any motives.


John V. Nunziata: You did so.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was quoting the newspaper reports of what the former Prime Minister said himself.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in the House, only a few moments ago, made an association between a person's religion, in this case the former Prime Minister's, and the decisions that resulted in the Deschenes Commission and the Government's action thereto.
It seems to me that the Minister of Justice should be the first person in this country to know that the recommendations of the Deschenes Commission have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The fact that a person is a practising Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Jew or anything else, is completely irrelevant to this issue. The fact that he would even suggest such a thing, I think deserves an apology because it shows that he does not even understand the issue with which we are dealing, that is, the result of the Deschenes Commission.

November 5, 1987
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: A question of privilege has been raised. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) could obtain the newspaper article from which he was apparently quoting and give it to the Chair. I will consider the matter and report back to the Elouse.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so. I can only say to the Hon. Member that the Ukrainian Orthodox go to confession as well.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not the issue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps the Hon. Member should read the report of the Citizen of November 5, which I will give to the Speaker. The newspaper refers to the following statement by former Prime Minister Trudeau:
He said, "In our religion, we have confession and I must confess that our
Government did not do things it should have done".
That is the reference I was making. If the Hon. Member takes issue with that, she should talk to Mr. Trudeau.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, maybe I am naive and ignorant-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -but I do not understand-


Otto John Jelinek: You got that right!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may not have a question of privilege but the Hon. Member feels aggrieved and has a right to be heard.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I just do not understand and I would ask the Minister to clarify. He made a comment about his religion. What does my religion as a Roman Catholic or anyone else's religion have to do with the question that was asked by my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)? It has absolutely nothing to do with it and I suggest that the Minister should not exacerbate the situation by making further religious references on an issue which should affect all Canadians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in a moment. In the meantime, the Hon. Minister of Justice has the floor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if this will satisfy the Hon. Member, I had absolutely no intention to impute motivations. There was no intention of trying to suggest any religious overtones with respect to the matter. I quoted the former Prime Minister. I hope the Hon. Member will understand that that was the intention and accept my word for it.


John V. Nunziata: The record will speak for itself.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might provide some information on this matter as the only Member of Parliament
who was actually present at the meeting at which the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, made the comments in question.
The article to which the Minister of Justice referred is one source of information of what was supposed to have been an off the record briefing by the former Prime Minister. However, an article in the Toronto Star also refers to it. The former Prime Minister is quoted as stating:
I belong to a religion where, when we confess our sins, we confess not only
what we did but what we failed to do-
In hearing my former parliamentarian Svend, I felt it was a good lesson for
my soul when you realize the number of subjects we had failed to deal with.
In the context of that particular statement, I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, to my colleagues from the Liberal Party that they are blowing completely out of proportion the statement that was made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard enough. I have the point. I will consider it. I will look at the article and report back to the House.
I might say that the Chair is cognizant of the fact that in this place things can be said, or there may be a misunderstanding of something that has been said, that can cause a lot of disappointment, dismay, and at times wound. I will look at it from that point of view. However, the Hon. Minister has stated quite clearly that that was not his intention, and it is more complicated because he was apparently giving the quote from his own memory, and we have heard another quote very much along the same lines. However, I will come back out of courtesy and respect to all Hon. Members and respond to the matters which have been raised.
There is no need, in the opinion of the Chair, to carry this matter any further.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the customary question that is asked on Thursdays as to the intentions of the Government with respect to business that it wants to put before the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will commence consideration of Bill C-88, the Judges Act. If this Bill is not completed this afternoon, we will call it again for tomorrow. Following completion of Bill C-88, we will call Bill C-54, the Bill dealing with pornography.
November 5, 1987

Patent Act
On Monday, when the House returns from the remem-	who will assist me in that capacity for the foreseeable future
brance week adjournment, we will call Bill C-77, the emergen- until a Parliamentary Secretary is appointed, cies Bill, followed by Bill C-54, and hopefully there will be a
designated opposition day sometime later that week.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Guy Fawkes Day, there has been an agreement among all Parties that we would ring the bells prior to 3.30 p.m. and the vote will take place precisely at 3.30 p.m. I would suggest that as soon as we are through with routine business, we ring the bells and come back to vote at 3.30 p.m.


POINT OF ORDER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice while he is in the House a question with respect to the status of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, or the absence of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. The Prime Minister's Office had in fact issued a press release indicating that the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) was appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He is a very distinguished Member and certainly many of us look forward to working with that Member in this important area of parliamentary responsibility.
However, I note that Hansard from yesterday, which lists the Parliamentary Secretaries, makes no reference to the Hon. Member for Cambridge in the list of Parliamentary Secretaries. I would like to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice would clarify this omission and indicate just exactly who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there was a press report that came out. I am not aware of any other dispatches or documents published by the Prime Minister's Office. Certainly, there were press reports with respect to the appointment of the Hon. Member for Cambridge as my Parliamentary Secretary. This is not correct. I regret that in the sense that I agree with the Hon. Member for Burnaby that the Hon. Member for Cambridge is a very distinguished Member and one who would be a great asset as a Parliamentary Secretary, as he was for a period of time with me previously.
However, the position still remains vacant primarily because it is the most sought after position as Parliamentary Secretary and there are such a lot of people applying for the job. I guess the decision is rather hard to come by.
I am hoping that someone will be appointed at an early time, but I am now being well served by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hawkes)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 4, consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto;
And the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 18(b) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendment 13(a),
(b), (c), and (d), 14(a), (b), (c) and (d) and amendment 16(a) because this House believes that amendments 4(b), 11, 12, 15(a), (b), and (c), 16(b), (c), (d) and (e), 17(a) and (b) and 18(a) are in contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Bill and undermine the objectives of the policy.
More specifically:
Amendments 4(b), 11 and 12 change the coming into force of the sections thereby jeopardizing all of the research and development commitment of the industry, and are therefore not acceptable;
Amendments 15(b), (c) and 18(a) remove flexibility from the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board inconsistent with the design of such regulatory agencies and are therefore inconsistent and not acceptable;
Amendment 15(a) arises out of Senate amendments 13 and 14 and is therefore inappropriate;
Amendment 16(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 17(a) and (b) arise out of amendments 13, 14, and 16(a) which are proposed for further amendment by this House in this Message. Therefore the Senate amendments are inappropriate.
And that Senate amendments 13(a), (b), (c), (d), and 14(a), (b), (c) and (d) be amended to read as follows:
That Clause 15 of Bill C-22 be amended,
(a)	by adding, immediately after line 36 on page 13, the following:
"(1.1) Where, in the opinion of the Board, a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine has, within such period as is prescribed, increased the price at which the medicine is sold in any market in Canada by a percentage in excess of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for that period, the Board may, by notice in writing, require the patentee to provide the Board with such information and documents concerning the costs of making and marketing the medicine as the Board may specify and as is available to the patentee in Canada or is within the knowledge or control of the patentee, and on the receipt of any such notice, the patentee shall comply therewith within such time as the Board may specify."
(b)	by striking out line 45 on page 13 and substituting the following:
"tion (1) or (1.1),"
(c)	by adding, immediately after line 33 on page 17, the following:
"(5.1) Where, in the opinion of the Board, a patentee of an invention that is a medicine has, within such period as is prescribed, increased the price
[Stage Direction]
November 5, 1987
Judges Act
at which the medicine is sold in any market in Canada by a percentage in excess of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for that period, the Board may, by notice in writing, require the patentee to provide the Board with such information and documents concerning the costs of making and marketing the medicine as the Board may specify and as is available to the patentee in Canada or is within the knowledge or control of the patentee, and on the receipt of any such notice, the patentee shall comply therewith within such time as the Board may specify."
(d)	by striking out line 42 on page 17 and substituting the following: "accordance with subsection (5) or (5.1),"
(e)	by striking out line 17 on page 20 and substituting the following:
"purpose of the report referred to in"
(0 by striking out lines 2 and 3 on page 23 and substituting the following: "shall contain
(a)	a summary of pricing trends in the pharmaceutical industry; and
(b)	the name of each patentee to whom a notice under subsection 41.15(1.1) or 41.16(5.1) was sent during the year and a statement as to the status of the matter in respect of which the notice was sent."
(g) by striking out lines 4 and 5 on page 23 and substituting the following:
"(2) The summary referred to in paragraph (l)(a) may be based on information and".
And that Senate amendment 16(a) be amended to read as follows:
That Clause 15 of Bill C-22 be amended by adding, immediately after line 17 on page 19, the following:
"(12) Where an order is made under paragraph 6(d) in respect of a medicine, the prohibitions set out in subsections 41.11(1) and 41.14(1) cease to apply in respect of the medicine effective on the date of the order."
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been a proposal by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) that we call in the Members for the vote. Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


JUDGES ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I stated after Question Period, I am very pleased to be able to address the House today on Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act.
As you know, Parliament established a process in 1981 to review the salaries, benefits and other amounts payable under the Judges Act. Every three years a commission is appointed to inquire into the adequacy of judicial remuneration. These commissions report to the Minister of Justice who, in turn, tables the report in Parliament. The rationale of having such commissions is obvious. Triennial commissions provide, on a regular basis, advice to the Government which is independent
November 5, 1987

in nature. The process respects and enhances the independence of the judiciary according to our traditions.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently dealt with the independence of the judiciary in the Beauregard decision and affirmed that this independence is grounded on both security of tenure and financial security.
The 1986 commission chaired by Mr. H. Donald Guthrie, Q.C., submitted its report to me on February 27, 1987. I then tabled the report in Parliament. The report contained 27 recommendations in total. These recommendations dealt with salaries, pensions, benefits and income tax related matters. The standing committee considered the commission's report in April and accepted it subject to three modifications. Two of the modifications pertained to pension matters. The third modification related to salaries. The standing committee agreed with the commission's proposed salary adjustments but recommended their implementation effective April 1, 1987 rather than April 1, 1986.
The Government has the recommendations of the commission dealing with pensions and tax related matters under continuing consideration. As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, these matters are very complex and relate to broad policy concerns of Government. The Government is moving, in Bill C-88, to address the salary recommendations of the commission and matters directly related to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill C-88 is an appropriate response to both the triennial commission report and the report of the standing committee, the commission found that the income of federally appointed judges has "failed to keep pace with other groups in our society". The commission called for a new salary base for judges which is fair to the judiciary. The commission expressed concern that eminently qualified lawyers have declined appointments due to the financial consequences which were to follow.
The Government has accepted the findings and recommendation of the commission regarding salaries and is implementing the recommendation in this Bill. However, in the context of the Government's fiscal framework, we will be phasing in the proposed adjustment over three years. Clause 1 allows for increases effective April 1 and each of the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.
The Bill supersedes indexing adjustments for 1987 and 1988 during this phase-in period. I think it is important to understand that. Therefore, Hon. Members will realize that a certain portion of the adjustments being effected in Bill C-88 would have been received in any event through the operation of the indexation provisions in the Judges Act, indexation provisions which, I might add, use the industrial aggregate index as is the case for Members of Parliament and others.
In addition to providing adjustments to judicial salaries, the Bill will repeal the provisions of the Judges Act which suspend the pension entitlement of a surviving spouse during his or her
Judges Act
remarriage. This statutory suspension of benefits raises serious legal questions involving equality rights which have been recognized both by the report of the parliamentary committee on equality rights and by the Government's response thereto. Another amendment to the Judges Act will also eliminate consideration of a child marital status as a criterion for eligibility for survivors' benefits under the Judges Act.
There are at present over 800 men and women serving Canada on the federally appointed bench. These judges sit on the county and district courts which now exist in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia; the superior courts, trial and appeal; and under Section 101 of the Constitution, the Federal Court of Canada, the Tax Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada. These men and women serve with honour and distinction. The role has, as many have observed, been enhanced since the coming into force of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They face increasing workloads and deal on a daily basis with matters of tremendous importance dealing with the criminal law, civil disputes and complex matters relating to the Constitution and Charter.
While we have always been fortunate to attract excellent candidates to judicial offices, we must ensure that the salaries and other benefits judges enjoy are fair and keep pace with other groups in our society.
I call upon all Hon. Members to join with me in supporting this Bill which is based on certain recommendations of the triennial commission and which relate to fairness and to equality rights considerations.
As I stated previously, Parliament created the triennial commission process for a good and valid purpose. I call upon all Hon. Members to act in the spirit of this process and support the Bill. We, as parliamentarians, have a profound duty to act in a fair way in responding to the report of the triennial commission and to respect the independence of the judiciary in Canada with regard to the matter of financial security.
I would say only that whenever one deals with matters of salaries concerning the judiciary, it should be remembered that the judiciary, because of the nature of their responsibilities, are divorced from the politics of the country and really have no one to act as their advocate concerning the appropriateness of remuneration. When the amendments were made to the legislation to provide for the independent commission to make an assessment on a realistic basis, I think we provided ourselves as parliamentarians with a vehicle within which we can consider these matters. Hopefully we will operate in a sense of fairness and equity toward the judiciary as they are most important to us in Canada.
I commend the Bill to Hon. Members. I hope that we can see our way clear to passing this Bill at an early date.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition with the uncharacteristic purpose of supporting this legislation.

November 5, 1987
Judges Act


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to say a few words, however. I have read the Guthrie report and I approve of the idea of having this independent commission review judicial salaries. There is no doubt that the salaries being settled by this legislation are high salaries in proportion and in comparison to those earned elsewhere in the Public Service and in society. But they are not high salaries when one compares them to the incomes of the profession at the level from which we draw our judiciary and from which we hope to continue to draw our judiciary. I approve of the idea of indexing because I think it is difficult in this institution to deal regularly with these salaries when we see so much injustice in the salary mechanisms established elsewhere by this Parliament.
I want to refer to a couple of examples. The judiciary is a special case. We sometimes run into people in our constituencies and elsewhere who say Members of Parliament are underpaid. It is nice to hear that if you are a Member of Parliament. Certainly there are Members of Parliament, depending on their profession, who might have been making a lot more money if they had been doing their other job and not serving their country. In this Parliament that is not true in every case, nor should it be in every case. This Parliament is better because it drew people from all kinds of different jobs, people who were teachers, small businessmen, people in some cases who were out of the labour force and living at home, religious leaders and others for whom salary was not the issue. When you look at the salaries of Members of Parliament I do not think one should draw conclusions from what you find when you are looking at the problem of the bench.
Our purpose is to draw from the level in a profession at which salaries are very much higher than the $127,700 which is to be the salary level after the phase-in period for which the Minister has provided. That looks like an awful lot of money but I believe one would find that it is less than virtually all of the individuals who would receive that salary would make if they continued with their successful careers as lawyers working at the level from which we are drawing judges and from which we hope to continue to draw them. Therefore, we support this legislation.
I want to refer to one particular feature of the legislation, the removal of the provision that a pension to the spouse of a judge ceases on remarriage. I approve of that change. I think it is a humane way to treat the judiciary and I think also it will mean something to successful lawyers, some of whom are young and have spouses who will be very much affected by the abandonment of promising and lucrative careers as lawyers to become judges. It is a meaningful and humane thing for the Government to do and we support it.
That particular provision, the continuation of spousal pensions on remarriage, is one which the Government ought
also to offer in other areas of Public Service. One of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) will, I hope, speak on this matter. This humane provision ought to be followed elsewhere. The Government ought to change other legislation so that that same humanity will be applied by the Government as an employer of those other than the Section 96 judiciary to which the amendments that are before the House primarily apply.
I offer my support and I would like to ask if there might be unanimous consent to go through all three stages of the Bill today so that we could settle it and move on to other matters which I think ought to be given more time.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to make a few comments with respect to Bill C-88, legislation which would implement in a phased-in way the recommendations of the Guthrie commission which submitted a report and recommendations to the Government of Canada on judges' salaries and benefits on February 27 of this year.
We in the New Democratic Party support the second clause of this Bill which would delete the offensive provisions of the existing Judges Act which effectively bar widows or widowers of judges from remarrying if they wish to continue to receive their pensions. Those provisions are archaic and discriminatory and I welcome the initiative of the Government in repealing those provisions from the Judges Act.
Indeed, the Special Committee on Equality Rights recommended that a similar bar to pensioners be repealed throughout federal jurisdiction. I would certainly hope that the Government would apply this important principle not just in the case of judges but indeed in the case of all others who are in receipt of federal pensions.
At the same time, I might say that we are still waiting for the Government to make good on the commitments and promises it made to bring forward other legislative changes in response to the unanimous report of the Special Committee on Equality Rights.

It was on March 4, 1986, that the Government promised to amend the laws of Canada to implement the changes recommended by the Equal Rights Commission. Mr. Speaker, eighteen months later, the Government has still done nothing to keep this important promise. I ask the Government to keep its promise to ensure equal rights in Canada. I am well aware that you might one day hold another position than the distinguished one you now hold. I do not know whether it will be that of Prime Minister, but you will certainly assume the duties of that position with the same distinction as those of Deputy Speaker.
November 5, 1987



That deals with Clause 2 of the Bill. There is another provision in this legislation, indeed the heart of the legislation, Clause 1, which would implement a substantial pay increase for members of the bench appointed by the federal Government. The current base level of salary for a federally appointed judge at the Superior Court level or at the Federal Court level is approximately $110,000 per year.
The Guthrie commission states that the income of judges has failed to keep pace with that of other groups in our society. Objectively, I suggest that for a man or a woman to be paid, as the lowest paid federally-appointed judge is, something in the order of $105,000 per year is not unreasonable or unfair. I suggest furthermore that those salaries are already indexed as of January 1 of each year to take into consideration inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister whether the Government has money to spend to increase salaries and pensions in Canada. If not, why increase the salaries and pensions of judges instead of those of other Canadians who have a much greater need for such an increase?

I realize that some would say it is easy to attack a pay increase for judges since they cannot respond in the Chamber themselves, but we have an obligation to look at the legislation on its merits. The suggestion has been made that there are lawyers, men and women who should be on the bench but who are not because they cannot afford to get by on an annual salary of $110,000 a year.
As I have said on other occasions, if a lawyer is approached to serve, something which in itself is a great honour, and says, "No, I am not prepared to serve as a judge because I think $110,000 a year represents too much of a sacrifice for me", that lawyer should continue in the profession of the law. I do not want that kind of person on the bench. I do not want someone who believes that $110,000 a year is not enough and who is not prepared to accept the call to the bench. The Guthrie commission stated that it has independent knowledge of eminently qualified lawyers who have declined appointment to the bench due to the loss of income that would result. I suggest with respect that for every one of those individuals there are many more eminently qualified lawyers, to use the words of the commission, who could serve with distinction but who have not been approached.
I oppose this Bill, as I have opposed other provisions of a similar nature. I hope when it goes to committee we might get some justification from the Minister about why it is that a Government which is speaking, as it should, of scarce resources has decided to increase the salaries of those who are already at the very highest level of income.
Judges Act
I want to take this opportunity as well to indicate that we in the NDP are deeply concerned that this Government has failed to follow through in another area of fundamental importance affecting the judiciary. That concerns the process of appointment to the bench.

It has been quite some time since the Minister of Justice promised to change the Canadian system of appointments to the bench. He would know that his former Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), chose to resign because he was so frustrated by his own Government's lack of will with respect to the appointment of judges and to democratizing the process of political party contributions in Canada.

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) knows that his predecessor, now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), promised over two years ago to bring forward changes to the system of appointment of judges. He knows the Canadian Bar Association stated that many Canadians believe the system still contains an excessive amount of political patronage. Indeed, many examples of that remain, unfortunately.
Just today we learned of the speculation that the Attorney General of British Columbia, Brian Smith, is apparently being considered or trying to have himself considered for Chief Justice of British Columbia. What a perversion of justice. As Attorney General he has displayed utter contempt for the Charter of Rights. He has shown total incompetence in dealing with the law. He described as seditious conspiracy the efforts of British Columbians to peacefully protest against labour legislation in that province-excuse me.


Mr. Friesen:: Even he chokes on it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You should choke on your words.


Svend Johannes Robinson: We learned today that this individual may be considered-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who said so?


Svend Johannes Robinson: -for appointment as Chief Justice in British Columbia. That is certainly possible because the federal Government and the Minister of Justice have refused to bring forward changes to the system of judicial selection which they promised.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We were waiting for you to come back.


Svend Johannes Robinson: How much longer must Canadians wait before the Government makes good on its promise?

Mr. Speaker, how many months will we have to wait before this Minister and this Government live up to their commitment to revamp the judicial appointment system?

November 5, 1987
Motions

I hope that the speculation and rumours concerning this appointment are misguided. Certainly we in the Province of British Columbia are fortunate in having a distinguished chief justice in Mr. Justice Nathan Nemetz. I know all British Columbians, indeed all Canadians, would be deeply shocked at any suggestion that the occupant of that very important and fundamental position in the Canadian judiciary would be someone who has displayed such contempt for the elementary principles of justice and the Charter of Rights. I hope the Minister will rise in his place and once and for all squelch that suggestion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The last one to criticize me became a Minister of Education.


Svend Johannes Robinson: We know that the role of the judiciary in our society has been enhanced significantly as a result of the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, we recognize the fundamental importance of the judiciary in Canadian society. However, I question the decision of the Government to move forward with salary increases based on the Guthrie recommendation. I believe that decision is not warranted.
My final point concerns some other recommendations made by the Guthrie commission. It pointed out that inequities remain in the system of judges' pensions. Without in any way endorsing all of those recommendations in this respect, I would have hoped that the Minister of Justice would come forward not just with a package dealing with salaries, but one which recognizes some of the inequities documented by the commission. One of those inequities deals with the question of pensions for judges who have served more than 10 years but less than 15 years. The commission recommended that there should be provision for a partial pension for those individuals. I welcome and support that recommendation and I hope the Government brings forward at an early date legislation to implement that recommendation. I hope the Government also bears in mind those individuals who have served with distinction and honour in the federal judiciary when determining the date upon which such provisions take effect.
In conclusion, while we welcome the changes in Clause 2 which will put an end to this offensive barrier with respect to pensions, we must register our opposition to the proposed salary increase. We have to bear in mind that the federal judiciary automatically has its salaries indexed under the existing provisions of the Act. I look forward to dealing with this and other questions in committee.


Mr. Lewis:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will find there is unanimous consent to revert to Motions in order to take care of a motion to allow the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to travel, and a motion to adjourn the House today until Monday, November 16, 1987.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been the necessary discussions with the other House Leaders and there is consent to move the following motion:
That when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. on Monday, November 16, 1987.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to adjourn from place to place in Canada between November 22 and December 5, 1987, for the purpose of holding hearings, as the Committee deems appropriate, on the subject of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, that committee is in session in the West Block at this time, but I am here to oppose this motion because it is the kind of proposal which is making a complete farce of the hearings on free trade. The Government has already asked the committee and the Canadian people to study this so-called free trade agreement without benefit of any legal text. We have already been told that the text will not be ready for several weeks. We are holding hearings and planning more hearings, asking people to comment on the principles of the agreement rather than on the text which I understand will run to about 900 pages while the agreement which we now have before us consists of only about 36 pages.
That is not all, Mr. Speaker. The American Congress will have until about April 1 to study this agreement. According to the fast-track system which has been adopted in the United
November 5, 1987

States, they have 90 days after the President signs the agreement on January 2.
We do not have the legal text, yet are asked to study the agreement. The House Leader is now proposing a motion which the committee rammed through last night against the wishes of opposition Members. Members of the Opposition on the committee suggested last night that we do want hearings on the so-called trade agreement between Canada and the United States but that two weeks was totally inadequate.
According to the plan which is being put to the House this afternoon, one day will be spent in each province. One day will be spent in British Columbia in one city, one day in Alberta in one city, one day in Saskatchewan, one day in Manitoba, and one day in the Northwest Territories. In the second week we will cover eastern Canada spending one day in Quebec, one day in New Brunswick, one day in Prince Edward Island, one day in Nova Scotia, and one day in Newfoundland.
We are receiving hundreds of letters from groups and individuals who want to be heard on this most important agreement which the Government itself says is one of the most significant economic measures since the Second World War.
We are asked to study, in only a few weeks, one of the most significant economic measures which will impact on almost every economic walk of life in Canada. We are sitting in Ottawa this week, as we will be the week after the break, then will spend two weeks on the road and be expected to make a report. If we are to pursue the proposal made by the Conservative majority on the committee, hundreds of individuals and groups will not have a chance to be heard. We will be pushing through a report of the committee without adequate hearings.
I remind the House that when we dealt with such things as the Crows Nest Pass rates and the pharmaceutical Bill we spent several months in committee hearing from individuals and groups. Those matters were important but not as important as this agreement. We are asked to hear the people of Canada in two weeks, one week in the West and one week in the East. We think that is totally inadequate. We tried to amend the motion last night by providing for additional hearings across the country. The government majority turned that down. They are trying to ram this through. They do not want individuals and groups to be heard as they should. We will oppose this motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak in opposition to this motion. We have heard from government Members time and again that they would like to have this so-called Mulroney deal discussed. However, the reality is that when an opportunity arises to study the deal in detail we get absolutely no co-operation from the Government.
I am from the most industrialized riding in Canada, the riding of Hamilton East. There are more factories per square foot in my riding than in any other riding in the country. I, for one, feel highly insulted that as a result of this committee's
Motions
Conservative majority only one day will be spent in each province to hold hearings which will not permit the voices of all people to be heard.
Does the Government really believe that the Province of Ontario stops in Toronto? Does the Government really believe that the Province of British Columbia stops in Victoria? Does the Government really believe that the Province of Newfoundland stops in St. John's?
If the Government were really serious about examining this agreement in detail, it would permit full hearings which would include travel, not only to the capitals of each province but to other communities and to rural areas which may be affected.

The fact that this committee, with its Conservative majority, is trying to put this Agreement before Parliament without even holding hearings outside Parliament is an insult to Canadians. They are not going to Quebec and they are not going to New Brunswick. They are afraid the Canadian people will see details of the Agreement that include compromises on questions of language, culture and national sovereignty. Those are the points that will be affected by this Agreement. This Government with this literally crushing majority is trying to prevent discussion and full debate on the Mulroney-Reagan deal.

The issue before us is possibly the most important question to face Canadians because it deals with the very future of our country. It deals with whether our children can be Canadian. It deals with whether we will have control over our own laws. It deals with whether we will have control over our own sovereign destiny. It deals with whether we will say yes to Canada or whether we are prepared to sell out our country merely to make the bigger buck by an association with the United States.
If the Government were really serious about giving Canadians a chance to examine this bad deal in detail it would encourage full hearings, not only in capital cities but in every part of this country. In fact, it would take the question to the people.
The Government is afraid that if Canadians see the fine print they will start to realize that this deal compromises our sovereign rights in our own law-making, our access to energy, our future rights to guarantee cultural policy, our right to a safe environment, our right to have safe streets to walk on and to guarantee a quality of life which is different from that which exists in the United States.
If the Government is not afraid to examine those questions, why is it using a muzzle to restrict debate to one day in each of the capital cities of this country? The capital cities of this country are not the only areas in which Canadians deserve a voice in this most important question. I believe it is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary majority that the Government would choose to move in such an insidious way to ram

November 5, 1987
Motions
through a deal which, by all counts, is not only a bad deal for those who are opposed to free trade, but also from the perspective of those who support the general concept of free trade.
What is the Government afraid of? What does it have to hide? Why is it afraid to go to the people? Is it because the Government believes that the people will see this bad Mul-roney deal for what it really is, a sham, a sell-out, a step toward continental absorption and assimilation?
We want to fight it but we need the ear of the people to do so. That is why we cannot have a committee that simply goes to the capital cities of each province for one day. In Ontario, the border does not stop at Steeles Avenue. The people of Hamilton have a right to have a say, as do the people of Timmins and Atikokan, as well as the people of Red Deer, Alberta. The people of the Northwest Territories have a right to a say, as do the people of the Yukon.
This motion is outrageous and, as far as I am concerned, is an example of a democracy that has run amuck, a government that is out of control and is only interested in ramming through a motion which could spell the very end of our country.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to deal with the motion before us.
We have raised our concerns a number of times, both in the House and in the committee, about the extent as well as the area to be covered in the public hearings to be held by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
There will be two weeks of hectic travel in which the committee will go to every capital city and a community in the Northwest Territories. Travelling to 11 cities in 11 days is an impossible task in itself. I know the difficulties that lie ahead for that committee having been on the Transport Committee that spent a week, if not longer, to tour the western Arctic alone on the question of deregulation of the transportation industry.
We have a number of regrets in the way the Government has handled the free trade deal. We are disturbed by the Government's demand to have hearings prior to receiving the details of the agreement. We are opposed to a committee of this House being given a very few days in which to travel and in which to review the final details, should it receive them, before it is due to report to the House. We most sincerely regret that the Yukon, which includes some 800 miles of Canada-U.S. border, will not even have one day of quasi hearings. Once again, the Yukon is left out of a process that so fundamentally affects this country, just as it was left out, along with the Northwest Territories, in the Meech Lake Accord process.
I regret that the Government has chosen to take this smoke and mirrors approach to consulting the people of Canada. The committee will not visit the northern parts of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or Quebec. The capital cities do not represent the people of Canada.
We are not prejudging what the people of Canada will tell the committee, but the people of the northern parts of provinces should at least have an opportunity to express their views on the agreement, as they should. While we regret the timetable and travel schedule of the committee, we would regret even more not even having this small opportunity to hear from Canadians.
Clearly, the Government, with its majority on the committee, had the opportunity to include the Yukon in its timetable. We must respect the resolution of the committee even though we may not like it, but it would have been even more unwise for the committee to hold hearings only in Ottawa, preventing the regions of Canada and all Canadians, including fishermen, farmers, small business people, natives, and women from having a say on this fundamental question for the future of Canada.
The committee must be given permission to travel so that people throughout the country may be able to give the Government the message that they must be heard and it should call an election in this country so people can have their say.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, not only is the substance of this deal for economic union between Canada and the United States very troublesome, the process by which it was drafted and by which the Government wants to ratify it is very disturbing.
We must also place some importance on the process behind this deal because it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who told us about open government, accessible government and participatory democracy. We have seen that those are very much empty words when it comes to the actual implementation and spirit of what is meant by them. It is empty rhetoric.
We cannot afford to ignore the process behind the free trade deal that was just signed by the President of the United States and our Prime Minister. This so-called agreement has the potential of changing the very nature and identity of this country, and what we mean by the term "Canadianism".
The Prime Minister's statement in 1983 becomes all the more relevant in this debate. When he was seeking the leadership of his Party at that time, he said no to free trade. During the election of 1984 not one word was spoken on the arrangement of a free trade deal with the United States. One would think that those statements would logically call for a debate on the process. Yet the Prime Minister is denying that process. He does not have the courage to call an election on this issue, but would wait until the deal is finalized and
November 5, 1987

consummated. He has also denied a referendum to allow Canadians to clarify their view of this agreement.
Canadians are being denied these processes by which they can express their views to their elected leaders during a most crucial time in Canadian history.
That is why we in the Liberal Party believe that a committee should travel to all regions of this large and diverse country. This deal has the potential of affecting the lives of all Canadians, whether they live in big cities or small towns, whether they are farmers, fishermen, factory workers, or business owners. The quality of life for Canadians should not be predicated on whether they happen to live in a specific city within their province. That is why it is important that if this committee is to travel, that it travel to all the communities and give a voice to all Canadians. Their input should be felt not after the election and not in some other book the Prime Minister might wish to write about where he stood. The voices of Canadians should be heard now so that they can have some measure of opportunity to change the course of this very agreement.
If the Prime Minister, his Government and his Cabinet are confident about this deal, as they seem to be every day during Question Period, there should be no timidity on behalf of the Government to go to the regions of this country.
Not only do we not have the fine print of the agreement tabled at this committee so that Canadians can actually see where the "t"s are crossed and the "i"s dotted, but the Government does not want the committee to travel to all the communities with the general outline of the deal. That should tell us something about what the Government really thinks and, more important, what it really fears. It fears that Canadians will have an opportunity to see the deal for what it is. It is not free trade, it is the first step of economic union, to be followed by the discussion of political union. This deal deserves the scrutiny of all Canadians so that they can say something about the future of their country and the country of their grandchildren. If the committee is to travel, let it do it properly and let it be accessible to those Canadians who want to stand up and be heard.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher)-Immigration-Amnesty	for refugee	claimants-Government
position/Statement attributed to Chairman-Designate of
Motions
Refugee Board; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)- Nicaragua-United States funding of Contra attacks/request that Government urge Honduras to honour its commitments.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to adjourn from place to place in Canada between November 22 and December 5, 1987, for the purpose of holding hearings, as the Committee deems appropriate, on the subject of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, moments ago I was in the lobby of the House meeting with a constituent. We were talking about free trade as it affected that constituent's plant just as the debate commenced on the issue of the travel of the committee to listen to free trade issues.
It is bad enough, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) so eloquently pointed out, that we do not even have the full text of the agreement, but we are proceeding with hearings in which my constituents and the constituents of every other Member are supposed to make representations to the Government on whether or not they are in favour of an agreement which they have not seen, but only have the general outline.
I have a letter in my hand that was given to me by my constituent moments ago. The industry to which I am referring is known as Texturon. It is a mill in Hawkesbury, Ontario, which employs some 70 to 75 of my constituents. I invite Hon. Members opposite to listen. They may learn something.


Benno Friesen: It did not stop Premier Peterson.


Don Boudria: I must respond to the Hon. Member opposite who said it did not stop Premier Peterson from holding hearings. That is a mighty interesting view. First of all, as the Hon. Member will know, Premier Peterson personally is against the free trade agreement, very correctly so. Second, it is not Premier Peterson who has negotiated this mess, it is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his bunch of cronies.


Benno Friesen: That is overpowering logic.


Don Boudria: They are the ones who messed it up. I will read the letter given to me by my constituent to explain why we need to hold hearings in more than a few selected communities where the Government hopes that little controversy

November 5, 1987
Motions
will be raised, and that we need the documents. The letter is addressed to myself and it states in part:
Dear Mr. Boudria:
This letter is written objecting to the planned agreement on free trade with the U.S.A.
You are familiar with our operation on Cameron Street in Hawkesbury at which we produce textured polyester yarn in a modern plant with excellent high speed equipment. Should total free trade with the U.S.A. be placed in effect, we beyond doubt will have to close our plant in Hawkesbury.
I heard five minutes ago that a plant in my riding in Hawkesbury is threatened with shut down, but the Government is telling us we can only have hearings in a few places in the country. If that is not bad enough, we are supposed to hold hearings without the documents. So we will have hearings in a few selected communities, begin them in a hurry-something the Government has already orchestrated-and without documents. Plants in my riding are being threatened with shutdowns but that does not matter to Members opposite. They want to get this mess over with because it is an embarrassment to them. That is the only point upon which I will agree with the Government. It is an embarrassment because it was so poorly done. That in itself is no justification for hearings to go on in that kind of brevity without detailed documents and only in a few selected communities.
Of course, we want hearings. We want people to be able to speak on this issue, but we want the people to have the documents available in order to make informed comments. We want the Government to bring the committee to the people. The Government itself has said that this is the most important trade agreement in the history of mankind.


Mr. Darling:: Right on!


Don Boudria: If that is so, if it is that important-that does not mean it is that good, by the way, it just means that it is that large-


Stan Darling: It's good too.


Don Boudria: If it is that important, surely it should be able to stand up to public scrutiny. The people in my riding and the people in every other constituency in Canada should have the right to speak on it. Once those hearings are completed, then the people of Canada can look at the final deliberations of the committee, having conducted its hearings properly with proper documents. The Prime Minister should have the intestinal fortitude to-not to use other words-go to the people of Canada and tell them: "This is of such importance, I want you to speak to me directly as to whether you are in favour or against", not by means of a referendum, because we cannot have that in our parliamentary system, but by means of a general election. That is the way it should be done.
Meanwhile, the committee hearings should be conducted in such a way as to provide people with information first, good and thorough hearings second, and held in a number of communities where people can participate. The Government would then be able to see how my constituents in Hawkesbury
and elsewhere in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell think of this agreement. That is true of communities in every other constituency in Canada whether they are represented, albeit temporarily, by a Conservative Member, by a member of the Liberal Party or by a Member of the New Democratic Party.
I do not want to unduly delay this process, however, I have to indicate to the Government my dissatisfaction with a process which does not fully enable my constituents to participate and inform the Government of their views of this agreement. The hearings will not be held in enough communities in Canada and proper documentation is just not available. I say to government Members opposite that it is time they started to listen.

Canadians have had enough of this arrogance, Mr. Speaker. It has been going on far too long, and I would therefore urge Government Members-if they have any hope of being reelected and, more important, of serving the Canadians who elected them and gave them a mandate to form a government-to ensure that, according to their own conscience, this job is done well. Mr. Speaker, some parliamentary committees-there is the committee on which I sat not long ago, which took weeks and even months to find out what should be done about our Canadian postal services. Our postal services are important. And what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself qualified as the most important trade agreement in human history is even more important. However, if it is as important as all that, how can, and why should, Canadians be denied the requisite documentation and also the opportunity to testify before a parliamentary committee and, Mr. Speaker, I would also add, the privilege of making their views known in a general election?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope that by now the Government realizes the strong dissatisfaction on the part of the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties with the manner in which the Conservative majority on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade has decided to deal with the question of that committee's travel to hear evidence from Canadians on the Government's trade deal with the United States. Others have made very clear the reasons for that dissatisfaction. I will deal with those reasons very briefly.
Basically, we feel that the committee is not going to enough centres in Canada to allow Canadians, particularly people who cannot be identified as spokespersons of large organizations or big business, to express their views on the most fundamental issue that has faced our country perhaps since it has come into existence. It is not enough to have a committee visit only provincial and territorial capitals. There are many other places that deserve a visit by the committee for hearings to let people
November 5, 1987

have their say. I can mention by way of example my own communitiy of Windsor, the fourth or fifth largest industrial centre in Canada. Windsor should be a place that the committee comes to hold a hearing on the subject of the Government's trade deal with the United States.
There is a second reason that I think argues very strongly as to why the Conservative majority on the External Affairs committee was wrong to ram through a motion limiting the hearings of the committee to the provincial and territorial capitals and also rejecting the request of the Liberals and the New Democrats not to cut off the hearings early in December. The Congress of the United States will have until April 2 to hold hearings on this trade deal, to study in committee this trade deal and, in fact, to be shown the very drafts of the exact wording of the final version of the Government's trade deal with the United States.
The Government has given no convincing explanation as to why the elected representatives of the people of Canada should have less opportunity to study this trade deal than the elected representatives of the people of the United States. Why is this Government refusing at the very least to let the External Affairs committee continue its hearings into the trade deal with the United States at least as long as the period available to the members of Congress of the United States? If this deal is as good as the Government says it is, what has it to fear? Surely, if it is a good deal for Canada, the more it is discussed through open parliamentary hearings the more it would become acceptable to Canadians.
We in the Liberal Party looking at the information that the Government has provided have concluded that this deal is a bad deal for Canada. It undermines our economy. It undermines our sovereignty. It is the very sell-out of everything that has been built up and about which we are proud in this country. I suspect that that is the reason the Government is trying to rush through these committee hearings. It does not want Canadians to get a full understanding of what this deal is all about by having committee hearings go on at least as long as the committee hearings in the U.S. Congress, hearings which would be based on the full text, the only thing that would have legal effect on the deal the Government has entered into with the United States on trade.
The Government, using its majority in the committee, has rammed through a motion limiting the hearings to the provincial and territorial capitals and insisting that they be completed by early December. I know that if there were a recorded vote here the same majority would come in to bring about the same unfortunate result with respect to the adoption of the motion before us.
I want to put on the record our opposition to the kind of travel, the limited travel, that the Conservative Government wants to allow the committee to be able to carry out to take evidence from Canadians across the country. We want to make clear our opposition to the way the Conservative majority, the Conservative Government, wants to limit the hearings of this
Motions
committee overall to early December and not to allow the elected representatives of the Canadian people to have at least the same length of time to study this matter as the elected representatives of the American people.
Therefore, I want to put this opposition clearly on record. I want to say that when the Speaker puts the question Members opposite will hear us say, "On division", which is a clear parliamentary indication of our opposition to the way this Government is trying to choke off opportunities for Canadians to be heard in parliamentary hearings and the way this Government wants to prevent this committee from at least having the same opportunities as committees in the Congress of the United States.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government I want to reply to some of the statements that were made this afternoon and to explain what the standing committee will be doing in its hearings. I want to make it very clear from the outset that the Government is not trying in any way, shape or form to stifle debate in this country and do something quickly so that in fact Canadians do not have the facts. We are so confident in the positive aspects of this agreement that we want Canadians to understand it. When they do understand what this agreement does for Canada they will realize how good it will be for them.
So we are not trying to cover up or rush things through at all. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, let me just very briefly go through the chronology of what has been going on. In March, 1982, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs issued the third volume of its report entitled, "Canada's trade relations with the United States". It had studied this issue since 1980. Its major recommendation was that Canada seek bilateral free trade with the U.S. in all sectors. The committee heard over 100 witnesses.
In November, 1982, the Hon. Donald Macdonald headed a royal commission on Canada's economy. He had a total of 1,513 representations: 496 individuals, 373 private sector interventions, 231 voluntary sector representations, and I could go on through the whole list of them. There were 40 local and regional government representations and 72 volumes of research studies. What was their bottom line? That Canada should undertake free trade negotiations with the United States.
Then what happened? I can tell Hon. Members that a committee from the Government of Canada went across the country and held hearings. Its recommendation was to carry on these negotiations with our largest trading partner, something which has taken place.
Now, the deal has been signed. The agreement has been signed and tabled in the House of Commons. The standing committee is working extremely hard right now. It is putting in longer hours, I would say, than most standing committees have put in. For Members opposite to say that there are just big

November 5, 1987
Judges Act
companies coming to testify is not accurate. Margaret Atwood appeared before the committee the other night. She is a very fine Canadian and she was there the other night as a witness. There have been small and large business groups, Chambers of Commerce, and a very broad cross-section of the Canadian economy. This afternoon the National Farmer's Union was there. The committee is hearing many groups, and they will do this across Canada.
The other allegations that have been made by some of the speakers this afternoon points up the type of opposition that we are receiving to this agreement. The rhetoric is very high. Yet the facts that are being delivered are not substantiated. That is what we want to do with this committee. We want those facts substantiated across the country from coast to coast.
As the Hon. Member knows, the standing committee is the master of its own House. It made this decision, and the Hon. Member knows that. It was not a government decision. It was a decision by the standing committee, voted freely, and the fears and the concerns being expressed are completely unfounded.
I wish to remind the House of a couple of things. A trade agreement called the Auto Pact was signed 22 years ago. It was done in secrecy. There were no public hearings. It never came to the House of Commons. The then Prime Minister of Canada flew to a ranch in Texas to sign the agreement. The public had no opportunity for input whatsoever. As a matter of fact, at the time the Canadian public felt they had been had.
The Liberals are up today and the New Democratic Party, but more to the Liberals, talking about those hearings and how they will have to go into every town and nook and cranny in this country. They know that that is a phoney issue. A more recent policy that was brought in, the National Energy Program, let us talk about the hearings on that. Let us hear about the intervention in that type of thing. Did they have a referendum on that? No. Did they have a referendum on the Auto Pact? No.
What I am saying is this Government is going that extra mile to provide Canadians with input to an important trade agreement, one which will benefit Canada for years to come, in the same manner as the Auto Pact has benefited Canada and will continue to do so.
Therefore, we support this travel by the committee, because we think it is important that it gets out across this country. It will hold hearings morning, afternoon, and evening to ensure that Canadians are heard on this important issue. That committee is not going with blinkers on. It is going to hear evidence, unlike the Ontario committee which starts off every hearing by stating, "We are against it. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree, we are against it". Those are not the type of hearings that we are conducting. We are conducting fair, open hearings across the country. The Government is supporting that.
We hope that this afternoon a decision of this Parliament will permit it to travel in order that Canadians can express their opinion on one of the finest agreements that has ever been reached in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we were so rudely interrupted on this matter, we were dealing with Bill C-88. I think there was a disposition to have the matter dealt with on second reading. I am wondering if there will be a disposition of the House to allow the question to be put before the recorded vote takes place on this particular issue, if that meets with the approval of all Parties?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
November 5, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House


[Stage Direction]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.


AUTHORIZATION FOR STANDING COMMITTEE TO TRAVEL
[Stage Direction]
*
* *
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to adjourn from place to place in Canada between November 22 and December 5, 1987, for the purpose of holding hearings, as the Committee deems appropriate, on the subject of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion. Call in the Members.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON MULTICULTURALISM
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to travel by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion to be put and voted upon immediately. Therefore, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism be authorized to travel to Toronto, Ontario, from December 6 to 9, 1987, inclusive for the purpose of holding public hearings on the committee's report, "Building the Canadian Mosaic" and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Althouse	Friesen	McCurdyAndre	Fulton	McDermidAngus	Gagnon	McMillanAxworthy	Gervais	MerrithewBelsher	Gray	MitchellBerger	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	MooreBlouin	la-Madeleine)	NickersonBoudria	Hamilton	OberleBrightwell	Heap	ParryBrisco	Hicks	PennockCaccia	Hnatyshyn	PetersonCadieux	Hopkins	PlourdeCassidy	Hudon	RedwayChampagne	Jacques	Reid(Champlain)	Kempling	ScottClark	Killens	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	Kindy	SparrowCollins	King	StackhouseCooper	Langdon	TardifCorbett	Lewis	(Charlesbourg)Cossitt	Lopez	TaylorCote	MacDonald	Tupper(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Kingston and	VankoughnetCrosbie	the Islands)	Vincent(St. John's West)	MacDougall	WarnerCrosby	(Timiskaming)	White(Halifax West)	MacKay	WilsonDantzer	Malone	(Swift CurrentDarling	Manly	-Maple Creek)Daubney	Marin	WinegardDorin	Martin	WiseFennell	Mayer	Young-88Ferland	Mazankowski	Fontaine	McCain	Fretz	McCrossan	NAYS	Members


Mr. Deputy 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.

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the discussions between the NDP and Government House Leaders, one of the items not mentioned today concerning future business was that of Bill C-51, the anti-smoking legislation. Can the Government House Leader indicate whether or not the commitment that during the first week the House returns that Bill would be brought forward and dealt with, I believe at second reading, will be kept?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the order of business for Monday and a couple of stand-by Bills, and the fact we could have an Opposition Day. Of course we will take that into consideration and, as is customary, the order of business can change from time to time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister indicating that, providing scheduling permits, during that first week Bill C-51 will be dealt with depending on the progress of the other legislation in combination with the Opposition Day?
nil

November 5, 1987
Citizenship Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if that is a representation, we will certainly take it in that light. It really depends upon the success we have in dealing with other important pieces of legislation. If we do as well as we have done over the last couple of days, we might be able to accommodate the Hon. Member.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CITIZENSHIP ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (period of residence) as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North) moved: the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Pennock: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise and speak in the third reading debate on my Private Members' Bill, C-254, which proposes to amend the Citizenship Act with respect to the period of residency.
This Bill, although not a contentious or partisan issue, is of national significance to Canadians from all parts of this country who at any given time are serving our nation abroad in the Public Service. It relaxes the residency requirement for a non-Canadian spouse who, in my opinion, equally serves Canada when accompanying his or her Canadian spouse on duty abroad.
However, when my Private Member's Bill received second reading and went to a legislative committee it became apparent to me, on advice from legal professionals, that it, too, had its shortcomings and needed to be amended. Accordingly, the committee, under the direction of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), unanimously decided to amend the Bill as follows:
(1.1) Any day during which an applicant for Canadian citizenship resided with his or her spouse who at the time was a Canadian citizen and was employed outside of Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces or the Public Service of Canada or a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, shall be treated as equivalent to one day of residence in Canada for the purposes of paragraph (l)(b) and subsection 10(1).
The need for this amendment arose from an obscure point which, as I am not a lawyer, escaped my notice. If my original Bill had been allowed to stand it would, as an example, have permitted the spouse of someone hired to work for the
Department of National Defence as a clerk to have that time frame counted toward their spouse's Canadian citizenship residency requirement. This was not the intention of my Private Member's Bill.
The difficulty encountered by spouses of Canadians trying to fulfil the first residency requirements is great given the rotating nature of foreign employment assignments. Spouses of these Canadians who serve overseas on an on-and-off basis are never in Canada for a period of time long enough to fulfil the three-consecutive-year residence requirement. Each day of less than three years in Canada is erased. Therefore, one cannot accumulate years of residency during successive stays in Canada and apply them toward residency requirements, even though they are as much a part of representing Canada abroad as their spouse. My Bill would end this inequity.
The Foreign Service Community Association has actively supported this Bill and has stated that the residency requirement of the Act, as it presently stands, is one of the primary irritants of employment with the foreign service of Canada. I am pleased to see that members of the Foreign Service Community Association are today in the Members' Gallery.
It cannot be stated enough that spouses of all Canadians who are in the employ of our Armed Forces, External Affairs, and Public Service abroad deserve better treatment. This inequity makes it difficult for us to keep some of our best and brightest people in these occupations to serve our country. Canada deserves better.
A blatant example of this hardship is illustrated by the circumstances surrounding the wife of former Canadian Ambassador to Iran, Mr. Ken Taylor. Mrs. Taylor was ineligible to receive the Order of Canada for her role in the American hostage episode because she was not a Canadian citizen and could not become one due to the residency requirements. It is the duty of Members of Parliament not to let the renowned quality of our professional people in these occupations decline because of this inherent problem in the present Act.
In closing, it is my sincere hope that Bill C-254 will be concurred in today and unanimously passed so that it may proceed to the Senate for consent and Royal Assent. This would ensure that consistency can be brought back to the Citizenship Act and fairness restored to the treatment of Canadians and their spouses who serve Canada so well abroad.
I am sure that most Canadians are not aware of how difficult it is for a Private Member's Bill to reach the stage which my Bill has reached today. It requires a lot of cooperation. Therefore, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Crombie), and the Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) for their support and encouragement.
In addition, I would like to thank all my colleagues and in particular the Hon. Members for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. November 5, 1987

Riis), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) for their guidance and co-operation.
This goes to show that if a private Member does have good legislation, with the co-operation such as I have received, it can go forward in the short time it has taken this Bill to be passed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have the honour to speak again on Bill C-254 at this third and final reading stage. I will make my comments very brief because the Bill must be dealt with before six o'clock if it is to be adopted this day. That, of course, is my wish.
I would like to congratulate the Member who proposed this Bill as I did at second reading stage. I would like to reiterate his comment that co-operation on a good idea can result in worth-while and productive legislation.
The Bill with which we are dealing may be considered by some to be very minor in that it does not affect as large a number of Canadians as does some other legislation. Nevertheless, it is an important Bill in that some Canadians who assist the Government so well by representing us overseas are receiving treatment which is less than fair under the present legislation. This Bill would correct some of these inequities by allowing the spouse of a Canadian citizen to accumulate the time necessary to become a Canadian citizen while out of the country for the purpose of representing our country with his or her spouse.
The Member raised the case of the wife of Ambassador Ken Taylor who was not able to receive well deserved recognition because she was the spouse of a diplomat who had not remained in Canada long enough to allow her to qualify to become a Canadian citizen under the existing rules.
The average time spent abroad by Canadian diplomats is almost four years. Sixty-eight per cent of spouses of Canadian citizens working in diplomatic and other foreign service postings have accumulated three or more years when time spent abroad is added to time spent in Canada. Nevertheless, under the current legislation, unless the time spent in Canada is consecutive, these people do not qualify.
The Bill as proposed does not qualify everyone who is the spouse of a Canadian citizen who has been working outside the country for three years or longer. It merely enables them to apply. The rest of the tests would remain in place.

Mr. Speaker, for myself, as Member of Parliament for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and as the representative of a number of citizens in the National Capital region whose work could be negatively affected by the existing Citizenship Act, I am pleased to support this Bill to amend the Citizenship Act as it will benefit a great number of Canadians, and especially a
Citizenship Act
great number of people who will be able to become Canadians once this Bill is passed.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up more time because I would like other Members to be able to speak as I certainly hope that this House will agree unanimously to give passage to this Bill today.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-254 is a triumph of common sense over bureaucracy and fusty thinking which I am afraid has prevailed for some time and has really been discriminatory against spouses of Canadian employees working abroad, particularly in CIDA and Canada's foreign service. Many of these spouses have ably and strongly represented Canada abroad, as diplomatic spouses must, despite the fact they could not, themselves, gain Canadian citizenship because they were not in the country long enough at any one time to meet the qualifications.
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) for his persistence, as well as congratulate the Foreign Service Community Association for their excellent work in lobbying, assisting, and supporting the Hon. Member.
Last night I was thinking that this was actually a time of good news in the world. The Soviet Union is changing its tune and contributing to the United Nations, China has accomplished a revolution as the veterans give way to new leadership, and Jerry Falwell is going back to religion, leaving politics behind. Perhaps we should have a newspaper like this, containing all the headlines of which we have dreamed but have not occurred. I think, in a small way, one of the back pages should reflect that we saw common sense with respect to foreign service spouses and other spouses of Canadian employees abroad.
The amendment which was agreed to in the legislative committee is useful. I believe it demonstrates that perhaps it made sense for some sober second thought on this particular measure. The amendment simply ensures that if a person is married to a non Canadian, who happens to be employed by the Government of Canada, and is posted or working abroad, they would not inadvertently be allowed in the door to gain Canadian citizenship possibly without ever having set foot in Canada.
Much of Canada's foreign service marries non Canadians. I, too, am married to a non Canadian, who has since become a Canadian citizen. The reason is that 1 spent six years in England, at about the time when people become interested in settling down. I met my wife with whom I have been for some 25 years now.
Obviously, the reason that half the foreign service are married to foreign born spouses is because foreign service officers spend half their time abroad at about the time they are

November 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
getting engaged in these types of things. However, I will not interfere with biology and natural predilection, as I am afraid the law was doing until now.
It is interesting to note as was the case with Ken Taylor, our Canadian ambassador in Tehran, that many spouses of foreign service employees could not gain employment with the Government of Canada upon posting back to Canada because they were not Canadian citizens. That is real discrimination, considering the fact that they had no choice but to come to Ottawa where their spouses were being posted. In many cases, their training, education or skills quite possibly qualified them to work in different areas of the federal Government. However, they could not do so.
People who have been married to Canadians and working on behalf of Canada for up to 10 years could not take such jobs because they had not resided in Canada long enough to meet the requirements. Therefore, I am happy to support this Bill. I congratulate the members of the Foreign Service Community Association and I note their presence in the gallery. They have worked hard to see this occur. They have every right to be pleased and 1 am happy to join the House in what I believe will be unanimous consent on third reading of this Bill.
I trust that Government Members will ensure that proclamation and Royal Assent to the Bill will take place as soon as possible so that the spouses of foreign service personnel will have the Christmas present for which they have been waiting so long, and will be able to make their applications to become Canadian citizens.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise once again, this time on third reading, to support the worthy initiative of my hon. friend, the Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock).
I believe that this Bill to amend the Citizenship Act is a good example of how well this House can work when we seek to redress an injustice in a rational, conscientious, and workmanlike manner. The Bill corrects a wrong that has persisted for much too long. It is apparent that the difficulties faced by the non Canadian spouses of our foreign service representatives present practical and personal problems for Canadians serving their country abroad.
I represent a constituency that has a number of Canada's foreign representatives, ranging from officers in the foreign service and their families to members of our Armed Forces. I am well aware of the importance that this Bill holds for them. It means that their spouses, once citizens, can look to employment with the Government of Canada to pursue their careers. It means that the awkward feeling that comes with uncertainty about citizenship will no longer be a regular feature of a foreign service career. It means that the possibility that some of the best people will leave the foreign service, because their spouse's eligibility for citizenship will be threatened, will disappear.
I am confident that we are not sending out the wrong signal to all Canadians or to the rest of the world. We are not giving preferential treatment to people who want to come to this country. I believe that Members from all Parties in the House will agree that what we are in fact doing is providing the Citizenship Act with fairness and consistency in an area which it previously lacked.
A survey of 160 spouses of foreign service personnel reveals that 108 have been married for over three years. Only 16 have met the present residency requirement of three consecutive years in Canada. It is safe to assume that the large majority which has not met this requirement would have done so if their spouses would have been posted at home.
This Bill directly affects only a relatively small number of people. However, that fact does not detract from its importance. As I said, the Bill is a good example of how the House, in a simple and straightforward way, can provide benefits to all Canadians.
For the foreign service personnel and their spouses, it means the end of frustration and uncertainty. For all Canadians, it means that we can remain confident that our foreign service will continue to attract the best representatives for Canada abroad.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NICARAGUA-UNITED STATES FUNDING OF CONTRA ATTACKS/REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT URGE HONDURAS TO HONOUR ITS COMMITMENTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to a question that I raised some time ago during Question Period. It is still unresolved and I hope to hear more from the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
It was almost a year ago when I asked a question in the House concerning events in Central America that are still
November 5, 1987

current today. I asked, as reported at page 1402 of Hansard for November 21, 1986:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Minister tell the House, when he meets with the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. George Shultz, in what terms he plans to convey the repugnance that Canadians feel toward the continuing violation of the Charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States by the U.S. continuing funding of terrorist Contra attacks from Honduras into Nicaragua?
With that, and a supplementary question, the answer I received from the Minister was that he would be talking to Mr. Shultz. Otherwise, he said, he would take my question under advisement and perhaps give me a more detailed answer on some other occasion. A year later, Mr. Speaker, I am still hoping for that occasion.
Since that time there has been one considerable development toward peace in Central America, and that is the plan put forward by President Arias and adopted by the other four presidents, with him together, in July at Esquipulas in Guatemala. There is some considerable hope that after many, many years of disappointment, there may be some greater peace in Central America.
Today, November 5, is meant to be a day for identifying the compliance of countries with certain basic requirements of the plan. There has been some discussion about whether certain countries are in compliance and the one which has been the most controversial in our media in Canada, of course, has been Nicaragua. There has been great pressure by the United States Government, and even by President Arias and some others, to have Nicaragua negotiate, enter into dialogue and conversations, with the leaders of the Contra. These leaders of the Contra are not in Nicaragua. They are not among those who are carrying on armed opposition to the Nicaraguan Government. They are sitting safely and comfortably in Miami. They are apparently being funded and fed by the American Government and they and the CIA direct the Contra from a thousand miles away.
The position of the Nicaraguan Government, quite reasonably, has been that it will not negotiate with those gentlemen in Miami because they are not representatives of Nicaraguan elements, they are representatives of the American Government, doing what an American Government tells them to do. In fact, the Arias plan does not require that Nicaragua negotiate with the armed opposition, anymore than it requires that President Duarte of El Salvador negotiate with an armed opposition. What the Arias plan requires is that governments will initiate a dialogue with all unarmed internal opposition groups and those who have availed themselves of the amnesty. The governments of these states commit themselves to undertake all the necessary steps for achieving a cease fire within the constitutional framework.
Nicaragua, I am happy to say, has undertaken those obligations and is carrying them out. It is the first regional
Adjournment Debate
government to establish a commission on national reconciliation and it has taken a bold step by appointing to that commission Cardinal Obando, the most famous and outspoken, unarmed, critic of the Nicaraguan Government. It also appointed the leader of the popular Social Christian Party who leads the largest opposition group in the Nicaraguan legislature. This reconciliation commission has been continuing work that has been done for a couple of years by churches and others within Nicaragua by arranging cease fires on a local basis, and it has had successes.
When I was there a year and a half ago and visited the east coast, I saw the results of some of those successes. They have in fact persuaded some of the groups to lay down their arms. The Sandinistas have also offered an amnesty to the Contras who gave up their arms. They have allowed radio Catolica back on the air and have allowed La Prensa to resume publishing. They have released some of the prisoners. On the other hand, the Contras have been kidnapping more prisoners. They have been carrying on attacks even on unarmed people, as is their custom, except in such cases as the local commission, headed by men such as Cardinal Obando, who have been able to persuade local Contra groups to cease fire.
Therefore, I urge the Canadian Government to support the Nicaraguan Government in its stand to deal with the people as the agreement says, unarmed internal opposition, and it should not be obliged to deal with the Contra leaders who are sitting in Miami.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's stand in favour of a peaceful resolution of the crisis that afflicts Central America is well known. We do not support attempts to overthrow the Nicaraguan government by force, the objective the contras are seeking to achieve. We have also publicly regretted incursions into Honduras by the Sandinista army of Nicaragua in pursuit of contra forces. The Honduran government has shown great restraint in the difficult position in which the contras' presence places it, and has sought to keep its own forces out of the conflict whenever possible. There is no scope for Canada to apply special pressure on Honduras on the contra question. Our position opposing third party intervention and supporting the peace process has been made clear on numerous occasions already to all parties in the region.
The persistence of violent confrontation reinforces our belief that the underlying economic and social causes of tension need to be adressed by programmes such as those of Canada's development assistance efforts.
Canada's aid to Honduras is humanitarian in nature and is not given on the satisfaction of certain political conditions. Honduras is the second poorest country in the hemisphere after Haiti and the poorest in Central America. It is our only priority country for aid in the region, and has received just under $44 million in the 1982-86 period. These funds have gone to support humanitarian objectives: the development and

November 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
conservation of renewable resources, the creation of employment in rural areas, and the improvement of nutrition and health in rural areas. Projects have been in the forestry, agriculture and health sectors.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will be visiting all the countries of Central America later this month and will have an opportunity to discuss these matters with the Honduran government and to visit Canadian aid projects.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I learned today that the peace group set up in Central America to find a solution to this conflict did indeed reach its deadline today, but that it was given a sixty-day extension to find a solution to the conflict.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 16, 1987, at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, November 16, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers