1987-03-18

['In response to the Hon. Member, the Chair cannot order the Committee to do anything. Clearly, all Hon. Members have a problem with the fact that there are two quite different versions intending to address the same situation. The Chair has suggested that it be considered by the Committee. The Chair cannot order the Committee to even consider it and the Chair cannot order the Committee to report back speedily. The Chair can observe that if the Committee is prepared to', 'March 18, 1987\nconsider it, it might very well be to the advantage of all of us to report back speedily.', 'The proceedings of the House are adjourned until 2 p.m.\nThe House rose at 1.25 p.m.']
Mr. Speaker:: I advise the House that the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) will be rising, but before he does I have the obligation to deliver the following observations.
Before proposing the question of the Hon. Member for York Centre the House might allow the Speaker to express certain reservations about the form of the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which will be the subject of the next hour's debate, if indeed there is an hour's debate.
For the first time since the new and still provisional Standing Orders were adopted on February 24, 1986, the joint committee has chosen to exercise its new powers under Standing Order 44 and ask the House to order the rescinding of a specific regulation.

The Minister has elected, as it is his right, to demand a debate on the question.

The question to be eventually put to the House today is that "The Third Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments be concurred in". In the said committee report I found the following key and principal words:
Pursuant to Standing Order 44 of the House your Committee now moves: that the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Regulations (C.R.C. c.875) be revoked.
In the opinion of the Chair, this phrase creates an ambiguity as to what in fact will be the order of the House should the concurrence motion proposed by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) be adopted.
I wish to point out that the ambiguity originates with Standing Order 44 itself, which in the English version mentions a report of the committee "containing a proposed motion which, if the report is concurred in, would be an Order of the House . . . .". The French version, however, is clearer
and refers to a "resolution of the Committee" and not a motion. A motion is a proposal, usually requiring notice, and is debatable and amendable. It only becomes a resolution when put and adopted.
However it happened, we must understand that we have an English version which talks about a motion, with all of the implications of what that word means, and a French version which talks about a resolution, something arrived at after a motion is put which amounts to a decision. In the opinion of the Chair, the French version is preferable because it makes a lot more sense procedurally.
If the House were to concur in this report, it would only have agreed to the committee moving a motion. The decision of the House would not provide for a clear direction to the Ministry to rescind a regulation but only express the House's agreement to the moving of a particular motion by the committee. Furthermore, such a procedure would be quite sterile for there is no mechanism in the Standing Orders for a committee to in fact move a motion and have it debated and adopted.
The Chair has reviewed the practice in other Commonwealth countries, more particularly that in Australia, and I have found that our Standing Orders are procedurally unique. Because this is a new procedure, the Chair is reluctant to reject outright the said report. Such a decision would not be supportive of the spirit of our recent reforms. Therefore, for the purposes of this report and of this report only, the Chair will deem the words used in the report to be a clear expression of the committee's intent to have the regulations revoked and, should the report be adopted, the Ministry will not be in doubt as to what the House has ordered.
I am grateful, as I am sure all Hon. Members are, that the Hon. Minister is in the Chamber at this time. I am sure the Minister will take careful note of the comments of the Chair.
In future reports of this kind, the Chair would ask the committee to use a form of words which will unequivocally express its intentions and, if adopted, can be extracted from the report and also be a clear expression of the House's resolve.

The Chair hopes that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will look into this ambiguity in our Standing Orders as soon as possible.

March 18, 1987
Delegated Legislation



Hon. Robert Kaplan (York Centre) moved:: That the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the rules provide for interventions of 10 minutes. Before I begin the statement I had intended to make in my ten minutes, I want to make an observation about the ruling you just made. Of course, I accept your ruling and appreciate that the report before you containing the motion is acceptable for the purpose of this debate. However, 1 hope and ask that on the occasion of the presentation of our next report that I be given the opportunity to make submissions about it before you reach a conclusion as to the propriety of the language. I would like to be able to defend the language in the next report when it is submitted. I will not take it for granted that the present formulation will be acceptable next time. I understand that is the point that you want to make. However, before you, in effect, rule against this language I would ask to have the opportunity when I submit our next report to make submissions in that respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) raises a matter of importance. I want to make it quite clear to the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members that, of course, I will hear any discussion that might be helpful.
What the Chair has tried to do in making these observations today is to point out to Hon. Members that while I think it is clear what the intent of the matter is, the Chair hopes that Hon. Members and the committee will be able to phrase the words in such a way that the intent is carried out in this Chamber if it is to be debated.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will submit my next report and when I do I look forward to debating with you the propriety of the formulation used in the report. I would like to turn to the third report which-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair will be permitted to observe that the luxury of debate is kept from it. I must confess, and Hon. Members probably have noticed, that there are times when it takes all of the constraint and restraint that I can muster to keep from entering into debate. However, the Hon. Member is certainly entitled to make representations and make an intervention.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As you noted, this is an unprecedented occasion. I believe it is worth heralding by remarking that one of the significant reforms of the Government is achieved today, in that the committee is proposing to exercise the authority that it has to move the revocation of a regulation after finding,
in due course and in the normal workings of the committee, that the regulation is invalid.
I have had some discussions with all Parties, and the debate, although introduced today, will not come to the normal fruition that one would have anticipated, namely, a vote on whether the report should be concurred in. In any event, I want to take the opportunity to put the report before the Chamber and to indicate that it is a report which, if adopted, would revoke the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Regulations, CRC Chapter 875.
These regulations propose non-tariff barriers on the importation of fresh fruit and vegetables into Canada. The regulations were originally adopted under the authority of the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act many decades ago. The validity of the regulations was not challenged for decades, until the introduction of the Statutory Instruments Act by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and which were reviewed pursuant to that statute in early 1983.
In 1983 the committee received the opinion of the legal advisers of the Department of Agriculture that the regulations were ultra vires of the Act passed by the Parliament of Canada. In other words, there never was any legal authority for the regulations. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who is in the House, confirmed that these regulations are not authorized by law, and in a letter dated April 24, 1986, he informed the joint chairmen of the committee, Senator Nurgitz and myself, that he had "instructed his officials to proceed with the revocation of the regulations".
We then requested the assurance from the Minister that pending formal revocation, the regulations would not be enforced by customs officers. The then Minister, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, refused to revoke the illegal regulations on the ground that to do so would seriously jeopardize the Canadian produce industry.
The Minister's declared intention to continue applying these restrictions led the committee, then chaired by the Hon. Senator John Godfrey and the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), to table the fourth report of the joint committee. In that report, the committee stated that:
-the continued application of these Regulations at the present time involves an inadmissible departure from the usages of Parliamentary government and a repudiation of the concept of the Rule of Law which is at the heart of our constitutional order. While the Committee recognizes that the revocation of these import restrictions may result in an economic disadvantage for domestic producers of fruit and vegetables, it does not accept that this justifies the Executive in illegally restricting the liberty of trade and commerce of Canadian importers. To do so would be to accept that ours is a government of men and not of laws.
Our committee has no business passing judgment on the policy justification of regulations. I could easily agree that the regulations are desirable in the interest of the horticultural industry and I would go so far as to say that regulations of that character may be needed. Our objection as a committee is to the failure of the regulations to conform to the rule of law, which is to say that the statute under which they have been purported to be introduced does not justify passing regulations
March 18, 1987

of this sort. Within the mandate of our committee, we must come to the conclusion that they ought to be recognized as being invalid and ought to be replaced.
For some time, in the interest of the rule of law, our committee has been urging the Government to replace-


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is that there was an acknowledgement which is on the record-and discussions took place between certain parties-that a certain procedure would be followed on this particular item. I just remind the Hon. Member that he was part of that agreement.
I hope that he would honour the agreement that was made eyeball to eyeball, in a handshake between he and myself, that a procedure would be announced in the House, would be followed and that the debate on the substance of this issue need not take place. I am honouring that commitment. I would ask that all participants do the same.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand when we made the agreement that the report would not be presented. I will certainly conclude my remarks now, if that was the understanding of the other two. But I thought I would have the opportunity to present the report, explain it and discuss the procedure. I certainly confirm that we had a discussion. If it was the understanding of my colleagues that there would be no discussion or no explanation of the procedure I will accept that and conclude by simply saying that I look forward to a reconsideration of the report and hope that in due course the issue will be dealt with by the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Chair should observe that there clearly was some discussion among members. The Hon. Minister has pointed that out. I certainly want to thank the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for so quickly accepting the remarks and the intervention of the Hon. Minister. I am sure that all Parties can have a useful discussion with respect to this matter in whatever future course it takes.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to indicate that there had been previous discussions and the impression was that we would simply introduce ourselves to the issue or the problem, hear you in terms of your observations, and then agree to refer the matter for further discussion.


Mr. Corbett:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for providing me with the opportunity of an intervention at this point in our discussions. This is an historic day in Parliament. I think it is encouraging for all of us as private members to see that the processes of the McGrath report have indeed been effective and that committees have had an opportunity of exercising to some degree the extended powers which have been placed with them through the adoption of the McGrath report by the House.
I believe the position which has been related by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) fairly represents the
Delegated Legislation
situation as indeed it does exist. I would like to put forward an amendment at this time. I think the amendment is particularly opportune in view of the comments you made preceding the discussions which have taken place here today. I also believe that my amendment will preclude the necessity of any further discussion on the matter by the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Fundy- Royal (Mr. Corbett) in a moment. The Chair, of course, is aware, as are all Hon. Members in the Chamber and those who are watching this debate, that there seems to have been some arrangement made between the Parties. The Chair is in the hands of the House, naturally, but I am just wondering whether an amendment at this time might be deemed by some other Members to not be in accord with the understanding. If it is, I would perhaps ask the Hon. Minister, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) to give the Chair some guidance in this matter.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if you would simply recognize my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), we would be in motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Third Report of the Standing Joint Committee be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the said Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments for further consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister, the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal and other Hon. Members.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to your comments at the beginning of this sitting about the need for having Standing Order 44 revised and corrected or referred to the Standing Committee that deals with the Standing Orders of the House regularly. I would also like to ask the Chair given its comments whether it wants the Committee to report as soon as possible on the difference between "motion" in English and resolution in French, so that the matter will be settled once and for all.


Mr. Speaker:: In response to the Hon. Member, the Chair cannot order the Committee to do anything. Clearly, all Hon. Members have a problem with the fact that there are two quite different versions intending to address the same situation. The Chair has suggested that it be considered by the Committee. The Chair cannot order the Committee to even consider it and the Chair cannot order the Committee to report back speedily. The Chair can observe that if the Committee is prepared to

March 18, 1987
consider it, it might very well be to the advantage of all of us to report back speedily.

The proceedings of the House are adjourned until 2 p.m.
The House rose at 1.25 p.m.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Government took the time to listen to what Canadians and the organizations that represent them are saying about Bill C-22 and the proposed changes to the Patent Act affecting prescription drugs in Canada.
The Consumers' Association of Canada stated before the legislative committee that studied the Bill that:
We do not see anything in the bill that really gives a guarantee that Canadians can receive the benefits that are promised in the press releases-
Unless we are careful in writing something into the act to guarantee that research promises relate to net jobs, we could actually end up being had.
Another quotation reads:
-if the bill is going to do something for Canada on the research front it will have to contain some specific target, like an 8 per cent or 10 per cent performance target for research and development per firm on the basis of the firm's sales.
It is time the Government listened to the opinion of Canadians about this terrible piece of legislation. Canadians want this Bill withdrawn. I call upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to come to his senses, and to withdraw it immediately.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, next week we will have the fourth hour of debate on M-37, a motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). It is of great importance to many Canadians because it would grant to the unborn the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
In the riding of Calgary North some 37,000 households received a questionnaire with respect to this measure. Some
1,895 people responded. The results show that 1,251 believe the motion should pass, while 622 think it should be rejected.
Some 66 per cent of the respondents in Calgary North support the protection of the unborn. I trust other members have notified their constituents of this motion and that they have inquired as to their feelings toward it.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP I would like to protest the fact that the U.S. Department of the Interior plans to go ahead with oil exploration and development within the Alaska Arctic Wildlife Refuge, a move which Canada opposes because of the danger to the Porcupine caribou herd, and the native people who depend on it.
In ignoring Canadian concerns the Americans are showing contempt for the value of wildlife, for the rights of aboriginal people, and for the tradition of joint Canadian-American management of the shared resource which the migrating caribou represent. Even the U.S. National Wildlife Federation called the U.S. action a case of "arrogant disregard".
The U.S. is increasingly regarding its own north and the Canadian North as an area which exists only for the economic and military purposes of the majority to the south. Canadian sovereignty in the north must be built on respect for native people, for wildlife, and for the environment. I say to the Government that strongly protesting this unilateral American action is a good place to start.



VIA RAIL


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, if there is a more arrogant organization in Canada than VIA Rail I hope we never hear of it.
VIA promised the people of Guelph a liaison committee to discuss problems and changes. We got our committee, and we got a lot of smoke as well. We also have two changes which were not discussed with anyone. We were ignored, Mr. Hanigan, until your letter telling us of the deleted train from Toronto to Guelph, Kitchener and London, and the untenable change of time of another. So much for consultation. So much for liaison. So much for the public. Thank you, VIA Rail.
March 18, 1987



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional conference called by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) so that Quebec can join the Canadian Constitution seems to have got off on the wrong foot. Yesterday Mr. Pawley, the NDP Premier of Manitoba, said Quebec was not different and that he was against special status. Today Mr. Getty, the Conservative Premier of Alberta, says he is against special status for Quebec, and that when he was a football player, he didn't notice any difference in the spectators from that province. And yesterday, a proposal by the Premier of Quebec to have the province's authority to select its own immigrants enshrined in the Constitution, a matter of vital importance, was turned down by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Conservative Members from Quebec and the Leader of the New Democratic Party to urge the two Premiers to come to their senses and enable Quebec to join the Canadian Constitution by recognizing Quebec's special status.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the press had some troubling news: "The real face of the NDP which treats Quebec like a third world country". At the convention in Montreal, an NDP Member from Ontario representing garment workers described the situation of francophone Quebecers in apocalyptic terms. She said, in referring to Quebecers: "They are oppressed, like Blacks and women; they do not have the right to speak French and are kept in line by their anglophone bosses; and they have the worst schools and the worst hospitals."
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers do not need a lesson from the NDP, and I suggest that this Party which is full of the most flagrant contradictions brush up on its facts. We do not need the comments of NDP Howard Pawley, who conducted a wide-open campaign against Quebec in the CF-18 dossier. Quebecers do not need the comments of Allan Blakeney, who one night in November, 1981, cooked up an agreement with the Liberals which excluded Quebec.
Quebecers will not support a socialist party financed by the CTC and Shirley Carr, without the consent of the membership. Workers of Canada, beware! The team of Shirley Carr and Broadbent is determined to invest your union dues in their election campaign. And I want all Quebecers to know that
their Conservative Members, including the Member for Beauce, will continue to protect their interests.
What do Ontario, the west and the Maritime Provinces think of the resolutions that were adopted Saturday in Montreal by the New Democratic Party? A two-faced party, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Granville Island Business Association in Vancouver has released a strongly worded report which questions the organization of the Granville Island Public Market and the management practices of CMHC. The report calls on the Minister responsible for housing to strike an independent task force to study solutions for the market. Market merchants have strongly endorsed the report and put forward a list of highly qualified individuals willing to serve on the task force. The Government must start recognizing the legitimate needs of the small business community on Granville Island and act quickly on this matter.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I alleged in this House that Canada was involved in the arms trade with the Contras in Nicaragua. We were involved through covert activity to get around the U.S. congressional ban of 1984. Examples were Propair Caribou planes going to the Contras, and Trans World Arms.
I have obtained from the Tower Commission the flow chart from Colonel Oliver North's office which shows Trans World Arms was indeed involved, as well as Defex of Portugal. I have obtained Spanish copies of two end-user certificates, one used by Energy Resources International, a company controlled by Oliver North and Richard Secord, and exactly the same wording was on the certificate used by Trans World Arms of 5340 Ferrier Street in Montreal. This is conclusive evidence to show that Canadian companies were involved in the White House undercover project. There should be a public inquiry in Canada and a Canadian response to the Tower Commission report on those matters involving Canada.

March 18, 1987



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening Manitobans found out what electing an NDP Government means. That Government handed down the biggest tax grab in the history of Manitoba. This tax grab will take an additional $700 per year from over 80 per cent of Manitobans. The sales tax increased to 7 per cent, hydro increased 4.7 per cent on top of a previously announced 5 per cent. Imagine this, a job tax of 2.25 per cent. Cigarettes, alcohol, diesel fuel, insulation, take-out foods-which the NDP criticized us for in this House-virtually everything consumed by the average Manitoban has been hit hard.
Even worse is the NDP do-nothing approach to agriculture. Last week the Premier of Manitoba gave hope to Manitoba farmers with his speech in Montreal. Two days later he fell flat in a stubble field. It is shameful that while the federal Government continues to pump over $500 million in direct contributions to Manitoba farmers, the NDP can only spend a measly $85 million. The NDP disappointed the farmers of Manitoba and of all of Canada, and always will.

[DOT] (M10)



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, from the world of acid rain we learn that the Potomac Electric Power Company has signed a contract to purchase electricity for 18 years from the Ohio Edison Company. The contract is still subject to approval by the U.S. Energy Commission.
The Canadian Embassy joined the Natural Resources Defence Council in saying that the sale shows how loopholes in U.S. environmental law allow electrical utilities to avoid investing in pollution control measures.
"Our concern and the concern of the environmental groups is that it gives the appearance the utilities are trying to circumvent the intention of the Clean Air Act which was passed to ensure new plants would be built with the best available technology for reducing emissions", says Jim Wright, top environmental official at the Embassy in Washington.
Evidently, utilities are able to get around the regulations by hanging on to dirty old plants that pre-date the new pollution control standards. I call upon the Government to protest officially this proposed power purchase, which will cause additional environmental damage to Canada.




Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it appears the mountains may finally be moving in the acid rain issue south of the border.
President Ronald Reagan announced this morning that he will implement a control technology commercial demonstration program by providing $2.5 billion, to be matched by the private sector. This could be a long awaited breakthrough in acid rain abatement on this continent.
Following the recommendations in the Joint Report of the Special Envoys on Acid Rain, released in January of last year, the President will also provide for an advisory panel comprised of experts from both countries. He is also recommending a review of U.S. federal and state regulations, which could result in additional sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reductions.
Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) have been seeking action from the U.S. administration on this issue, and the President's promise today could be the first step toward environmental security.
Let us all hope that the President's announcement today is just the thin edge of the wedge in active acid rain abatement.



FORESTRY


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, last month, before he was forced to resign, the B.C. Minister of Forests decided to shelve a $28.6 million silviculture program and said that the British Columbia Government could not afford an increase in silviculture spending this year.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) referred to British Columbia as a reforestation slum with its woefully inadequate reforestation policies. Only last week the B.C. Government said that it could not afford a $21 million request package to stop the budworm infestation ravaging the forests of central B.C.
This unwillingness to act is a disgrace. This year the Province of British Columbia will receive $360 million from the export lumber tax, yet its Government has stated that it does not plan to reinvest this money to maintain and develop the British Columbia forest resource.
A recent poll by Decima Research found that 75 per cent of British Columbians favour putting all or most of the money collected from the lumber tax back into forest related spending.
I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister for International Trade, and the Minister of State for Forestry
March 18, 1987

and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) to do whatever is necessary to ensure that in tomorrow's Budget the Minister of Finance for British Columbia includes a provision stating that the full $360 million is to be dedicated to husbanding the province's forests, through direct investments where feasible, and through the establishment of a forest industry heritage fund for the long-term funding of silviculture programs in that province.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands

Canso): Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are now aware that a Canadian Forces pilot on exchange duty with the United States Coast Guard at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, was involved last Saturday in an heroic rescue mission off the coast of New Jersey in which 37 lives were saved.
A distress signal from a Soviet freighter was received early Saturday morning, and soon thereafter rescue helicopters were dispatched to the scene. Canadian Forces pilot, Captain Rick Hardy, a native of Prince Edward Island, was the second helicopter pilot to arrive on scene. With a steady hand during heavy rain and sleet, screaming winds and dangerous sea conditions, his helicopter plucked 16 Russian sailors off the deck of their ship.
This daring rescue during severe weather conditions shows the great expertise and coolness of this Canadian Forces pilot. All Canadians can feel proud of the honour which has been bestowed upon him and his Coast Guard colleagues by the President of the United States. All Atlantic Canadians are especially proud.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



WAR CRIMINALS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Deschenes Report reinforces the commitment of Canadians to the principles of justice. An important part of the commission's mandate was to report on when and how Nazi war criminals obtained entry to Canada.
The analysis of this question prepared by Alti Rodal has been described by Justice Deschenes as "an outstanding contribution-which deserves wide distribution". I therefore call upon the Government to make the document public without which there is no historical context for the individual cases reviewed by the commission.
I am pleased the Government intends to amend our Criminal Code to permit prosecutions of war criminals in Canada. In March, 1985, I introduced a similar amendment and was advised that it was premature. I trust the Government will proceed quickly with amendments and direct our law enforcement agencies to give these cases a priority. To do otherwise would be to betray the victims of Naziism, the privilege of Canadian citizenship, and Canada's moral and international obligation to prosecute war criminals. The passage of time does not diminish the severity of war crimes committed by any individual, wherever and whenever perpetrated.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, for decades now Albertans have been held down by trade shackles. The Progressives of western Canada set out to remove those fetters. They later joined the Conservatives and the fight to free Alberta continued.
Tommy Douglas and his CCF joined the battle, but when the unions took over the NDP the tradition of Tommy Douglas died and Alberta was abandoned by that Party. Under Pierre Trudeau, Marc Lalonde and their colleagues, the Liberals not only ignored Alberta but added to the problem with their oppressive energy policies. Now, Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals have once again joined to prevent Alberta from throwing off those shackles.
The Liberals have joined forces with the Premier of Ontario, the NDP and the union bosses in an attempt to prevent the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from negotiating a freer trade agreement with the United States, an agreement that could finally remove some of the heaviest shackles from around the necks of Albertans. The Liberals, the New Democrats and their colleagues are working against Alberta. They should be declared Public Enemy No. 1.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has neglected small craft harbours, boat launching ramps and wharves in Canada to the point of being irresponsible. Existing small craft boating facilities are being allowed to deteriorate because there is no money for maintenance. As a result, existing harbours, wharfs and

March 18, 1987
The Late Douglas Abbott
launching ramps are going to cost more money to repair because when they are neglected they deteriorate faster. This is not a saving, Mr. Speaker. It is simply throwing money away. It costs money to maintain and repair them but it saves money if they are repaired regularly. This neglect is just plain bad management on the part of the Minister.
The Government preaches about tourism and recreation but does nothing in the development of onshore and offshore tourist facilities to support the rapidly growing boating industry in Canada which, incidentally, pays large amounts of taxes to both federal and provincial Governments.
In Ontario the budgets for small craft harbours and boating accommodations have been nil. There is a great demand for boating facilities and maintenance in eastern and northern Ontario. If the Government is truly interested in tourism and recreation, it is time it started doing something for the boating industry in Ontario and across the country. A lot of Conservative unkept promises and self-praise will never launch a boat.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that before we commence Question Period I will be hearing remarks by the Hon. Minister of Veteran Affairs (Mr. Hees), the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).



THE LATE HON. DOUGLAS CHARLES ABBOTT

Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, following consultations with the other Parties I am rising now to speak in remembrance and tribute to the Hon. Douglas Abbott who died yesterday. Mr. Abbott was elected first to Parliament in 1940 and became Minister of Finance in 1946. He served in that portfolio with great distinction until 1954 when he retired to become a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I was privileged to serve in the House for my first four years during Mr. Abbott's term as Minister of Finance and found him to be one of the most able and popular Ministers whom I have ever known, and I think probably one of the most popular and able Ministers who ever served in this Parliament. He was a remarkable man.
He had friends in every part of the House in equal quantity. Members of all Parties admired his ability, appreciated his warm personality and his very keen sense of humour. He will be very greatly missed by all of those who were privileged to know him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that was a typically generous gesture made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Northumberland, the Minister of
Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). I would like to respond on behalf of our side of the House and particularly on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) and myself. Both of us knew Mr. Justice Abbott personally, held him in high regard, and felt great affection for him.
I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Mr. Stanley Knowles are probably the only two people here in the House now who served in the House of Commons with Douglas Abbott. They will remember him as we remember him, a great servant of the people of Canada. He was not only a Member of Parliament for 14 years but he was Minister of Finance from 1946 to 1954. He brought down nine Budgets in the House, a number of them bringing down surpluses. In the extraordinary flavour of that time, he was roundly criticized for that. I might say that I can say this with some authority because I was the last Minister of Finance ever to bring down a surplus in Canada.
Mr. Justice Abbott had an irresistible personality. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has referred to it. He was irresistible, engaging, and a wonderful friend. He sat on the Bench of the Supreme Court of Canada until retirement age. When he retired, he was the Senior Puisne Judge of that court and was renowned for his wide and vast knowledge of the public law of Canada.
Mr. Justice Abbott was born in Lennoxville in the Eastern Townships of Quebec. One of the personal honours accorded to him that he valued most highly was having been elected Chancellor of Bishop's University.
On behalf of the Liberal Party we send our deepest condolences to his widow, to his son Tony who served in the House of Commons as well and was a Minister in the Government of Mr. Trudeau, and to his family our warmest sympathies, our respect, and our admiration because he was a remarkable Canadian in his time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in regretting the passing of a distinguished Canadian, the Hon. Douglas Abbott. As has been mentioned, he was a successful politician and a distinguished judge. He was elected to the House of Commons before I was born. As a young lawyer I had the honour of appearing before Mr. Justice Abbott, the first time 1 appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada, while he did not rule for me, he gave me a good hearing.
Mr. Justice Abbott was, as I saw him, courteous, sharp, and very able. Many of us know his son Tony and our condolences go out to him and to the family. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, Tony did serve as a Member and as a Minister in this great House of Commons like his father.
Today, on behalf of my Party and all of us in the House of Commons, including those of us who did not have the honour of serving in the House with the Abbotts but served subsequent
March 18, 1987

to them, I offer condolences to the family and thanks for a distinguished Canadian life.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to stand for one minute's silence.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.}



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. As a result of the Government's imposition of a 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood lumber exported to the United States, Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Kleenex, is closing its sawmill in Longlac in northern Ontario, laying off every worker, and ending an annual production of 20 million board feet of lumber.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister inquire of his colleague as to whether she still calls her sell-out of the Canadian lumber industry to the United States in order to salvage the free trade talks a great victory for Canada? Does she intend to do something to help Canadian lumber workers laid off from their jobs because of the imposition of this tax and the failure of the Government to have any guts in standing up to the American negotiators?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable when any mill closes for any reason. I find the reasons in this case rather perplexing given that that company indicated last year that it had lost $78 million over a decade. Therefore, it was losing last year. Incidentally, prices have risen by over 17 or 18 per cent since a year ago. Therefore, any company that was marginal last year would certainly be marginal this year.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR-EFFECT ON 15 PER CENT TAX
John Napier Turner: Given these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I must now direct my question to the Minister of State for Forestry and stress the fact that the 15 per cent tax exceeds the profit margin of Canada's whole forest industry, particularly softwood lumber. And not only did his Cabinet colleague abandon our softwood lumber industry workers when she imposed this 15 per cent tax, but she did not even make arrangements with the Americans to reassess the tax in case the value of our dollar would increase. So my question to the Minister is this: Considering
Oral Questions
the current exchange value of the Canadian dollar, will his colleague have the courage to reopen negotiations with the Americans with a view to repealing this tax?

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in this House, as has the Minister for International Trade, that negotiations are ongoing with the American Government on this particular issue. The Ministers of Forestry are dealing with the replacement measures in the hope of changing from the export tax to other provincial measures.
There are a lot of reasons why any mill closes, varying from inventory adjustments to normal seasonal closures, to upgrading and capital improvements. We do not know the reason in this case and I do not think it is fair to put the blame on any one aspect. This happens regularly at this time of year.


SECONDARY LUMBER REMANUFACTURERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talked about marginal companies. His 15 per cent tax is a wider margin than the entire margin of profit of the Canadian lumber industry. His colleague has converted the Canadian lumber industry into sawdust.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: She admitted in the House that she had neglected, by mistake, to understand the position of Canadian secondary manufacturers in the industry. She gave an undertaking to the House that in January she would go to Washington to correct that oversight. Does the Minister's colleague intend to go to Washington and exempt the secondary remanufacturers, eighty of whom across the country are facing bankruptcy as a result of the incompetence of his colleague, the Minister for International Trade?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, while nobody welcomed the actions of the American producers and the American Government that forced this kind of action, we are dealing with it. We sought the best agreement possible for Canada. Perhaps that is the reason why market prices are up significantly. The price today for eastern spruce pine fir is $285. At the end of December it was $266. The market does not show that it is suffering that much.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister for International Trade said on Monday that part of the negotiation in bilateral negotiations with the United States is to include subsidies and other measures, and asking the United States Government to set rules by which Canadian industry can be assisted by the federal Government. Will the

March 18, 1987
Oral Questions
Minister confirm that the $183 million of assistance that is presently given by the federal Government in the policy of contracting out science and technology is one of those measures now subject to negotiation? Will he not agree that that particular measure, if negotiated away, would put in jeopardy the entire Canadian high-tech industry we are trying to promote and support?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals say on the one hand that we must lay all our cards on the table while on the other hand their Leader says we have shown too many cards in the negotiations. Discussions and negotiations are continuing. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government will protect that very valuable industry in these negotiations.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member has it wrong. We did not say that too many cards were shown; we said too many cards had been given away.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or the spokesperson for the Government. In the measures set out by the Minister, we now know that the Government has cut back the export development assistance from $313 million last year to $26 million this year. At the same time, the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States has just asked Congress for an additional $200 million of export assistance. How can we have a proper negotiation on trade when we are cutting back our export assistance to Canadian industry while the Americans are adding to theirs?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the Hon. Member thinks the United States trades with Canada and no one else in the world, and that everything should stop when these negotiations are taking place. There is nothing further from the truth. The United States trades with the world, as does Canada. This goes on while these negotiations continue. To relate one to the other is foolishness.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that two weeks ago I asked him about the Government's decision on the initial price for our grain producers. The Government had not reached a decision. The Minister also knows that the initial price our grain producers received last year was down some 19 per cent and that disaster ought not be repeated this year. Will the Minister give a guarantee to our
grain producers that their final price will certainly not be lower than what they received last year?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member will recognize the procedure that must be followed. The information will have to be considered very carefully by Cabinet. That is exactly what we are doing at the moment. It would be very inappropriate for me to comment at this time, for a whole variety of reasons, many of which I will raise later today in the course of debate on the motion put forward by the Official Opposition.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns with respect to some of the details and that there may be a reason for the delay in the Minister's announcement. However, I, and more relevantly, the grain producers, would like to hear the Minister say today that whatever the Government's final decision, the final return to the grain producers who already had a 20 per cent drop last year will not be lower than it was last year? Will the Minister at least give that guarantee?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if I respond to the Hon. Member's question by reading a statement that was released on March 5 by 55 farm leaders and some 35 farm organizations. This is exactly the message they are saying:
Farm leaders today agree that producers should base spring planting decisions on market signals. Farmers should not make assumptions about government assistance in planting their 1987 production. It is too soon to come to any conclusions about the help that will be needed or how it would be given but we will insist

That is the farm leadership:
-that any new assistance measures be production and market neutral.
I ask the Member to consider that statement on behalf of the farm leadership in this country.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is saying that the market will ultimately be what dictates the Government's final answer, he is telling our grain producers that they can expect a major drop in what they will get this year compared to what they received last year. The Minister did not answer my first question. Will he answer my second question? Will he guarantee to our grain producers that their final return, which was already disastrously low last year, will not go below last year's level? That is what they want to hear.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the question. Surely, however, if the Hon. Member does not recognize it, I am certain members of his caucus should recognize that it is very premature, very untimely and very improper in the interests of Canadian agriculture to answer that question in the House at this time or
March 18, 1987

until farmers have made up their own minds based on market signals, particularly in view of the fact that the seed drills have not been pulled out of the implement sheds, let alone triggered into the ground.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, today's headlines read: "Canadian Ports Closed to French Fishermen"; and "Vessels Will Be Arrested Outside Disputed Zone"; and "Government Acts Against Overfishing".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The only problem is that the French fleet does not use Canadian ports, the French do not fish outside the disputed zone, and the entire French fleet to which the Government has now closed Canadian ports has already gone back to France.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Come on, John.


George Baker: I ask the Minister of Transport, assigned by the Prime Minister to answer these questions and make statements in Newfoundland: why close the ports when the French do not use them; why forbid them to fish where they do not fish anyway; why have you made these statements after the French have already gone home? The Minister of Transport said: "This is a clear signal". We say that it is a smoke signal: "Heap big smoke, no fire".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, we know the Hon. Member imagines himself to be an actor, but one wonders when he will get his act together.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: On one day we hear the Hon. Member and his colleagues asking the Government to be firm and tough. The next day he is standing up in the House to say: "Why bother?" The inconsistency of the Member in his continued questions on this issue is regrettable and unhelpful. We announced our undertaking to close the ports and close the French fishing quota in the area known as 3PS because, according to our estimates, France has exceeded the quota which Canada accords to French-based vessels in that area. If this measure will not be effective, why is it that France has protested so strongly today?
Oral Questions


George Baker: The Minister of Fisheries finally stands up and answers a question on that subject. He reminds me of a whale which is usually below the surface but every now and then comes up to blow.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Baker: Are we now to
assume from this statement that the French fleet can return to Canada in the fall, as they always do, and fish now unlimited in the disputed zone out to 200 miles, as they always do, as long as they go into the same ports that they always use? What is the Government up to? Has it assumed the same position and the same style as Premier Peckford with his intellectual terrorism? I am sure the French fishermen are shaking in their rubber boots.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I heard a question, but if there is any whale in this House which has learned to blow hard, it is the Hon. Member opposite.
What is so puzzling is that this Hon. Member sat and did nothing in 1972 as a member of that Government. When the Treaty was signed which led us into this debacle, this Hon. Member sat in his seat in 1976 while his Government cut off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, cut off its nose and tail to spite its face, so to speak, which has denied Canadian fishermen their right and proper due. We are in the process of ensuring that those resources are conserved and managed to the benefit of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Fabrador and, indeed, of all Atlantic Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture seemed, by his previous answer to my Leader, to be saying that farmers cannot be expected to know what sort of assistance intention the Government has for them in this coming year. Could he expand on that a little and explain why he thinks farmers should not know the position of the federal Government with regard to financial assistance when we know and he knows, and all the Canadian farmers know, that their American counterparts have been guaranteed between $35 billion and $36 billion over the next five years? American farmers know where they are at. Why can the Minister not tell us where our farmers are at?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows full well the answer to the question. He knows full well the reason that I at this point in time have to respond and if I had the choice of standing with the New Democratic Party or standing with the farm leaders

March 18, 1987
Oral Questions
of this country, there is no question in my mind where I am going to stand.
I do not know what useful purpose it serves to point to an example beyond this country. Indeed, if other countries follow the same example which has been established by this Government and the farmers of this country, we would not be facing many of the difficulties we face today in the international market-place.


MARKET PRICES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If the Minister is intending that farmers respond only to market forces, and he is not going to interfere in the market, does that then mean that he is prepared to give up and permit the foreclosures through FCC and the other institutions to recommence? Has he decided there is no hope as he is reading the signals of the market, which are that grain prices ought to be down at least another 20 per cent in the coming year from the 20 per cent in the previous year? Is he now sending out a signal that they should not be producing anything, that they should give up and walk off their farms?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that is just a silly observation. I think everyone in the House would recognize that there are certain things that Governments should do and can do, but-


John Edward Broadbent: And won't do.


John Wise: -I am sure there is not a person in the House who would suggest that the Government of Canada, particularly, and even this Government, which has done so much for Canadian agriculture, should be involved in or dictating what farmers should plant in the 1987 season. Surely he is not suggesting that we do that.


John Edward Broadbent: No, he was not. You are right.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. According to a Canadian Press report, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying today that President Reagan's intention to seek funds for innovative technology projects to control acid rain is a "very significant movement". How can the Prime Minister claim a very significant movement if all that will happen is more of the same, namely, research, with no commitment to cut acid rain, no percentage cuts, no deadline, no programs, just more research?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Davenport is probably congenitally incapable of coping with good news. He will acknowledge with fairness that I probably have been as critical as anyone else in this House of the lack of action by the U.S. administration, following up on the last summit between the Prime Minister and the President. However, with equal fairness he will acknowledge that today's statement is a major statement by the President of the United States by any standard. I think it is probably the most detailed, most categorical commitment to joint action between the two countries on acid rain ever made by the President of the United States.
We have much more to do. The President and the Prime Minister will be meeting in Ottawa in a few weeks for that purpose. I especially welcome in the President's statement today a commitment "to future specific actions". That is the kind of constructive internationalism which produces results.


REQUEST FOR SIGNING OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, according to the same Canadian Press report, the Minister of the Environment did not seem to be quite happy with the news himself. He is quoted as saying: "We do not have 'signed on the dotted line'... ". Can the Minister of the Environment assure the House and Canadians that at the next summit in April the Prime Minister will get President Reagan to sign with Canada an "on the dotted line" agreement of joint cutting of acid rain?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be partisan, much less do I want to make invidious comparisons, but the fact is that the Government of which the Hon. Member for Davenport was a member cut off negotiations with the Americans altogether on acid rain in June of 1982. To the credit of the Prime Minister, he put acid rain back on the agenda. He put the issue back on the rails. We in Canada do not yet have the accord we want, but today's announcement out of Washington is a very significant step in that direction, and the Prime Minister deserves the credit.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister will know that a free trade agreement which would allow the free flow of food products into Canada would seriously hurt Canadian food producers. Is the Government, while it is saying it will protect farm marketing boards and
March 18, 1987

supply management, considering allowing the free flow of dairy products from the United States into Canada under a projected free trade agreement?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think we have previously answered that question. It was answered in the contents of the resolution and answered during the course of the debate. I want the Leader of the New Democratic Party to pay particular attention to this because, while I did not see him on The Journal last night, I sure had a lot of calls from farmers who were very critical of his comments. There is no question about that. He made some rather interesting comments about western farmers. This Government looks at agriculture from coast to coast. We are concerned about Canadian farmers regardless of from which region they happen to come and from which they produce food, I can tell him that.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive an answer to my question. Is the Government guaranteeing that the free flow of dairy products and other supply management products will not be allowed after a free trade agreement is signed?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we have some difficulty with Hon. Members across the way. I do not know whether it is their lack of understanding or their reluctance to listen to us and to read Hansard. I have answered the question on many occasions here and across the country. I ask the Hon. Member to listen very carefully.
We indicated that the Government gave a firm commitment to support the existence of the marketing boards and to decide in Canada their future. When that is done, and if one fully understands the manner in which they operate, it is necessary to maintain at the same time those underpinnings which are necessary for them to work.
Members opposite are interested in the Auto Pact and so on. We clarified that the other day with the debate on free trade. If they really understood the marketing board system, particularly those concerned with supply management, then we could call CEMA the Canada-U.S. egg pact. We could call the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency the chicken pact. We sat down-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Wise: There is not much difference. We sat down with the Americans and we negotiated import levels.
Oral Questions AEROSPACE INDUSTRY


REPORTED PROPOSAL TO MANUFACTURE DASH-8 AIRCRAFT IN CHINA
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On Monday I asked the Minister if he had authorized production of de Havilland's Dash-8s in China, something which de Havilland is prohibited from doing without his permission. He said, as reported at page 4175 of Hansard, that he had looked into the matter and was convinced that de Havilland had no intention of handing over some of its production contracts to China. De Havilland officials have indicated the opposite, that the Minister is wrong and that negotiations are under way to manufacture some of the Dash-8 production in China. Why was the Minister unaware of this, since his approval is required for it to take place? Does the Minister agree, and if so why, jobs should be created in China using the technology that was paid for by Canadian taxpayers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I did respond to this question, and I also said that the Government was very concerned. Of course when we concluded the sale of de Havilland we made sure that the technology and the jobs would be kept in Canada.
Since the deal was finalized, Mr. Speaker, more than 1,000 jobs have been created, which goes to show that the Government fully respects its mandate in this regard.
My colleague refers to certain negotiations or discussions. Mr. Speaker, of course de Havilland management are expected to seek new markets and, obviously, this may entail negotiations and discussions. But at this time no deal between China and de Havilland has been officially sanctioned.


POSSIBLE CREATION OF JOBS IN CHINA BY DE HAVILLAND FOR MANUFACTURE OF DASH-8 AIRCRAFT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to say now that he will not let de Havilland export jobs for the production of Dash-8 aircraft in China? Is it clear that this technology will be used exclusively to create jobs here in Canada?


Michel Côté: What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government remains convinced and anxious that the existing agreement with de Havilland must be respected. As it happens, it guarantees that the aerospace industry, the jobs and the technology will remain in Canada, and that is precisely what we want to do.

March 18, 1987
Oral Questions
[English]	WAR CRIMINALS
FISHERIES	AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL CODE


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS-REQUEST FOR TRADE SANCTIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister of Transport said that Canada will do whatever is within its power to stop French overfishing in the disputed 3PS zone south of Newfoundland. So far we have seen nothing but meaningless gestures. When is Canada going to get serious about stopping the French destruction of our Atlantic fisheries? When will it take action that will get the French to the negotiating table? Is the Government now prepared to begin a process of progressive sanctions against French products, beginning with such items as mineral water and moving on to more serious ones?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been all these weeks. He is calling for action on a long unresolved problem that this Government did not create, which has to do with the fact that France believes that a treaty signed in 1972 entitles it to certain fishing rights in Canadian waters. That is what led the Government to enter into a process of negotiating an agreement which would refer to international arbitration the boundary issue south of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and a second agreement which would set quotas and administer fishing arrangements during the time it takes to solve that boundary problem once and for all. These are initiatives the Government is taking.
I would like to know if the Hon. Member is suggesting that we cut off all other forms of trade with France. Is that what the Hon. Member is suggesting?


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Government should place fisheries at least as high in its priorities as does the French Government. Do the Minister and the Government really believe that the puny actions they have taken so far will be effective in preventing the French from overfishing in 3PS? When it finds out that these actions are successful, is it prepared to take stronger action up to and including sanctions against French products?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in the style of his Leader I hear the Hon. Member suggesting that Canada mount a physical confrontation with France. That may be one way to gain some attention when a Party is seeking to win a few meagre votes in a byelection, but it is absolutely irresponsible.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the Des-chenes Commission Report. I wish to commend the Government for its resolve to address this issue, particularly the balanced and sensitive way in which the Minister addressed it, and the made-in-Canada solution.
The Minister indicated that while the commission found the size of the problem of war criminals to be substantially less than indicated by some, the Government must be concerned if even one individual guilty of war crimes has sought refuge from justice in Canada. The next step is to amend the Criminal Code. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice how quickly we can expect that amendment or that process to take place.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question of the Hon. Member who has had substantial interest in this important issue. I wish to thank him publicly for the input which he has given to me with respect to the response of the Government.
The Hon. Member points out the fact that we have some work to do on the floor of the House of Commons. It is my intention to make a priority issue in my Department the bringing forward of amendments to the Criminal Code at the earliest possible date. I am gratified by the response of the opposition Parties and by Canadians generally. I know that we will have co-operation in getting these amendments through the House at the earliest possible date.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He will know that in July of 1984 the Prime Minister committed himself and his Party to the second phase of the modernization program of Sydney Steel. The people in my region had to wait for 20 months before a subsidiary agreement was signed with Nova Scotia in February of 1986. Another 12 months have now elapsed only for us to find out from the Minister in March of 1987 that they have to wait for a business plan. Why should the people of my region trust the Government in view of the fact that this matter has been delayed for such an unconscionable period of time?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the people in my friend's riding should trust this Government because we are doing much more
March 18, 1987

Oral Questions
than the previous Government did for a number of years, point number one. Point number two, as I said, the Government remains committed to the modernization of Sysco but the company has to provide the Government with a business plan by the end of March. The Government will react to it right after that.


PRESENTATION OF BUSINESS PLAN
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. I am somewhat surprised and annoyed at his response because the Deputy Prime Minister said in this Elouse on June 16, 1986:
The business plan has been received. The Treasury Board submission is in the
final stages of being concluded.
Why has the Minister shown such wanton disregard for the people of that region who suffer such high unemployment? Is it a confirmation of his belief that we are second-class citizens in Atlantic Canada?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have just said. Management is expected to submit to the Government a business plan outlining the company's future policy. The Government remains committed with respect to the Sysco Steel modernization and is anxious to co-operate with the provincial Government. Mr. Speaker, once again we have done more for that region of the country than the previous administration ever did in 10 years.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. He has decided to stop producing the fair wages schedule, which has been the basis for the minimum wage paid on federal government construction projects for a number of years. Why has he made that decision? Why has he done so without consulting labour officials? Why has he done it since employers' groups have said it will result in lower wages for construction workers?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, all I did was to take the administrative measures required in connection with the situation which had been prevailing since 1982, and all parties interested in this matter have made their position known since 1982.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, why has the Minister done so at the request of the employers? Why has he refused to meet with the workers? Is his Government not a Government for all people? He knows it will reduce wages in this country and he is not being fair.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have never refused to meet anyone. It is because of the contentious nature of this decision that it was made on a trial basis only.


SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It has now been a year since the Government made its commitment to restructure the shipyard industry in Quebec. Five thousand workers are still waiting for jobs. At Lauzon, workers were informed that unfortunately, construction on the second ferry, Caribou II, will be postponed for the fourth time, until October 1987. Between now and the month of May, 200 workers will be laid off at the Sorel yard, and the marine section at Vickers in Montreal will close down completely in two weeks.
Could the Minister explain to the House why his Government is still putting off awarding the manufacturing and refitting contracts he promised the three shipyards?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, no contracts have been delayed. This Government has shown tremendous concern for the shipyard industry in Quebec. In fact, we initiated the rationalization process. Since then, contracts have been awarded to the various yards, and they will be respected. As I said before, it is now up to the management of Marine Industries to carry out the projects and contracts as scheduled.


INQUIRY WHY CERTAIN WORK HAS NOT YET BEGUN
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Pontius Pilate of the federal Government is now washing his hands of Marine Industries. He made a promise, on three separate occasions, in Quebec City, his hometown, that work on Caribou II would start a month ago. The shipyards are empty. Nobody is working there, and the only contracts are those awarded by the federal Government. Is the Minister, considering his incompetence and that of his predecessors, prepared to resign his post and make way for

March 18, 1987
Oral Questions
someone who can handle this? And second, could the Minister explain to the House why the work on Cariboo 11 has not started yet at the Lauzon yard, and why work on the TRUMP program has yet to begin at the Sorel and Montreal yards?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, again, I fail to understand the Hon. Member's attitude. First of all, Mr. Speaker, he has been shouting for months that the Government should award contracts to Quebec shipyards. The Government did so. The yards are operating-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Operating?


Michel Côté: Yes, the yards are in operation at this time, Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Who is working there?


Michel Côté: -and I repeat, it is up to Marine Industries to decide how it wants to schedule production, not the Government of Canada. So once again, Mr. Speaker, the Government has acted while Opposition Members were complaining.


Jean-Claude Malépart: It did nothing of the sort. We have five thousand workers who are idle.


Mr. Speaker:: I draw to the attention of the House that Question Period will shortly be coming to an end. We were delayed because of the tribute.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for CMHC and has to do with the Cloverdale Park affair. Will there be a public or judicial inquiry concerning this suspicious sale? What is the Minister doing to protect tenants, especially those who need low rental accommodation?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the problem is a matter of concern. I went to Montreal to meet with all of the citizens' representatives. I heard their representations. As a result of that and our own investigation we have instructed our solicitors to commence court action to right what we consider are many wrongs. The outcome is obviously unknown.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, a short question.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT HALT TRANSACTIONS NOT IN PUBLIC INTEREST
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for taking action. Will the Minister undertake to examine this whole question of sales of housing units to so-called non-profit companies, which in fact are profit-oriented companies, or to co-operatives which are not genuine co-operatives? Will he halt all these transactions which are not in the public interest?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's questions are appropriate and of concern to us. That is the reason we are taking action. We want to find out what has gone on in the past few years. Without that information we cannot make an appropriate decision. Hopefully the court will approve our request, give us access to the books, and then we can make an appropriate decision.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can the Minister clarify for the House the circumstances of the rescue of 37 Soviet sailors off the coast of New Jersey and, most particularly, the role played by Captain Hardy, a Canadian Forces pilot?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Captain Rick Hardy, a native of Prince Edward Island, is on exchange at the present time with the U.S. Coastguard. When the Soviet ship capsized, Captain Hardy, at great risk to his own life, was able to save some 16 Soviet sailors. That action has been recognized by the President of the United States and this will be the second commendation received by Captain Hardy while on exchange. It is an example of the dedicated service given by so many people in the Canadian Forces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West, one question, please.
March 18, 1987


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-TARIFF REDUCTIONS-EFFECT ON AUTO PACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday in the House the Minister for International Trade, referring to tariffs, said:
-in the trade talks we are seeking to reduce them to zero on Canada-U.S. trade over a period of 10 or 15 years, whatever is negotiated.
In her absence I want to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does the Government ignore the fact that there have been a number of occasions in recent years where automobile companies did not meet their content requirements under the Auto Pact and a threat to impose tariffs was necessary in order to get those companies up to the levels they had to meet on jobs and content? Why is the Government ready to tear the heart out of the Auto Pact by eliminating tariffs and thereby put at risk hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the Hon. Member's question is entirely wrong. As he should know, because he was a Minister in the former Government, those tariffs on automobiles have been coming down over the years. I believe they stood at 17.5 per cent originally. They are down now to about 9.2 per cent. Those tariffs have been coming down all along. That obviously has not damaged the auto trade between our two countries. It is booming, doing very well. Why is the Hon. Member so afraid of it?


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. I have here the transcript of his remarks last Thursday night and the reply to them on Friday by Miss Herrera of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees from Argentina. The Minister made the statement that none of the Chileans in the plane load at Buenos Aires are real refugees and claimed to base that on Miss Herrera's advice. But Miss Herrera says in fact that some of them, by United Nations standards, are refugees. Since the Minister now understands that what he said on Thursday night was not true, will he, to correct the problem, bring those refugees to Canada and have them examined in Canada according to our refugee determination procedure?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, both the member and the journalists have misunderstood what we actually said. I clearly said that our officials examine, case by case, every individual person's claim that
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
they have a legitimate fear. We determined that not one of those people fled from persecution. They were all economic migrants. I continue to maintain that I had received no advice at that time-and I still have no advice-from Miss Herrera, the UNHCR person responsible. We indicated that in the future if anything else would be said, we would have to look at it again. However, as of now, no advice has been given to our officials in Buenos Aires.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has ended, and that I have a ruling arising from an intervention on March 9 in respect of the Hon. Minister of Transport and the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On March 9, I recognized the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) on what he considered to be misuse of the House of Commons printing and distribution services by the New Democratic Party. Following the intervention of the Minister, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) in turn complained about the mailing of certain documents and the Government production of a documentary at public expense.
A few members intervened in the debate on these complaints, and I allowed wide-ranging latitude because it seems to me Hon. Members might want the guidelines on householder mailings and franking privileges revised.

The Hon. Minister of Transport quoted from the Members' Manual on Allowances and Services, which includes under the heading "Unacceptable Requests", material unrelated to activities of the House of Commons and material of a partisan political nature. Nevertheless, the Chair would hesitate to make too rigid a pronouncement without being entirely satisfied that the House as a whole agrees that the guidelines should be interpreted in this way. In any case, a breach of guidelines does not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.
The complaint of the Hon. Member for Oshawa was challenged by the Hon. Minister of Transport who insisted that the material distributed by the Government and the documentary film were not of a partisan nature. There is thus a difference of opinion among Hon. Members as to whether or not this material was legitimately charged to the public purse. It is obviously not for the Chair to resolve disputes of this kind.
To return to the complaint of the Hon. Minister against the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa categorically stated that the New Democratic Party paid for

March 18, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
the publication complained of and for its mailing. He also pointed out that the material was distributed before the writ for the by-election in St. John's East was issued.

In the course of his intervention, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) indicated that he took the Hon. Member from Oshawa at his word. I am sure the House will appreciate the tradition of honour that has served us so well in the past and acknowledge that the assurances given by the Hon. Member for Oshawa have at least satisfied that aspect of the question.

I come now to a determination of whether or not a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). He dealt with the essentials of the matter in underlining the restrictive application of privilege and pointing out, with relevant quotations, that the privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary to enable Members to fulfil their functions. It seems to the Chair that nothing which has been complained of has in any way obstructed the House or any of its Members in carrying out the activities for which they were elected.
I must therefore find that no convincing case relating to privilege has been made, but I would not dismiss the issue, out of hand, for it has triggered a considerable amount of concern on both sides of the House. I believe it is necessary to reexamine the guidelines which apply to the use of the parliamentary frank and the distribution of bulk and householder mailings and determine what changes in our practice, if any, are desirable in order to remove the use of these facilities from any suspicion of impropriety.
[ Translation]
I therefore suggest that the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services examine the question and make recommendations as appropriate.


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Of course I would not want in any way to challenge your wise rulings. In the reference you are suggesting to the committee, I am wondering whether it could also consider whether or not these rules apply when a special rate is given a member to send out a householder.
For example, in this particular case, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) was allowed to pay $201 to send out 35,566 pieces of mail to St. John's East. The question which should be addressed is whether the same rules apply to this kind of special rate, fantastically cheap postal rate-


John Edward Broadbent: You are just so petty.


John Carnell Crosbie: -whether partisan propaganda should be allowed to be sent out in that manner, or whether the same rules should be applied-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -to the Hon. Member for Oshawa-


John Edward Broadbent: You are a jerk, Crosbie.


John Carnell Crosbie: -whether the rules of the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ms. Copps:: Tory socialists, they are all alike. Pull up the sheets, Tory socialists.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Kiss and make up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What the viewing public cannot see is the continuation of the debate. However, I think I should point out and draw the Hon. Minister's attention to the second to last paragraph in the ruling. "I believe it is necessary to reexamine the guidelines which apply to the use of the parliamentary frank and the distribution of bulk and householder mailings and determine what changes in our practices, if any, are desirable".
I want to assure the Hon. Minister that the Chair's suggestion to the committee-and it is only that; I cannot order the committee-takes into account the very point which he has raised.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, on another point of order, I wonder whether Your Honour could rule whether or not the term "jerk" is parliamentary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt-


An Hon. Member:: John Jerk Crosbie.


John Carnell Crosbie: The New Democratic Party is not led by a statesman, that is for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Carnell Crosbie: The honourable jerks opposite should be-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has risen to ask the Chair if I think the word "jerk" is unparliamentary. I am not sure whether a clear allegation was made that anyone had in fact said that word. However, I want to tell the Hon. Minister that I did not hear it. Of course, if I heard it repeatedly, I might have to make a ruling. However, I think under the circumstances and if the word was used, it was not used by any member in formal debate. As I said, the Chair did not hear it.
Of course, if it is used again, I would invite any Hon. Member who felt offended to rise. Perhaps if a number of members felt that the word applied to them, they might all rise and bring the matter to my attention.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Clean no more; he is a rough, tough guy.


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling of documents.
March 18, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a jerk.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: The Speaker did not hear that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-745, 332-746, 332-869, 332-870, 332-871, 332-1225, 332-1226, 332-1268 and 332-1269.



POINT OF ORDER


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a brief point of order. It is this. At 2.25 p.m. during the Question Period I had handed to me an envelope. In that envelope I found a copy of the statement to be given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). At the same time an envelope with the same statement was delivered to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), our Official Opposition critic for employment.
It has been the long standing custom and tradition, in fact an informal understanding, between the Government and Opposition Parties, which applied before the election, that opposition spokesmen would get at least two hours' notice of statements to be presented on behalf of the Government. In spite of this tradition, in spite of this understanding which dated back before the election, the statement was not presented in advance to myself or to the New Democratic Party House Leader and the critics for the Official Opposition and the NDP pursuant to that understanding. This is a gross discourtesy, Mr. Speaker. It is a breach of that understanding of which I spoke.
I want to say after learning of this, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader came to me behind the curtains, recognized the breach of the understanding and suggested that we interrupt our Liberal Opposition the day after the first three speakers so that the statement could be given and responses pursuant to the rules could be made by the Opposition spokesmen. His intentions were positive. He
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
wanted to give the critics more time to prepare their responses. I said then and I say now that this is unacceptable. We should not have to interrupt our Opposition day for that purpose. In fact, there is another discourtesy involved here with the Minister of Employment and Immigration desiring to make a statement on motions prior to an Opposition day. This is not generally done.

Mr. Speaker, this occurrence is a serious breach of courtesy and of the informal understanding that exists between the Parties in this House, and I therefore raise a point of order. I must point out, not only to you, Mr. Speaker, who are very much aware of the courtesy that must prevail in dealings between parties, but especially to the Government that if it wants co-operation between the Parties in this House, it must stop this habit of not giving the Official Opposition or the third party in the House sufficient notice of a statement so that we can prepare an appropriate reply.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is unacceptable conduct on the part of the Minister, and if this Government, which already has so many things to answer for, wants to have any kind of co-operation in future in this House, it must cease this unacceptable conduct.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the comments made by my hon. colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray), and say that this goes beyond the simple courtesy that the House has been used to now for many, many months whereby Ministers before they give statements simply carry out the appropriate courtesy and inform the critics well in advance enabling the critics to respond in an appropriate and thorough fashion.
As the House Leader for the Official Opposition has indicated, for the House to work effectively it requires cooperation on both sides of the House. It requires members to be thoughtful, courteous and to take the extra steps to facilitate a very sophisticated debate in the House of Commons. To do that, it is important that Members of Parliament be given as much advance notice as possible about the business of the House.
I am pleased to say that the House Leader for the Government has given us, a number of days in advance, an indication of the business of the House. But, Mr. Speaker, halfway through Question Period we were all surprised to learn that an Opposition day was to have a portion of it taken up by the Minister making a statement-


Mr. Mazankowski:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Disrupted by the Minister making a statement. We are not asking so much for the courtesy-I think that goes without saying-but to facilitate and elevate debate, it is important that Members such as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who was unaware that this statement

March 18, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor WestJ
was going to be made by the Minister today and is the official critic for the New Democratic Party, be given the maximum advance notice. A few minutes prior to a Minister's Statement is insufficient. I would urge the Government House Leader and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) to ensure that this type of discourtesy not occur in the future.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, first, with respect to the question of a Minister's statement occurring on allotted days, I would point out to the House that there is no loss of time because the time of adjournment is extended. That, therefore, deals with that argument.
Second, and I make this point specifically to the House Leader for the Liberal Party, I would point out that in 291 days of the thirty-second Parliament there were 28 ministerial statements. In 304 days of the 32nd Parliament, during which we were in Government, there were 83 ministerial statements.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is the point?


Philip Derek Lewis: The point very simply is this, Mr. Speaker. We are making ministerial statements in the House and not at some university campus so that opposition spokespersons have equal opportunities to reply.
Third, there was an hour's notice. 1 would point out to the House that neither critic responding on behalf of his Party took part in Question Period and, therefore, schedules were not disrupted.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How would you know that?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What a dumb statement.


Philip Derek Lewis: Did they?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If you don't want to have the statement, we can forget it.


Philip Derek Lewis: I think we have tried wherever possible to accommodate our colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I think the point has been made and we should continue and hear the Minister's statement.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) is trying to do is hide behind a facade. This is not an isolated case. This Minister also happens to wear the hat of the Minister of Immigration as well as the hat of the Minister of Employment. On February 20 when he announced changes to the immigration program as it relates to refugees, he pulled off the very same routine. As critic for immigration for my Party I had only one-half hour notice of the statement. The statement was not made in the House of Commons, as the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to indicate. It was made at a press conference on a Friday at 10 o'clock. Not only was there only half an
hour notice but there was not even ample opportunity for the Official Opposition to respond because, by the time the opportunity arose, it was 11 o'clock and time for Question Period in the House. This is not an isolated case on behalf of this Minister and it is not a case where the Opposition is against ministerial statements.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Relax, Maz, Mr. Nice Guy.


Sergio Marchi: What we are trying to tell this Minister and other Ministers is that there needs to be due process and there needs to be ample opportunity for the Official Opposition to respond constructively, as is our responsibility. We are simply not able to do that when we have only 20 or 30 minutes at the most to look over a statement and give a response on behalf of Canadians. That is simply not good enough. It is time the Government began to show some responsibility to the House of Commons and to the traditions that we value.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If this were an isolated case, I do not think members of the Opposition would be upset. However, this has happened time after time. Just last week, a statement was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on equalization. Even the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) did not know what would happen that day.


Philip Derek Lewis: That's incorrect.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You did know?


Philip Derek Lewis: Don't put words in my mouth.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The problem is that on a continuing basis, we are getting very late notice of statements. The fact that it is happening on an Opposition Day is upsetting as well. In addition to that, I believe the Minister is trying to make the statement today because he knows that a committee of the House which has studied this matter for many, many months will be making its report tomorrow, and that is also upsetting.


Mr. Speaker:: Naturally I have listened with care to the interventions that have been made. I think the Hon. Minister would like to respond to the point of order and I will hear the Minister. 1 think the point Hon. Members wished to make has been made and I certainly have heard it. I will now hear the Hon. Minister and perhaps that will be sufficient for the Chair.
[Translation\


Mr. Bouchard:: Mr. Speaker, when I asked for the paper to be distributed, it was 2.15 p.m., which is the beginning of Oral Question Period. The document was distributed. Did it reach my colleagues opposite at 2.18 p.m.? I feel courtesy is not a matter of 30 or 42 seconds. Courtesy is a matter of using the time available. I think Hon. Members have had about an hour
March 18, 1987

to examine the document which happens to be a three-page statement.
Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition, if Hon. Members opposite feel I should have given them 30 minutes more, all I can do is apologize. Now I don't think this has had any impact on ... I had the papers distributed at 2.15 p.m. It is now 3.30 p.m., and there has been no presentation yet. The Leader of the Liberal Party rose at 2.20 p.m.
I repeat, I feel we acted according to the rules, and as the Parliamentary Secretary said, we do our best to try and make statements in the House, but we find that every time the Opposition tries to keep us from doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say it is impossible for the Chair to come down with a satisfactory ruling in a case like this. There is obviously a problem between the Government and the two opposition Parties. It is also clear it has always been the custom and even tradition here in the House to give sufficient notice when a Minister intends to make a statement or a speech in the House. 1 am very unhappy about the situation, but I repeat, it is impossible for the Chair to come up with a satisfactory solution.

Hon. Members have been on both sides of the Chamber. I would urge all government Ministers to give as much notice as possible in cases where the critics have an obligation to respond. This is a completely understandable tradition. It has not always been honoured, and in that regard, perhaps members on both sides of the Chamber in this particular Parliament are not blameless. The Chair has been here for some years. I have certainly heard this complaint before and I have been in a position where I have made the complaint. I know the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will urge members of the Cabinet to make an extra effort to give adequate notice.
For the benefit of members of the public who are watching, the reason for adequate notice is that the critics who must respond to a Minister's statement do require time to think through the implications of the statement and its subject matter, and also for the formulation of a response. A statement by a Minister may be very brief but, nonetheless, a statement is important or it would not be made in the House. I must say that I commend the Government for the fact that it is making a great many statements in the House. That is in the traditions of this place and it is a good thing. However, I would ask Hon. Ministers to remember that the critics of the opposition Parties have their jobs to do too, and in the public interest of Canada, and notice wherever possible ought to be given with as much regard to the courtesies and traditions of this place as possible. Having said that, I hope Hon. Members will accept that the matter is closed. Under the rules, I must hear the Hon. Minister.
Statements by Ministers UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



TREATMENT OF PENSIONS AND SEPARATION PAYMENTS AS EARNINGS-U.I. PROGRAM

Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise Hon. Members of my intention to table, within the next few weeks, a Bill on the treatment of employment pensions and separation payments as earnings under the Unemployment Insurance Program.

Members may recall that on December 5, 1986, I announced this Government's intention to modify the UI legislation dealing with pension earnings. While maintaining the principle that persons who have retired should not use UI as supplementary income, the announcement proposed that workers who take other employment after their retirement and then work long enough to requalify for UI benefits should receive those benefits without any deduction of the previous pension income. The Government will amend the pension regulations to permit this as of April 5, 1987. Moreover, the Bill will permit retroactive requalification back to January 5, 1986.

These changes to the pension legislation are consistent with the Government's belief that persons who have retired from the labour market should not look to unemployment insurance as a supplementary source of income.

However, there is a difference between people who retire and leave the labour market and people who retire and start a new career. The changes I announced on December 5th addressed this difference and will ensure that people who retire and begin subsequent careers are treated fairly and equitably as active members of the labour force.

These changes will ensure that workers who start subsequent careers and contribute to unemployment insurance and subsequently become unemployed will be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits based on their postretirement employment income regardless of their previous pension income.

Madam Speaker, you may also recall that in my announcement of December 5th, the Government noted there were allegations of imprecise information about the implementation of the January 5th, 1986, rules concerning pension income. I said in December-and I have said many times since then- that we would ensure fairness in the implementation of the January 5th provisions.
In December, I proposed that the Government establish a process to re-examine any case where people had alleged that they made their decision to retire on the basis of inaccurate information from federal Government sources.

March 18, 1987
Statements by Ministers

To this end, an administrative procedure and a draft questionnaire were prepared. Upon examination of this procedure, we saw the likelihood of excessive administrative complexity arising. Thus, to eliminate such complexity and the potential for uneven application across the country, the legislation I will table draws a clear and simple line to ensure fairness in the transitional provisions.

The rule is simply this: those who applied for Unemployment Insurance prior to January 5th, 1986-that is to say those who applied under the previous rules-will have their entitlement to benefits determined under the previous rules. Equally straightforward, those who applied for benefits on or after January 5th, 1986, will be governed by the new provisions.
Today, I also wish to address an issue of fairness which has arisen in connection with the treatment of payments on separation. Members will recall that on March 31, 1985, the treatment of payments on separation for unemployment insurance purposes was changed.
Since its introduction, certain employer-employee agreements have sought to take advantage of what can only be described as a "loophole" in the wording of the current UI regulations. The purpose of these arrangements is to circumvent the legislative intention. The Government will change the regulations to close this loophole, to ensure that people will not be able to receive double indemnification, namely receiving separation pay and UI at the same time. These regulatory changes will also become effective April 5, 1987.
The proposed Bill will also permit the extension of both the qualifying and benefit periods when an allocation of separation payments has prevented the payment of UI benefits or has delayed the start of the UI claim. For example, if an allocation of separation pay delays the start of a claim by seven weeks, the qualifying period can be extended by seven weeks. This further measure will, I am sure, receive the approval of all Members of the House.
I call on my hon. colleagues to permit the rapid passage of this Bill so that the Employment and Immigration Commission can commence payment of benefits to all those people affected by this legislation.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, it appears-and I say "appears" because we never know when to trust the Government and because we have not had adequate time to examine this proposal-that the Government has made a complete reversal on the cut which it imposed with respect to unemployment insurance on early retirement pensioners who had applied for unemployment insurance before January 5, 1986. After a year
and a half of questions in this House, demonstrations outside the House, Opposition Days, Statements pursuant to Standing Order 21, and visits to the Minister's office, in short, an onslaught of attack on the Government, it has finally seen the light. The Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming to recognize that the policy which his predecessor introduced a year and a half ago is wrong with regard to those who applied for unemployment insurance after being preretired before January 5, 1986.
This gives credit to those many groups across the country including Action Chomage in Montreal, the associations of retired people from the Armed Forces and the RCMP, and people who were retired from many companies throughout the country and who were cut back by the savage action of the Government. Their persistent action has proven that when they are right and persist they can win over a government which does not really know what it is doing or where it is going. I give credit to those groups which continued this battle, just like those who continued to battle against the Government when it tried to deindex old age pensions. They fought and fought and made the Government reverse its position. We have once again been able to do this and I thank God for those who kept up the battle against this ridiculous and unjust policy.
We will have to watch the implementation of this policy because I am always doubtful when I listen to the words of any Minister on the other side. They very often say one thing and end up doing the very opposite. My earlier comments relate to those who took early retirement pensions before January 5, 1986.
With regard to those who were forced to take early retirement pensions after January 5, 1986, the policy is still unacceptable. The Minister has not changed it one iota, and in this respect he contradicts his own principles and policies. In this case he is saying that those who were obliged to take early retirement pensions after January 5, 1986, will not qualify for unemployment insurance because of those early retirement pensions, even though they are still in the labour force or still looking for work. They must find another job and if they get laid off from that second job they will qualify for unemployment insurance.
Why should that take place? Ever since unemployment insurance was established people who were laid off or forced to take early retirement in those circumstances got their unemployment insurance as long as they wished to continue in the labour market. There is no rationale now and there was none a year or a year and a half ago to change that. Many of these people live in parts of Canada where they will never be able to get a second job even if they want to. Therefore, they are denied unemployment insurance although they made contributions all those years.
Many of these people accept early retirement pensions because they have little or no alternative. Firms decide to cut back on the number of its employees and can either lay them off directly or devise a plan of early retirement to offer to the workers. The workers know that their only real choice is to
March 18, 1987

take the early retirement pension. Many of those people are in their 50s, still have children in university or college, and have to pay their mortgages. They are cut off from unemployment insurance which they paid for and would have received under the rules which were in force for a long time in this country. They are forced to get another job and requalify before they can get any unemployment insurance benefits. That is completely unacceptable, Madam Speaker. I will urge the people who are brutally hurt by that measure to continue their battle, as their colleagues who retired prior to January 5 have done.
There is a third part to the statement made today and it is with regard to severance payments. The Minister found out that certain groups of workers, certain unions and so on, were able to circumvent the measure he implemented over a year ago to deduct severance pay from the reception of unemployment insurance benefits. As a matter of fact, the Government of Ontario introduced legislation to overcome what the Minister tried to do. The Minister is now introducing new laws and regulations to try to ding the workers who are receiving severance pay because they are being laid off early in life, which severance pay they would use to retrain themselves, relocate, start a business or, in general, set themselves up again.
The Government of Ontario tried to help the employees at Otis Elevator in Hamilton who were being laid off. The Minister is now going to take that away from them by filling in the loophole and trying to overcome the Ontario legislation. Madam Speaker, we won a victory on the first measure. However, the Minister is still being obstinate and inconsiderate with respect to the other two measures. We will continue to fight him on those to the very end.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, did the Minister rush in with this statement at 2.15 today because he knows that the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration will be bringing down its report in response to the Forget Commission tomorrow? Perhaps he believed he would be embarrassed by some of the recommendations contained in that standing committee report.
In November, 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced in this House that pension income, severance pay and holiday pay would be considered as earned income. That was the principle enunciated in November, 1984. There was great opposition to that across the country. Thousands of Canadians opposed that particular change. In response to that, the Government set up the Forget Commission to study the unemployment insurance program and consider the pension income issue. Forget concluded that the Government was wrong-headed in doing it in the way in which it did, that the Government did not give adequate notice.
Forget did not disagree with the principle that pension income was earned income. He supported the Government on that principle. However, he said, in effect, to let it start on January 5, 1989, and pay unemployment insurance benefits to
Statements by Ministers
those who qualified previously. What did the Government do? The Minister stood up in the House on December 5 and compounded the confusion. He said he would send out a questionnaire. People who had taken an early retirement and applied for unemployment insurance benefits had to go down to the local offices and fill out the questionnaire. He now admits that it was very complex, very confusing, very bureaucratic, highly unacceptable and obviously very costly.
The Minister is saying now that if someone takes early retirement, gets a second job and is laid off, that person can collect unemployment insurance benefits while collecting the pension at the same time. The Government has abandoned the principle that pension income is earned income.
Now the Minister is relying on a principle that unemployment insurance benefits cannot be used to supplement pension income. That is not the argument. The argument is that those who are available for work, are capable of work and are looking for work should be able to collect unemployment insurance benefits for which they have paid premiums. In fact, if the Government had a proper job-search program it could sort out those who are not looking for work, available for work and capable of working.
The Minister's response in his statement today only goes part way. It is absolutely unfair. The Minister had a golden opportunity to wipe the slate clean and begin again, using the job-search provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that people get what is due them under the Unemployment Insurance Program.
The Minister's statement also dealt with the severance pay. I believe the Minister is referring to Regulation 58(10) of the Unemployment Insurance regulations, which was a loophole discovered by the Steelworkers of America vis-a-vis the Collingwood shipyards. The Province of Ontario has already passed legislation stating in effect that one can only lose two weeks of unemployment insurance benefits on severance pay. The Government has not challenged the constitutional right of Ontario to pass legislation which affects a federal Act. Workers in the Province of Ontario who receive severance pay can only lose two weeks, but in other parts of the country the whole severance pay is used as earnings and applied against unemployment insurance. That is unfair.
The Minister had another golden opportunity to say that severance pay will not be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes. Instead, the Minister believes he is giving something to people who lose their jobs when he says that he will allow the allocation if the severance pay reduces the weeks of collecting benefits, because it can be added at the end. However, if a worker receives $10,000 in severance pay, that is almost a whole year of benefits and it is not considered insured earnings. Therefore he cannot qualify because he does not have 20 weeks in the previous 52 weeks. It is not insured earnings.

March 18, 1987
Interparliamentary Delegation Report Mr. Bouchard: Yes.


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister does not understand the Act and I suggest that he read it. It is not insured earnings. Therefore premiums are not deducted from it. Since there are not 20 insured weeks of earnings in the previous 52 weeks, a new claim cannot be established. Therefore, the worker loses, and in some cases his benefits are reduced.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, this is going to be very straightforward. Our 35,000 early retirees have just won a splendid victory, no thanks to the Conservative Government. They had to work hard for it. And as for the next 75,000, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please! The Hon. Member knows perfectly well he is starting debate, not raising a point of order.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the fifteenth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement this day's sitting will be extended by 18 minutes.