1987-09-23

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that, last week, a woman teacher in a Medicine Hat school had to resign because she was a single mother. This young woman had to leave her job because she did not meet the current standards of the school.
At a time when there is virtually no access to information on contraception, when subsidies for plannned parenthood have been drastically cut back and when there are no services for single mothers, a young mother has accepted her responsibilities as concerns her pregnancy and her child, and the puritanical attitude of those around her are taking away her means of subsistance. This is blatant discrimination. What are we doing about the unknown men who father children continuously and are never brought to account?
I ask the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter) and the other Members from Alberta to help this young woman find a new job. It is time to put an end to the balkanization of human rights according to the provinces where people live. It is up to the Members from Alberta to take action, otherwise we shall be embarrassed of being Canadians.


AIR CANADA
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has once again chosen to suspend temporarily daily non-stop service between Edmonton and the nation's capital. Passengers are to be rerouted through Toronto.
In the past Edmontonians have found this four-month period of suspension inconvenient and expensive. Interim measures force travellers to depart earlier, only to arrive in Ottawa at three o'clock in the afternoon. By the time one claims his or her luggage and cabs it downtown it is closer to four o'clock. How much business can one do at this late time of the day? Not much.
This inconvenience and annoyance are generously extended to our fellow Canadians flying into Edmonton from Whitehorse and Yellowknife who also have business in Ottawa. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the residents of three provincial and territorial capitals for a four-month period do not have daily, direct service to the nation's capital. It is a shame-and this is a national, publicly owned airline!


MARINE SAFETY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the Leblond report which cost the taxpayers $30,000 and recommends West Coast lightstations be automated is a complete farce. The report was commissioned after a massive public outcry against the Coast Guard's plan to automate those lightstations.
The Leblond report was bought and paid for by the Coast Guard. The report ignores public input and demeans the dedicated work of lightkeepers on the West Coast.
Virtually all municipalities, regional boards and user groups on the coast of British Columbia demanded not only that lightkeepers remain but that they be equipped and trained to provide a wide and effective range of safety services. The Leblond report instead recommends that one-half the lightkeepers be rapidly eliminated and the rest be removed when their function can be transferred or contracted out.
The Leblond report belongs in the scrap heap. We demand a moratorium on any Coast Guard action to automate and destaff those lightstations. We demand an appointment of an impartial inquiry commission and a study into lightstation operations with publicly acceptable terms of reference.

September 23, 1987
5. 0. 21


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, since our party took over the reins of the Canadian Government in September 1984, the economy of our country has been doing well. Everyone agrees that the performance of our Government is exceptional.
According to the OECD, the rate of growth of production and employment in 1986 has been higher in Canada than in all other major industrialized countries. Again according to the OECD, by taking the action required to meet the objectives of its budgetary strategy, the Government has guaranteed the credibility of its budgetary management, which explains the success of its economic policy.
Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that both the media and the OECD recognize the economic performance of this Government. Moreover, the Minister of Finance recently revealed that our deficit last year was lower than expected.
1 believe that it is important to underline that the Conservative economic policy is working for the good of all Canadians.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, as Canada's population ages, demands are increasing on our society to provide adequate care and reasonable lifestyle choices for our elderly. Estimates from an International Monetary Fund study show that by the middle of the next century there will be 32.5 elderly Canadians for every 100 Canadians of working age. The greatest pressure on our society's ability to face the challenge is expected to come between the years 2011 and 2031.
The Government must begin, and begin now, to improve the quality of life for today's senior citizens and prepare for the demands of the future. There are no easy solutions for dealing with the requirements of a changing society. The time has clearly arrived, however, for the Government to take some concrete action and devote more attention to the elderly of today and tomorrow.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to condemn the actions of the Canadian Citizens Animal Rights Group, the Sea Shepherd Society. You might recall, Mr. Speaker, last November it was Paul Watson's organization that destroyed two whaling vessels and an Icelandic processing plant, causing $2.8 million in damage.
His criminal actions have continued. This time he has struck on Canadian soil. Over the past couple of months numerous furriers in Vancouver have been victims of vandals who have caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage. This weekend three people have been arrested for their part in the recent bomb attacks which have damaged stores and destroyed many priceless furs. The three individuals, two Americans and one British, have admitted to being members of the Sea Shepherd Society.
We as Canadians should be ashamed of this group's actions. Speaking for the many native groups and northern Canadians whose livelihoods depend on the fur industry, I hope Canadian justice will come to bear on these three vandals.


ACID RAIN
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, decaying forests caused by acid rains spell disaster for Canada. Polluting emissions from the United States have irremediably ravaged one third of Quebec's Eastern Townships maple groves.
Eastern Townships producers are busy felling dead trees. Our symbol, the maple leaf, is dying at the same time. Like other Canadians, Quebec agricultural producers have come to appreciate the environmental hazards inherent in a free trade deal. They are asking that adequate measures be taken to protect the environment.
O)

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has said to the Special Committee on Acid Rain that acid rain was the litmus test of the Government's ability to deal with the Americans generally. It is all too evident now that the Government has failed the test.
Three years have been lost in the battle against acid rain by a Government more concerned to placate President Reagan than to protect our environment.
September 23, 1987

If we are to survive as a people, the Government must change its priorities and make the environment number one.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the socialist leader does not agree with his first Quebec lieutenant on the selection of candidates for his Party in that province.
Whereas the national leader wants to scrutinize the credentials of members and candidates, the provincial lieutenant retorts: "Why scrutinize the credentials of Quebec candidates, a procedure which has never been followed in the other provinces?" Why set criteria in Quebec and none elsewhere?
A party which is for social programs without taxes, for full employment without a business community, for a duly protected public without jails, for independent citizens without armed forces, and for international leadership without allies should not have any difficulty lining up candidates without membership and without ideas, candidates capable of blending quickly within the socialist party incongruity.
In the odd Quebec riding the socialist party will certainly find eccentric people oblivious to the future, unwitting dreamers who will close ranks under the banner of a party which says both everything and nothing.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the unprecedented statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that the Auto Pact was not on the table. At the same time we heard from the chief negotiator that the Auto Pact was on the table.
Only a few short hours ago we heard press reports that Canada had suspended negotiations. Then we heard that Canada had not suspended negotiations. Then we heard that the chief negotiator for Canada is temporarily coming back to Ottawa to consult with the Prime Minister to find out exactly what our position is.
When hundreds of thousands of jobs in the automobile and related steel and other industries hang in the balance, I do not think we should have the kind of statements made by the Prime Minister that we heard in the House yesterday, and the
kind of mass confusion that seems to reign over the Canadian position on the free trade question.
We want clarity, we want truth from the Prime Minister, and we want him to stand up and confess once and for all that the Auto Pact has always been on the table. It has been part of his hidden agenda. In fact he is prepared to sacrifice Canadian jobs at any cost, because he said himself that his own political career is on the line.
* *
*


FINANCE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, with your permission, I will ask the House to give first reading to a Bill which will protect Canadian credit card users against excessive, unjust, and avaricious charges.
Credit cards have become the great new financial fact of our time, with about 17 million being used in Canada alone and about 10 million Canadians paying interest charges.
For years banks, trust companies, gasoline companies, and department stores have kept their charges far above what was required to pay costs and make a fair profit.
The wisdom of the House in making a significant study of this problem last spring has been recently indicated by the British Government undertaking a major investigation of credit card charges in the United Kingdom. Legislation on the same issue is now before the United States Congress. This Canadian House can once again show leadership on behalf of the Canadian people.
* *
*


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, on May 8, Brazeau Transport Inc., a New Brunswick trucking company, was purchased by Cabano/D'Anjou Trucking Company of Quebec. Cabano/D'Anjou announced that Brazeau Transport would cease all its operations one month later in the Mari-times, throwing out of work 90 employees in five different communities with 20 minutes' notice.
Following the abrupt dismissal of these employees, many of whom are represented by the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, they applied to the CLRB for successor rights.
In response to that application, Cabano/D'Anjou admitted that it had, and I quote, "acquired certain assets of Brazeau

September 23, 1987
Oral Questions
Transport-for the purpose of eliminating Brazeau as a competitor in the trucking industry" in the Maritimes. Such a blunt admission should leave the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to investigate this matter to discern whether or not any laws have been broken. It also throws the Minister of Transport's (Mr. Crosbie) claim of increased competition under deregulation into the realm of pure fantasy.
Cabano/D'Anjou has also shown how deregulation encourages concentration in transport industries rather than enhancing competition as the Conservatives claim, and as the Liberals and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) have claimed before them.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, a local business in my community may have to close its doors forever in a few weeks because it cannot hire the employees it desperately needs. According to one of the owners: "I had an ad in the Toronto Star and didn't get one response. I'll take anything".
This is a dramatic illustration of the message being given by the recent Statistics Canada help wanted index, which reached its highest level ever in August of this year. Help wanted advertising in Atlantic Canada is up 72 per cent to its highest level in 20 years. In Quebec it is up 85 per cent, in Ontario help wanted advertising is up 154 per cent, on the Prairies 51 per cent, and in British Columbia 83 per cent.
During the last election campaign our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised jobs, jobs, jobs. In fact 907,000 jobs have been created since September 4, 1984. As far as Canadian workers are concerned, Mr. Speaker, these Tory times are tremendous times.


RESEARCH
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in March 1987, we learned that a new laboratory centre for disease control had been planned in the Ottawa area for 1990. That new $93 million research centre would allow scientists to
do research on viruses and bacteria, and this as we know requires specialized equipment. But we now learn as of this week that the Tory Health Minister intends to transfer the laboratory centre to Winnipeg, his home province.
Besides adding to the costs, which are estimated by some to be in the order of up to $30 million, such a transfer would have a negative impact on the National Capital area's scientific community at which this Tory Government seems to have been nagging these last few years. This same Minister who favors the transfer has commended that group of scientists for their contribution to the AIDS vaccine. Without questioning in any way the qualifications of Winnipeg scientists, it therefor seems illogical that the Minister would transfer that laboratory centre to Winnipeg with the sole purpose of gathering the support of Manitoba electors, for strictly partisan reasons. We should not make an area poorer by cutting down on its jobs, under the pretence of making another area richer. The disease control research centre was meant for Ottawa and must remain in Ottawa.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister confirm that Ambassador Reisman has broken off negotiations with the United States on the trading relationship between our two countries? Will he give the House of Commons the reasons for Mr. Reisman's return to Ottawa?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm to the House what 1 have just had the occasion to put out publicly. Ambassador Reisman has suspended negotiations with the Americans and he is en route to Ottawa. He will be meeting me tonight and will be reporting to the Cabinet tomorrow.
Obviously the negotiations and the response from the American side are deemed to be unsatisfactory on some very important issues. For this reason it was believed to be quite advisable for us to take counsel together.


INSTRUCTIONS TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister be willing to take the House into his confidence and tell us what will be the nature of his instructions to Mr. Reisman? Will the Prime Minister give Canadians the assurance that there will be no further cave-in-


Some Hon. Members:: Further cave-in?
September 23, 1987


John Napier Turner: -and give us a commitment that he will yield no further on no other issues to the Americans in order to keep these negotiations going and back on track? Will he give us that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have just suspended negotiations, and the Leader of the Opposition is worrying about how we keep them going.


An Hon. Member:: Who is caving in?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is no doubt that the Government has been seeking, and continues to seek, a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. We believe that it is very much in the national interest that this initiative should have been launched, as indeed it was.
Ambassador Reisman is at the table in Washington. He reports back to me and to the Minister for International Trade and the Cabinet his concerns about some fundamental issues that are not being properly addressed by the Americans. At this juncture, negotiations are suspended. I will be meeting with him and I will be happy, at an appropriate time, to make a more complete statement.


REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the negotiations are indeed off, the Prime Minister and his Government have blown the last three years. As well, he has damaged our credibility with the United States and with the entire trading world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: During the course of these negotiations he has yielded on lumber, on publishing, on pharmaceutical prices, and on the foreign investment policy of the Government.
We are not waiting for an eventual report. Will the Prime Minister meet with us tonight in the House of Commons for an emergency debate in order to bring Canadians into his confidence and let them find out what is happening to this disastrous course he has the Government on?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it will come as a surprise to the entire country to realize the depth of concern of the Leader of the Opposition over the fact that our relationships with the United States might have been damaged or somehow affected while he has been undermining every conceivable relationship we could have had for two years. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a brand new dimension to hypocrisy since the Liberals have been sabotaging every single thing we have been trying to do to create jobs in this area for Canada. He should be ashamed of himself.
Oral Questions
Two years ago I set out in the House of Commons the parameters for trade talks, the objectives we sought and the manner in which we proposed to seek them. We believe very much that that was in the Canadian national interest. We were satisfied then that protectionism would cause the damage that it is in the process of causing, and that a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States, properly arrived at, would give Canada the necessary shield it requires to make sure we create jobs and do not lose jobs to this pernicious kind of international economic activity. That is why we had the vision and the courage to take risks to create a stronger Canada and did not retreat into the protectionism advanced by the Liberals non-stop in the House of Commons for two and a half years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEADLINE FOR COMPLETING TALKS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Prime Minister is trying to continue this silly posturing of his at a time when he has put the country in such a precarious position and has made us so vulnerable-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to ask Hon. Members, when they are putting questions, to confine as much as is reasonable their preambles to the basis of fact upon which the questions are being put and not to start off with comments which are clearly argumentative. The Hon. Member will put his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just announced that the talks have been suspended. As he well knows, the deadline for the talks was October 5, less than two weeks away. Can we take from his statement that the suspension of the talks means that we will not be meeting the October 5 deadline and therefore the whole fast-track procedure with the United States is now dead?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated the reasons why the talks are suspended. I have just explained it to the Leader of the Opposition. Ambassador Reisman will be coming back and providing us with the information upon which other decisions might be made. I have set out the parameters of a trade negotiation with the United States which we believe is very much in the national interest and very productive of jobs and new opportunities.
When this matter was first raised in the House two years ago, on September 26, 1985, 1 indicated:
We must all be aware that international negotiations are complex and
extremely challenging. Success is not a sure thing-
We knew that. We also knew that Canada's economy and future economic prospects required the daring and vision to try to bring about new wealth and prosperity. We indicated Canada would only sign an agreement that was acceptable to

September 23, 1987
Oral Questions
the national interest and we would never commit to anything else.
We believe now that it is time to look at some questions that Ambassador Reisman wants to raise. The talks are suspended, and 1 will report more fully to the House at an appropriate time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let us get back to what is going to follow from this day. The Prime Minister just said that further decisions will have to be made. Translated, that means further concessions will have to be made.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We want guarantees that if the Americans have rejected the deal up to this point, the Government will make no further concessions or surrenders of the Canadian national interest. Can we get that assurance from the Prime Minister today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the statement of my hon. friend is silly and vexatious and he knows it. He also knows full well, because he has been involved in international negotiations himself, that the parties seek to achieve an agreement. If they can, one is initialled. If not, then it is set aside. Until such time as a comprehensive agreement is concluded there are no commitments or concessions individually binding on either side.
Ambassador Reisman was present at the beginning of GATT. He was a Deputy Minister of Finance. He negotiated the Auto Pact 22 years ago. We sought him out because of his great competence in international negotiations, particularly in trade and commercial matters. He surrounded himself with the very best and most competent group of public servants available in Canada. They have been involved in hard and complex international negotiations for two years pursuant to a mandate this Government gave them. One of the specific terms of the mandate was that if at any point in time you, Simon Reisman, feel that the national interest requires you to break off these negotiations and come home, you do exactly that, because we will never sign an agreement that is not in Canada's national interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT TALKS BE TERMINATED
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He has reported that the negotiations between Canada and the U.S. have been suspended, not terminated. His Government has already made concessions in the energy sector, publishing, investment criteria; the Auto Pact was put on the table, and today there is a report that Canada has made concessions on regional development. Does the Prime Minister not realize that
a deal made in desperation is bound to be a bad deal for Canada and therefore he should tell the Americans the talks are not suspended but terminated?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend never wanted the talks to begin. I know he is an apostle of protectionism and reactionism. We know that is the tradition of the NDP. The same people who opposed the Auto Pact are now opposing a comprehensive trade agreement.
1 want to set my hon. friend straight. I want there to be no doubt in his mind. He refers to concessions in energy and investment. He is referring to the fact that we scrapped the NEP and FIRA. We did not do that because we were doing the Americans a favour. We did that because we were building a stronger Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WISHES TO TELL AMERICANS THAT DISCUSSIONS ARE TERMINATED
John Edward Broadbent: M. Speaker, my question again is directed to the Prime Minister. The Canadian Government has made concessions that bear heavily on Quebec's farming community and energy industries; they will have a very negative impact on Quebecers and other Canadians. Would the Prime Minister now tell the Americans that those talks are now ended, finished?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Member who just spoke, being a hostage to central Canada's major unions, really does not speak in the national interest, and much less in that of Quebec. I just had a conversation with Quebec's Premier, and 1 assure you the suggestion that our negotiations had a negative impact on Quebec's agriculture or energy is strongly denied by Quebec's Premier, Mr. Bourassa, who has put it squarely to everyone who will listen that an agreement of that nature is in Canada's national interest and more especially in the specific interests of all Quebecers. It is time the NDP Leader understood that Quebecers really are for that pact and for that exercise initiated by the Canadian Government.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TAKE ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, month after month and week after week, as Canadians in every part of our country have grown to understand what is at stake in these talks, which is the ultimate loss of Canadian sovereignty and control of our own economic destiny, they have, in increasing numbers, opposed these across-the-board discussions.
Will the Prime Minister now do the correct thing, that is, stand up for Canadians and tell the Americans that we will
September 23, 1987

pursue bilateral matters with them and have multilateral trade around the world, but will not sell out our sovereignty to the United States? We want these talks terminated.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the talks have been suspended for the moment for the reasons which I have explained. 1 set out in the House, I think quite carefully, the objectives which the duly elected Government of Canada was seeking.
I indicated at the time, with regard to protectionism, that the answer to this problem lies in sound agreement, legally binding, between trading partners to secure and remove barriers to their mutual trade. That is our approach to world trade as well. It is obvious that we must find special and direct means of securing and enhancing the annual $155 billion of two-way trade with the United States.
There are millions of jobs that depend directly on our secure access to the market of the United States. There are Canadian workers, in Oshawa and elsewhere, whose futures depend upon that security of access to the most dynamic market in the world. That requires investment as well.
That is why we have been trying to secure a comprehensive trade arrangement which, as the Economic Council of Canada predicted, could provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs. I do not think the people of Canada will ever fault a Government for trying to bring new prosperity to all Canadians.


UNITED STATES POSITION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. He said in an earlier reply that the response from the U.S. side was unsatisfactory on some very important issues. Does this not mean that the only way the talks with the United States can continue is if the Canadian Government decides that the U.S. position is no longer unsatisfactory and caves in to these U.S. demands? Is that not the clear and only meaning of what the Prime Minister said? If that is the case, why is he continuing these talks which are not in Canada's interests?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would not occur to the Hon. Member that there might be a change of view on the American side, that the United States of America might conclude, as The Economist from London concluded this week, that:
If the talks fail in those circumstances, the failure will say-
-to the United States-
-forget the hew deal that America wants with the 91 other members of
GATT, if it cannot even negotiate the basic ingredients with its friend and
neighbour to the north.
They are saying that the onus is on the United States of America. They know that Canada has tried vigorously, effectively, and well to conclude this arrangement, and the burden is now on the United States to deliver on its end of the bargain.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If there is any real basis for his statement that there could be a change in the American position, why has it not happened until now? Why was it necessary for Ambassador Reisman to suspend the talks and come back for discussions which have been going on for two weeks if all this was so simple and obvious? Rather than quoting The Economist, why does the Prime Minister not quote himself when he was running for the leadership of his Party and was opposed to free trade? Why does he not remember those few words he ever used that made any sense?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it was not particularly simple or obvious. It is complex, challenging, and very difficult. It requires courage, leadership, and a firm resolve to represent Canada's interests. While the member of the Liberal Party fails to recognize it, I would urge him to read the editorial in The Economist entitled: "Go for it, Canada", because a comprehensive free trade arrangement on terms set out by Canada is very much in the national interest and, moreover, can provide the kind of international leadership that is required in the area of liberalized trade that will serve the entire free world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE ABANDONED
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer the Prime Minister my sympathy as his dream goes up in flames.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: I will ask the Prime Minister point blank whether, for the sake of our pride as a country, he will not now abandon these negotiations for good. Otherwise, last minute concessions will hurt this country badly.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the sympathy and the expressions of affection. The answer is no.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister always takes a while to realize when he has hit a brick wall.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PLACE EMPHASIS ON GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Government now abandon these negotiations and adopt a new economic policy that stresses GATT, that builds otir own industrial base, and that spreads our trade potential across this country so everybody gets a chance to share in it?

September 23, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose my hon. friend is referring to the NDP economic policy which was described by their former Research Director, Jim Laxer, as a hodge-podge and mish-mash of economic nonsense which would probably destroy the economy of Canada.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr, Speaker, if 1 might, I have a question for the Prime Minister with regard to the bombing of Air-India. Following that tragedy the Prime Minister requested and received a report from the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence. In the report dated September 24, 1985, it says that "there was a severely heightened threat" in respect of Air-India prior to the bombing of Air-India Flight 182.
Can the Prime Minister explain the inconsistency between this report and the position of his Solicitor General which tends to diminish the severity of the advance warning of the threat to Air-India?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that indeed there are no inconsistencies. I am afraid I must go back and repeat what I have been saying for the past several days and indeed the past week. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, then Minister of Transport, stated in the House on June 25, 1985:
Mr. Speaker, from time to time there were requests for additional security
by Air-India authorities. There were extra RCMP deployed both at Toronto
and at Mirabel, as there has been for some time. I should point out to the
House that there was no indication that there was a specific threat to Flight


SECURITY PRECAUTIONS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the particular report that went to the Prime Minister went on to say that the x-raying of checked luggage on the doomed Air-India flight was "undertaken imperfectly". The report goes on to say that there were "shortcomings in security" with regard to Air-India Flight 182.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he satisfied in view of the advance warnings with regard to a possible threat to Air-India that there was sufficient security surrounding Air-India Flight 182?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again I want to quote from the Royal Commission of India that investigated this report. It is stated at page 154:
Air-India, as required by Canadian regulation, had a security programme.
Because of the threat level assessed against the Airline, Air-India had more
extensive security measures than almost any other Canadian or international airline. These measures were generally in accordance with the recommended procedures of the ICAO Security Manual for risk flights. Air-India had also requested and had received and arranged for extra security for the month of June, 1985. For Air-India Flight 181/182, Air-India provided a security officer from its New York Office to oversee the security at Toronto and Montreal.


INDIAN CABINET MINISTER'S VISIT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA- SERVICE'S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is well aware of the fact that CSIS officers in British Columbia knew several days ahead of time of the visit of a Punjabi cabinet Minister and indeed overheard threats at least that this individual might be subject to being beaten.
In view of the fact that CSIS did not inform the RCMP of this very serious matter, and in view of the fact that the Minister in question was seriously injured, what action is the Minister finally taking to ensure that those responsible for this very grave mistake are finally appropriately disciplined? When will the Minister finally act?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, there is an ongoing criminal investigation into this matter regarding the Sidhu shooting. Nine men were originally charged, four of whom have already been convicted of attempted murder.
There has been a stay of proceedings in this case for one year and, while it may not matter to the Hon. Member, it certainly matters to this Minister. 1 will not be discussing publicly anything that could in any way jeopardize the conduct and investigation of this terrible crime.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Minister refuses to accept his responsibility to ensure that there is proper discipline.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ESTABLISH PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the history of bungling, of dangerous incompetence, and trench warfare between the RCMP and CSIS, does the Minister not recognize the lack of confidence on the part of the international community in our intelligence agencies? In view of this lack of confidence by the international community, will the Minister not do the right thing and order a full parliamentary inquiry into the actions of the intelligence community in Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I feel the Hon. Member is doing a disservice to this country and to its intelligence service and, I may say, to the RCMP as well.
Shortly after this incident occurred, the Hon Member knows that my predecessor immediately asked the Inspector General to report on this matter. A report indeed was received, recommendations were made, and those recommendations were basically implemented. I am satisfied that we have a good
September 23, 1987

security system in place in this country, that is well managed, and of which every Canadian can be proud.


MEDICATION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS-ALLEGED OVERPRESCRIPTION
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Hon. Minister is aware, there was a recent medical conference in Toronto at which the Chairman of the Gerontology Research Council of Ontario stated that his organization wants to identify the elderly who are at high risk to adverse drug reaction, and to determine the proper dosages of drugs for these individuals.
What is being done by the federal Government to address these concerns, and is the Department of National Health and Welfare checking into the allegations that over-prescription of medications for the elderly is occurring in some isolated incidents?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department has been monitoring that conference as well as the issue very carefully. We did not identify in the drugs strategy specifically the abuse of licit drugs among the elderly-specifically that age group-but we identified the problem in respect of the drug strategy.
We are making more explicit information relating to drug abuse available to the elderly, especially in the Province of Alberta, for example, where a system has been instituted with respect to the manner in which drugs are dispensed. As well, the Department is considering what type of consideration should be given in the Psychotropic Substance Control Act with respect to the abuse of licit drugs.
There are a number of issues relating to that conference. We are looking at those recommendations very carefully. We want to respond federally as best we can in the legislative sense and otherwise, as well as with the provinces.


FREE TRADE-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today in the House, in an attempt to let Canadians in on the fact that the free trade negotiations by his Government are a total failure, the Prime Minister quoted from the English publication The Economist.
Oral Questions
1 would therefore ask the Prime Minister why he does not tell Canadians that, when he was seeking the leadership of his Party, he was dead set against free trade, whereas now he is trying to quote from The Economist. Why this complete about-face right in front of the Canadian people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is mistaken and, inadvertently to be sure, she is misleading Hon. Members, Should she care to read my statements, all my statements, she will conclude that we are indeed seeking every opportunity to create the hundreds of thousands of new jobs which Canada needs.
Some people have said that the unemployment rate is too high. In Ontario for example, since we took office the unemployment rate dropped from 9.7 to 5.8 per cent, I believe, lowest in Canada, while unemployment in Newfoundland and British Columbia is still in excess of 15 per cent. Therefore the unemployment rate is very low in southern Ontario and higher elsewhere.
We believe that our attempt to negotiate a free trade agreement will even out economic opportunities and reduce unemployment in the regions of Canada. This simply has to be a highly commendable objective for all Members of this House.


FREE TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION WHEN ELECTED PARTY LEADER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House when he said that the Auto Pact was not on the table. Now he is trying to convince us . . . Again I ask him: It it not a fact that when he was seeking the leadership of his Party he compared free trade with the United States to a fly sleeping with an elephant? Were these not his own words when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, or does he change his ideas and his values every day?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member is quoting out of context and seeks to give an altogether different interpretation to a statement which was made in 1983.


DUTY IMPOSED BY UNITED STATES ON CANADIAN POTASH
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It concerns the devastating duty of up to 85 per cent imposed by the Americans on Canadian potash. In light of the fact that on September 7 The Financial Post reported that the Minister "reportedly refused to take part in Saskatchewan's efforts to make a deal with Washington regarding potash", will the Minister explain to the House why she refused to stand up for Canadian potash industries? Why has she refused to be involved with Saskatchewan in defending the industry, the

September 23, 1987
Oral Questions
workers, and the Canadian people on this important issue? Why did she not stand up for us on this issue?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong. We have been supporting Saskatchewan's efforts to fight this harassment in terms of its potash. We have determined that its move to control production is within its jurisdiction, as I have told the House. Our Justice Department has confirmed that it is within its jurisdiction. We have hired special legal counsel in Washington to go through the hundreds of pages of computer print-outs of the decision to see at what point there is a basis for intervention.
I have been in touch with the Minister of Economic Development for Saskatchewan as recently as Monday. I spoke to Premier Devine before entering the House today. We are doing everything we possibly can to assist the province which is being hammered on many economic fronts, a province which is not getting a lot of help from the Opposition.


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister's involvement before the Commerce decision of August 21 might have resulted in a lower duty. In light of that I want to ask her why it was only three and a half weeks ago that the Government hired the Washington law firm of O'Melveny & Myers to assist with the potash issue? Why was this not done long before the August 21 decision of the American Department of Commerce to impose a duty of up to 85 per cent on Saskatchewan potash? Why did it take so long for the Minister to act? Why did she not act before? Why did she not stand up for Saskatchewan before that decision was made, and not after?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that our position before this decision was handed down was that this case should never have been brought forward. I have told the House and the Hon. Member that the two companies which brought this case account for something in the order of only 5 per cent of the U.S. market, that the U.S., by far, cannot meet its demands in this area, and that under any trade remedy law, or any GATT situation, this case should never have been brought forward. That representation was made to the Americans through our embassy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not by you.


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member says: "Not by you." Of course it was made by me. That is part of our function in the Department of International Trade.
1 want to point out that these are private companies. There is only limited room for government intervention in the case of private companies. We did make all the representation that we possibly could, and we are giving our full support to the Province of Saskatchewan.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COSTA RICAN MINING DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of a mining delegation from Costa Rica led by Mr. Clinton Cruickshank, MP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Gervais Desrochers free trade office sweetheart deal.
1 have a press release in hand dated May 24, 1985, which states that the same individual, Gervais Desrochers, received a Transport Canada contribution of $75,000 to study the development of an airport in Joliette, Quebec, even though the media reported shortly thereafter that the individual had no experience in that field. The latest revelation now tells us that the same gentleman received an extra $50,000 from the Met Life free trade office deal.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House when he first became aware of these kinds of schemes to give Conservative Party friends money? What concrete measures has he taken or does he intend to take to ensure that this type of deal no longer occurs? It will not be tolerated by the people of Canada.


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that I have investigated the circumstances giving rise to the Met Life deal. All of the negotiations with officials of Public Works were directly with Met Life. There were no other parties involved. The lease was pursued according to the ordinary standards set by Treasury Board.


REQUEST THAT ROYAL COMMISSION BE ESTABLISHED
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Once again the media reported yesterday that a friend of the Conservative Party had pocketed 5 per cent of the price of a transaction.
In view of the fact that in May 1986 Mr. Pierre O'Neil raised a similar issue in Le Devoir, in view of the Brodilaf case in Drummondville, in view of the charges that were made, the Wajax investigation by CIDA, last night's scandal and how many others, I now ask the Prime Minister whether he is ready to order an immediate Royal Commission of inquiry. For the umpteenth time, I am urging him to set up that royal commission of inquiry on this Government's contract awarding policy.
September 23, 1987

Is he waiting for the Canadian people to reject him completely before doing anything?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I am able to advise the House that the rent paid and the lease negotiated between Public Works and Met Life for Mr. Reisman and his officials represent the norm. It was approved by Treasury Board. There is no disfavour, discolour or any other difficulty that the Hon. Member can bring to the attention of the House.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister is very much aware of how important traditional hunting is to the native people of Canada. Is he also aware of the problems facing native people on the James Bay coast in regard to traditional hunting this year? Can the Minister inform the House and the native people of the James Bay area what steps his Department is taking in regard to ensuring that traditional hunting will continue?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member shares the concern for treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada and the right to hunt and fish. He should be aware that on September 21 officials of my Department met with members of the Nishnawbe-Aski Band, the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Province of Ontario, and the RCM Police. At that time discussions took place to re-emphasize the practice of past years. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that the solutions that are necessary under the legislation concerning migratory birds are solutions we have to work at jointly.
I can assure the Hon. Member that every effort will be made to assure that this action does not recur.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. With the issuance of the conciliator's report, the clock is ticking on a strike at the Post Office. In this context Canada Post is advertising for temporary workers, which is giving the clear signal that it expects a strike. It is creating the impression that it is spoiling for a fight.
Oral Questions
I would like to know from the Minister whether this sort of attitude on behalf of Canada Post is one that he thinks will be conducive to collective negotiations in bringing about a settlement?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, what is not conducive to a negotiated settlement is the false accusations of the Hon. Member. Right now, or very shortly, the parties will be back at the negotiating table negotiating on the basis of the conciliation commissioner's report. Early statements by both sides indicate that the commissioner's report contains the basis for a settlement.
I suggest that we would both be acting more responsibly if we encouraged the parties at the table to find a negotiated settlement since that would be in the best interests of everybody, including Canadians not directly involved.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister likes to look at the Post Office as a private business. I am wondering if he is aware that large corporations such as Chrysler do not use replacement workers and do not provoke strikes. Will he not take that attitude with the Post Office?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been. The statements about a strike have been coming from the union. It is not a corporation which calls a strike. Corporations can legally call lock-outs, which it is not calling. It is the union which calls a strike. I hope that he and I agree that a strike is in nobody's interests and that both parties should be negotiating at the table. If that is so, why does he not stick to that rather than trying to be provocative here?


GOVERNMENT'S APPROACH TO SITUATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Maybe the Minister does not realize it, but he is actually trying to cause a strike. We have both parties showing moderation and both parties appearing to be open to a negotiated settlement. The Minister does not appear to remember that the last time, during the letter carriers' strike, it was when he suspended the use of strike breakers that mediator Bill Kelly was able to bring the parties together and to reach a settlement.
Why will the Government not do it right from the beginning, that is, refrain from using the provocative approach, stop saying it is going to use strike breakers, and encourage negotiations?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member fails to recognize is that the Government has in fact taken the advice

September 23, 1987
Business of the House
of his colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau, the former Postmaster General, and is leaving these negotiations up to Canada Post. Our instructions-and they do not need to be given-are that they must obey the law. The law provides for legal strikes and it provides for the corporation to continue operation if it can. It is the form of economic warfare that sometimes results from these negotiations.
We both want a negotiated settlement. The negotiations are going on. In the meantime, for us to become directly involved as a Government would be counter productive to the goal I hope both the Hon. Member and I would like to see achieved, a negotiated settlement.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SHOW MODERATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, what is hard to understand is that the Minister cannot exercise as much moderation as the parties in dispute. By insisting on repeating that the Government wants to reserve the right to use strikebreakers, scabs, he is adding oil to the fire. The parties involved already are ready to negotiate. Why does the Government not show as much moderation as the parties themselves? Why is the Government not removing that sword of Damocles, those threats hovering over the workers' heads?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is a peculiar definition of the sword of Damocles. The sword of Damocles is the threat the union always has legally to call a strike unless management agrees to its demands. Management, on the other hand, is at the table saying we are not prepared to acquiesce or cave in under these kinds of threats and we have other alternatives. That is the nature of labour negotiations.
I hope in fact we can reach a negotiated settlement without going through a strike. In the LCUC situation, a strike became necessary to cause both parties to realize they would have to agree finally, which they did. Let us hope it does not have to come to that.
The Hon. Member continually suggests that the Government should get involved and intervene. I do not know why he gives that advice which is contrary to everything his Party has been saying up to now.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question.


AGRICULTURE
William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister recently announced he plans to phase out the
laboratory services of Agriculture Canada's food production inspection plant in my riding of Edmonton East. His plans are to create centralized laboratories across the country, including two in the National Capital, but not one in Edmonton. This is the second federal laboratory being closed in Edmonton.
While I appreciate that changes will have little impact on the level of service, can the Minister say why the Edmonton site will be closed? And what will be done to the federal employees affected?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of my hon. colleague and his interest with respect to this particular issue. However, I must indicate to my hon. colleague that he has really nothing to fear. There will be a transfer of a few PYs from the Edmonton office to Saskatoon. This will lead to improved efficiency, better management and improved service.
With respect to the future of the Edmonton office, we will continue to retain there some 208 PYs and we will continue to invest over $21 million in that Edmonton office. It is a measure, I might say, that is consistent with the recommendations in the Auditor General's report.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order with respect to House business. I want to ask either the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) or the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) the Deputy Government House Leader whether in view of the fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is going to report to full Cabinet tomorrow morning on his conversations with Ambassador Reisman, and in view of the fact, that, as I understand to be the case, there will be a telephone conference this afternoon with the Provincial Premiers on the same matter-and I am talking about the suspension of the free trade discussions with the United States-will the Government agree to have an emergency debate later today in order to enable Members of Parliament and, through them, the Canadian people, to have at least the same information as the Provincial Premiers about what has been happening and what the Government is likely to do?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was in the House when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) responded to those questions. I think he clearly indicated that Mr. Reisman would be returning to Ottawa this afternoon and there will be a briefing of the latest status of events. Full Cabinet will be briefed tomorrow and at an appropriate time a further statement will be made.
The Prime Minister has issued a statement outlining what is taking place based upon the evidence and knowledge that is currently available. If there are any further reports to be made, I think he has given that undertaking.
September 23, 1987


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notice in writing this morning, I believe. My question of privilege, by our orders and customs, should be raised immediately upon becoming aware of the matter. It relates to last night's debate during Private Members' Hour and concerns the ruling of the Chair at that time with regard to who had the floor at the beginning of that hour.
I refer to page 9213 of Hansard. The Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, and once the motion had been put to the House, recognized the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Hansard records myself at that time saying "Mr. Speaker". I, therefore, had been recognized and had taken the floor. At that point the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) rose on a point of order and moved "That the House now hear from the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka".
My point of privilege is that the motion at that time was not receivable because, indeed, I had the floor. I had been recognized and had spoken. The motion, of course, is always in order when one has the floor. There are precedents on which this is based. I can go back to 1982 and to 1983 with respect to questions raised in the House by the House Leader at the time, Mr. Nielsen. I can quote from decisions made by Speaker Sauve and I can also bring to the Chair's attention citations and all kinds of information to support my contention that, indeed, yesterday my privileges as a Member of the House were breached.
I object because I think that once one has the floor it is to one's advantage to make his argument and use that time to his best interests.

i remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the second paragraph of citation 302 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads as follows:
(2) A motion that a Member "be now heard" must be moved before the Member recognized has begun speaking.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that I had been recognized, that I had begun speaking, and I can quote Hansard once again and name witnesses, Members who were here and heard me: the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was here as was the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, and both of them confirmed that I had begun my remarks on the motion before us.
1 am stressing the importance of that decision, Mr. Speaker, because, as was known to the House, it was my intention to move an amendment in the course of my most relevant remarks on the motion. Because I was refused the floor yesterday, I lost that opportunity to put forward an amendment to the motion that I considered very important and I was
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier
prevented from pursuing the matter according to my plans and way of thinking.
Mr. Speaker, I admit it is sometimes noisy in the House, that there are times when the Chair has trouble hearing what is going on, but I know there was not too much noise yesterday, there were not too many of us, I was alone at my place, and it is quite possible the Chair did not hear me speak, which would be the only reason why the Chair was able to give the floor to the Hon. Member for Scaborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) and not to me.
Mr. Speaker, to make everything very clear and to avoid any confusion in the future, I would like you to confirm what happened yesterday. According to Hansard for September 22, 1987, on page 9213, I had already been recognized, but I was then prevented unfairly from speaking. In my opinion, my privileges have been violated and I would like the Chair to look at this whole issue very closely to provide guidance to the House for the future, as the then Speaker of the House, Mrs. Sauve, ruled a few years ago that a motion that another Member be now heard is out of order once another Member has been recognized.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very brief submission on this matter. I appreciate that my colleague feels very strongly about it. I was in the House yesterday when it happened, although 1 was not in my seat, and I would submit that my colleague's argument is very subjective. I think it borders very closely on reflections upon the actions of the Speaker, although he has very carefully avoided that reflection by asking that Your Honour perhaps re-rule.
I do not think I could really add anything more to the situation than the case that was made yesterday. There may be a temptation for me to enter into a long argument with my hon. friend, but I think the call made by the Speaker yesterday was correct. Weighing all the facts at the time, I think it was a call which could only be made by the person who was there. It is very difficult to start re-examining this type of call after the fact.
I think the time to make the point of order was then. With all due respect to my colleague, I think he is late in making it now, and I have no further submissions.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has referred to my participation in the debate yesterday.
As reported at page 9213 of Hansard, Mr. Deputy Speaker commented that while he "recognized the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier),... at the same time the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) was on his feet".

September 23, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier
I think that adds substance to what the House Leader has just said, namely, that it was a very difficult call for the Deputy Speaker to make, two Members being on their feet at the same time.
In recognizing me on a point of order and in accepting the motion which I presented, the Speaker was acting within reason. I regret very much that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier lost the opportunity he had, as I am sure he would have regretted my losing the chance I was seeking.
However, I would add further that it is my understanding that according to Beauchesne's, when an Hon. Member has a question of privilege to raise he is required to raise it as soon after the experience as possible. This question of privilege should have been raised yesterday.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on this question of privilege. I think it is important that we recognize from the beginning that we are not challenging the decision of the Speaker. We had an opportunity to do that yesterday. As a matter of fact, as Hansard indicates, the points were made yesterday.
What is important is that we are seeking clarification. Citation 302(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition indicates:
A motion that a Member "be now heard" must be moved before the
Member recognized has begun speaking.
Of course we had to wait until we saw the official Hansard on our desks today, and this is the first opportunity for the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to raise the matter.
Hansard makes very clear that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier had begun speaking. As a matter of fact, it is in there. It reads: "Mr. Speaker-", and at that time the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) rose on a point of order. It seems to me that it is very dear.
I think it is important to indicate that we are not challenging the decision of His Honour. That decision was made and accepted yesterday. The point was raised and ruled upon yesterday, and we are simply seeking clarification.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House yesterday, and with all due respect for the occupant of the Chair at the time, who has all my admiration, I would like to say that, contrary to what the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) has just said, the two Members did not rise at the same time. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) had been recognized and had already begun by saying: "Mr. Speaker ... " He was beginning his speech. Then, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West rose on a point of order. I was here, and when the Hon. Member for Scarborough West says that the two Members rose at the same time, I must say that he is misleading the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) has indicated that his remembrance of certain events is not the same as that of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) and has suggested that what the Hon. Member for Scarborough West has said is misleading.
The Hon. Member for Bourassa has not said that it was intentionally misleading. He was just pointing out a difference of opinion and a difference of remembrance, and that is the way the Chair takes it.
However, in view of what the Hon. Member for Bourassa has said, I will hear the Hon. Member for Scarborough West for a few minutes and then I will seek some guidance from my esteemed colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I only draw to your attention again that I was quoting the comments of Mr. Deputy Speaker yesterday. I draw the attention of the Hon. Member to the quotation at page 9213 of Hansard wherein Mr. Deputy Speaker said:
I recognized the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), yet at
the same time the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) was
on his feet.
We had both risen, and I sat down when reference was made to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who then said: "Mr. Speaker". It was then that I rose again and raised my point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the whole point; I had been recognized and started to speak.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I am thinking more of the future than of yesterday. Some of us remember that a very acrimonious debate took place many years ago-the flag debate. That was a long time ago. That debate was between a very highly esteemed friend of mine, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, and the Right Hon. Mike Pearson. A very acrimonious debate took place. In case this sort of thing takes place again in the future on an important issue, even though last night was important, I would like some precise guidance from Your Honour-not today, we are not in a hurry-on how to interpret the rules.
Your Honour can see the television tapes since we now have that service, and without putting any shadow of doubt or blame on Mr. Deputy Speaker, for whom we hold the highest esteem, I would like your guidance on what to do when an event like yesterday takes place.
I was very active yesterday, for reasons I do not now remember, probably preparing myself for caucus this morning, but to the best of my recollection the Deputy Speaker had recognized the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It was then that other Members wanted to be
September 23, 1987

recognized. By recognizing someone else, and that someone else putting forward an amendment it was impossible for us to put our amendment forward-it was an important one. We wanted to say "an elected Senate". That is what we believe and that is what we wanted to put forward, but what we wanted to do is not relevant to this question.
We would like you in the days to come to reflect and let us know precisely how we should behave in the future. At the same time that you do so, could you also look into something that is of importance to me, the question of what is a subamendment. For the 15 years that I have chaired committees, I must have chaired erroneously. The Hon. ex-Minister of National Defence I am sure will say that I try to be very fair, but when I chair, my definition of a subamendment is much more narrow than the one put forward yesterday. If Your Honour would like to look into both points I would appreciate it very much.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be sure it is understood why I raised my point. Hansard is utilized by all of us in the House to justify positions, to justify debate, to justify previous rulings and to justify the interpretation of certain rulings in the House. If Hansard remains as it reads today, Mr. Speaker, then I say that it has rewritten our rules. It is not the way the rules have been interpreted over the past few years.
I would like the Chair to make it clear to us that in the future when a motion "that a Member now be heard" is put it cannot be put if the floor has been given and taken by another Member. That is all I am asking. In one year or one month somebody could use this argument and say, "Mr. Speaker, I have a precedent", which I think would be a wrong precedent to use.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to abide by the good advice of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and reserve on this matter. I think it is in the interest of Hon. Members and also for the public to understand clearly what has happened.
There has been a time honoured rule dating back into history that when a Speaker has recognized an Hon. Member, another Hon. Member can rise and say, "Mr. Speaker, I move that some other Hon. Member be heard". It has also been decided by Speakers and by rulings, to which the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) very correctly referred, that the motion that another Hon. Member be heard must be made by that particular Member before the original Member has actually started to speak.
This may all seem difficult to understand at times but, as I have said in the past, the origin of this rule goes back several hundred years. It had to do with the rights of all Hon. Members, and there may well be two reasons for it, one of which, of course, was that at times a Speaker might be deliberately not recognizing a Member, and that was a device to give an ignored Member the floor. It also may well have
Privilege-Mr. Brisco
been a means of appealing a ruling of the Speaker. As Hon. Members will know, rightly or wrongly, some time ago appeals against the ruling of a Speaker were abolished by our rules. But this particular procedural rule is in a sense an appeal against the original choice of the Speaker because the motion to hear another Hon. Member is votable.
As Hon. Members know, and as sometimes the public may discern, this particular rule is used as a tactical measure, sometimes to delay and sometimes to prevent somebody from getting an amendment in before somebody else gets it in. The effect of what happened last night was that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier did not put forward an amendment, but an amendment was put forward by a Member from the government side.
The difficulty in this-and I am going to address this because I do not think it is easy-is that in the rulings that have come down through the ages which say the Chair, the person occupying the Speaker's position at that particular moment, must somehow or other be very careful to be able to hear the first Member who has been recognized. Sometimes that is not easy. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier said that last night it was not particularly noisy in the Chamber. It may well not have been, but it becomes a physically difficult thing for a Speaker to handle well.
As Hon. Members will remember, some months ago I certainly found myself in the midst of a most difficult situation when there were a number of Members rising with a great deal of enthusiasm. It was somewhat difficult for me to be able to discern which of all those Hon. Members I ought to recognize. There was some comment about what I finally did, which I think was, of course, helpful to all of us, and I think Hon. Members will feel that I took those comments graciously.
In view of what happened last night, I will try to find a definitive way of dealing with this. I take very seriously and with much appreciation the comments by Hon. Members, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, that this is not an attempt to try to undo what happened last night, but an attempt rather to ensure that it will not happen again. I take the point raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in that spirit. I do not have to wait for my ruling to say to him that he has outlined the procedural law absolutely correctly.
I thank Hon. Members for their restraint and helpfulness in this intervention and I will report back to the House in due course.



Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on the basis that my ability to represent

September 23, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Brisco
my constituents properly has been impaired by the actions of a commission of government, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
On the basis of disinformation or misinformation provided to me, to my office staff, to one of my constituents by the CRTC, specifically relating to the closing date for the filing of comments or intervention in an application for a rate increase by Shaw Cable, now before the CRTC, my capacity to represent my constituents properly has been denied.
That is the nature of the question. 1 now wish to provide the Chair with the reasons I have been denied the right of every Member of Parliament to properly represent constituents, a denial of natural justice.
How is a Member of Parliament expected to know of a rate application increase or of any other application to the CRTC? Until August of last year, a Member of Parliament learned of this in two ways. One was by reading an advertisement placed by the CRTC in a local newspaper of the area involved, and the second was by way of a CRTC notice circulated to Members of Parliament. How do we know now that there are rate applications before the CRTC? We know only by way of a notification to subscribers. I am not a subscriber of Shaw Cable of Trail, Castlegar or Nelson.
It is important to note the times that have elapsed. When 1 learned of the application in question, I was advised by my constituent, Alderman Eric O'Dell of Warfield, of the following. In a phone conversation with a staff member of the CRTC, whose name I have but will not at this time place on the record, Mr. O'Dell was advised that the closing date of August 20 for this particular rate application was no longer valid and was incorrect. The same day, this was reaffirmed by another staff member and the same information provided to Mr. O'Dell who has been actively assisting me in this rate application.
I then called the CRTC on August 21 to ascertain the closing date. I was advised by a staff member that I as a Member cannot intervene until the application has been gazetted. I would be advised of that date.
On September 4, I asked for additional information and was advised that it was the computer that would have to be accessed to provide it. On August 24, the same staff member advised that two key people in finance at CRTC had not been contacted but that I would have all the information the following morning.
On August 25, the same staff member phoned my office and said: "I am still waiting for the information, there are seven applications, I will get back to you tomorrow". On August 26, the same staff member phoned and said that Shaw Cable had followed all the regulations and the decision will be made on November 1, 1987, and that a letter should be sent if 1 want to object.
On August 27, on the assumption that I had time to read two volumes of data filed by Shaw Cable and to consult with my constituent, I arranged to meet with my constituent the following week.
On Friday, September 4, an official of the CRTC phoned me late in the afternoon to advise me that the closing date for filing was August 20, 1987 and that, no, they would not likely accept my intervention or comment. Recall that this was virtually two weeks after I had begun my initial inquiries. 1 advised that I would write the CRTC and request that they receive my submission. The letter was dictated, typed and mailed on Monday, September 7. I need not remind the Chair that September 7 was Labour Day.
On September 22, two weeks later, 1 received a written response from the CRTC, signed by Fernand Belisle and dated September 17. The letter was received in my office on September 22. One paragraph of the letter is central to the issue and reads as follows:
As you are aware, your first telephone call to the Commission expressing your intention to comment, on August 21, was made the day after the cut-off date for the receipt of comments. Furthermore, your letter asking for a time extension so that you might prepare a submission was sent 14 days after the period for comment, which is set out in the Cable Television Regulations, 19S6.
The point is that I endured two weeks of delay by the CRTC in trying to obtain the very information that 1 sought the day after the closing date, after having been informed by my constituent who had been informed by two CRTC officials that the August 20 date was not valid.
The CRTC created the delays through its own abysmal record of disinformation or misinformation beginning on August 21 and ending on September 4, precisely 15 days later. It was like Big Brother, except nobody was listening.
I would like to end this litany at this point, but 1 must make one final comment. A cable company has months to prepare itself for an application. Once submitted and subscribers notified, the subscriber has 30 days to comment. The CRTC then has three months or more to provide a decision. The people most affected by the decision have 30 days, in theory. One of my constituents did not receive an undated notice of an application for a rate increase until July 30. That left 21 days to reply.
Municipal councils in my riding are voicing their concerns by way of a supplemental attached to the submission of Alderman O'Dell because they did not have an opportunity to deal with it earlier because of the timing of council meetings and the time allowed, 30 days, and in most cases less than 20 days. The CRTC has agreed to accept the supplementals of those municipal councils attached to the submission of Alderman O'Dell after August 20. It is not, however, prepared to receive my submission. That is the full measure of the issue and it speaks volumes on the cavalier and inefficient manner of the operations of the CRTC. It is, damn the public and full speed ahead.
September 23, 1987

In conversations, officials of the CRTC have told me that perhaps they should revert back to notifying Members of Parliament and perhaps they should make it the responsibility of the cable company to notify Members of Parliament. They are fully aware that the system that is now in place does not work. It works unfairly against a Member of Parliament and may well deny him the opportunity to represent his constituents. It works against the public and it works against municipal councils which also serve the public.
I am sure of one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that your ruling will be appropriate. I am not sure if I have a valid question of privilege, but I feel that you are the only one to whom I may appeal over the actions of a Government commission, which has in my view denied me my basic, natural rights to represent my constituents and, by doing so, has affected the rights of every Member of Parliament to do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) for the very clear and succinct way in which he put forward his argument on a matter that is of concern not only to the Hon. Member but obviously to his constituents. The Chair will consider carefully the Hon. Member's comments and I hope I will be able to return to the Chamber with a reply which will be helpful.
The Hon. Member has said that it may not be a question of privilege; it may not be. It most certainly is a complaint, and the Hon. Member has recognized that one of the few recourses available when one has such a complaint is to bring it the Chair. The Chair cannot always resolve the matter but I know the Hon. Member will appreciate that he has had an opportunity to set out the situation and the complaint with, I might say, great clarity. I will report back as soon as is reasonable.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Thirtieth and Thirtieth-First Reports of the Striking Committee.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in both official languages. This
Petitions
report deals with the selection of votable items pertaining to the sixth draw which took place on September 15, 1987.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATE ACT
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: for leave to introduce Bill C-266, an Act to provide for the limitation of interest rates and fees in relation to credit card accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will provide for the imposition of a floating rate a certain number of percentage points above the Bank of Canada discount rate averaged for the previous month. The rate will vary depending on whether the company does or does not charge entry, renewal, and user transaction fees. There will be a different rate for petroleum product companies and retail and department stores.
This Bill is intended to provide the necessary protection to the millions of people who use such credit cards and is in line with legislation in other jurisdictions. Experience over the past several years has shown that moral suasion is not enough and such legislation is in order. I hope this Bill comes before the House for second reading before long and will receive all-Party support.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians concerned with the way the Government is dealing with Bill C-55.
They draw our attention to the fact that a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve the problems of both backlogs and unsubstantiated claims. They indicate it has the support of all Parties as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the

September 23, 1987
Questions on the Order Paper
Canadian Jewish Congress, and a variety of other groups and individuals. They simply ask that the House withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation which reflects the recommendations of the standing committee.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and pleasure to present a petition concerning the government proposal to destaff West Coast lighthouses. The petition includes the signatures of residents from Port Hardy to Victoria. They have a serious concern about safety and other problems which will occur if the lighthouses lose their staff. They also ask that a moratorium be placed on any action by the Coast Guard on destaffing until such time as another and more impartial inquiry can be held into this matter.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many people from the Windsor area of Ontario concerning Bill C-55. They say the Bill will end Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and end up keeping most legitimate refugee claimants out of the country. They also dispute the procedures set out in Bill C-55 as not really being legally proper and suggest that the House adopt some of the recommendations of the standing committee.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Edmonton, Banff, Saskatoon and other Canadian cities who are opposed to Bill C-55 on the ground that it will turn away many legitimate refugees. It ignores some of the main recommendations of the parliamentary committee report of two years ago which have the support of groups such as the churches and bar associations and the CLC.
They humbly pray that the Government will withdraw Bill C-55 and bring in legislation that will provide fair and quick oral hearings of all claims of refugees, a refugee board to hear the claims independent of the commission, and universal access to such hearings. In duty-bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty, pursuant to Standing Order 106, of presenting to the House for its swift consideration two sets of petitions.
The first petitions are from Canadians in the Cities of Chatham, Fredericton and Toronto and from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. The petitioners are very concerned about Bill C-55, the refugee determination Bill, as it presently stands. They are asking the Government to delete the safe third country and prescreening provisions and to amend the appeal mechanism by removing it from the Federal Court and placing it with a separate body or another member of the refugee board.
The petitioners believe that if the Government makes these three changes which have been requested by virtually every organization appearing before the committee, we will have a refugee determination system that will be effective and fair and will dissuade those who wish to abuse the system.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions I have comes from Canadians in Yellowknife, my own constituency of York West, other parts of Metropolitan Toronto, and from the Cities of Barrie, Woodbridge, and Richmond Hill. These petitioners address the Meech Lake Accord, specifically as it relates to multiculturalism. Multicul-turalism was not recognized in Clause 1 of the Accord as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. One-third of Canadians are neither English nor French in origin. Since we have had a policy of multiculturalism since 1971, the petitioners are asking the Government, and particularly the Ministers, to ensure that our multicultural heritage will be properly recognized within Clause 1. They hope that the Liberal amendments presented this week will become reality.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 171.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1986 to January 1, 1987, what amount of government funds was allocated for research into the causes and treatment of (a) cancer {b) multiple schlerosis (c) kidney disease (d) heart disease?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
(a)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$1,367,578.50(b)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$ 14,561.00(c)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$ 61,092.67(d)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$ 747,821.99In so far as	Medical Research Council is concerned:	(a)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$4,722,238.00(b)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$ 767,047.00(c)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$2,152,082.00(d)	Fiscal year 1986-87	$4,956,903.00
September 23, 1987


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 170 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 170 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

NH&W-FUNDS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1986, to date what public information in print form and on film or slides was produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare concerning (a) drug abuse, including alcohol (b) young runaways (c) family planning (d) venereal diseases (e) family violence (J) the causes of family breakdown (g) health concerns of senior citizens (h) special needs of the handicapped?
2.	For each information package produced, what was its (a) availability to the public (b) corresponding French title (c) cost to the public to obtain or borrow a copy, if applicable?
Return tabled.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Immigration Act, 1976