1987-01-30

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in an article written today in Le Devoir and signed by Michel Vastel, we read this statement:
According to experts involved in the Bissonnette and Stevens affairs, the Tories have turned patronage into a system.
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian man and woman who will be reading that article today, and I invite them to do so, will discover not just this rampant patronage situation but also the degree of corruption in which the government is wallowing.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to comments made by business leaders and businessmen to reporter Michel Vastel of Le Devoir, I can confirm that in my riding I have business leaders who have told me just as much.
Mr. Speaker, there are honest Members. I invite all Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat MPs to urge the Prime Minister of Canada to put a stop to that dishonest and hateful practice here on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa.


IMPORTANCE OF CO-OPERATION BETWEEN PRIVATE SECTOR AND DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the 1987 world speed-skating championships for men and women will be held in my riding at the Gaetan Boucher rink in Sainte-Foy.
Yesterday, I was able to meet with athletes from the seventeen countries represented at the championships. I also met the famous Gaetan Boucher from Sainte-Foy.
This event will be televised worldwide and give millions of people a look at Quebec and Canada. This should have a major impact on tourism.
In conclusion, I also wish to mention the important contribution of the private sector towards financing these championships. Here we see once again the vital co-operation between the private sector and the various levels of government which makes such events a success.
1 also wish all the athletes good luck and a pleasant stay here in Canada.


ABORTION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has advised the Government that access to abortion services in Canada has deteriorated to the point of crisis.
The lack of abortion services in Canada is becoming one of the major issues affecting women's lives. In 1984, of the 244 hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees, 18 per cent did not perform abortions while another 24 per cent performed very few.
Women of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have no access to abortion services in their provinces. In Alberta women must travel long distances and pay large sums of money in order to obtain a service to which they are entitled under our law. The burden falls most heavily on rural and low-income women.
In British Columbia the situation has become highly charged because of a Premier who is intent on imposing his personal views against abortion on British Columbia women, despite our present law.
I urge the Government to heed the three advisory council recommendations: that abortion is a medical procedure that need not be performed in a hospital; that federal and provincial Ministers of Health should approve publicly funded, free standing, reproductive health clinics; and that abortion be removed from the Criminal Code.

January 30, 1987


MINES AND MINING
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, our resource industries in Canada have been under fire and pressure for several years. It is often stated that they cannot be depended on for our economic development in the future. However, Canada leads the world in the production of many minerals and the technology to mine them safely.
Mining and processing contributed over $15 billion to our GNP, nearly 80 per cent in foreign exchange last year, and all this in spite of extreme international competition and uncertainties in the markets.
The Mining Association of Canada, representing over 70 companies and 110,000 workers, expressed optimism in its annual review recently published.
Canada will retain its position among the world's largest and lowest cost producers. Growth will be fuelled by new discoveries and new mine developments. We will continue to enjoy the reputation as a stable source of supply, which our foreign markets demand.
The Mining Association of Canada is encouraging better coordination and more co-operation among educational institutions, governments, and industry to reach this goal. Such efforts will brighten the future of our mineral industry, of the people who work in it, and all Canadians. Our Government is committed to sharing in this effort.


AIDS DISEASE-SUPPORT URGED FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, AIDS is the most serious health problem facing the country, and the two-pronged approach to eliminating it must include education as well as research. That is why I was so shocked earlier this week when the Premier of British Columbia stated that he felt the best approach was abstinence, and proceeded to suggest that contraceptive education be taken out of the school system.
To his voice was added the voice of the Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) who suggested that the Ontario Government, in embarking upon a public education program in the schools to prevent this life-threatening disease, was in fact contributing to deviant behaviour.
The Government is sending out mixed messages because this week a public education program on AIDS was announced. That program will only spend $600,000 this year and $800,000 next year, at a time when the United Kingdom is spending up to $50 million for education about AIDS.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to clarify that his position and that of his Government is
not the position taken by the Member for London East who naively suggests that the Government of Ontario is guilty of contributing to deviant behaviour by asking for public education in the schools to prevent AIDS.


SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, since the trespassing of our waters in August, 1985, by the American Polar Sea, our Government has acted to reclaim our sovereignty.
From the announcement on September 10, 1985, to build a Canadian Arctic class 8 ice-breaker, our Government has acted to provide this sovereignty platform in the Arctic.
Canadians should know that this escort type multi-mission vessel is no ordinary ship. The design specifications are beyond the Beaufort type design and will ensure its ability to go where no ship has gone before. It will carry out scientific studies, escort missions, emergency and logistical support to our remote communities, and provide surveillance of Arctic shipping.
Clearly this initiative will lead to new Canadian shipbuilding technology and new shipping patterns, and this leadership can only enhance our position with our Arctic neighbours.
The Americans have not abandoned the Arctic. Last fall their Congress approved funds for additional ice-breakers. However, we are not standing by. Our ship, the most powerful ice-breaker in the world, will stand for Canada in the Arctic.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of Judy Erola, the former Liberal Cabinet Minister responsible for setting up the Eastman Commission on Drug Patent Law, as president of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, is significant new evidence that the Liberal Party and Liberal caucus are only half-hearted in their opposition to the Tory drug patent changes, acting in response to New Democratic Party leadership on this issue rather than out of any real conviction.
When a prominent and currently active Liberal like Judy Erola signs up to speak for the very people who oppose the position her Party is taking in the House of Commons, it does not take a genius to figure out that the Liberal stance on this
January 30, 1987

issue is mostly pretence rather than substance. But then it was the Liberals who first contemplated making generic drugs more difficult to get, was it not?
Perhaps the substantial financial contributions made by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association to both the federal Conservative Party and the federal Liberal Party explain not only the Tory position but the luke-warm opposition of the Liberals as well.

[Translation}


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bank of Canada announced another drop in the bank rate which is now below 7.5 per cent, the lowest it has been since 1973. A drop in the bank rate means that Canada is doing well. And that, because our Government has cut its borrowing needs, reduced pressure on the money markets and increased the confidence of business people and Canadians through its growing control over the deficit.
If we did not have to service and reimburse our national debt of $240 billion which the Liberals spent with the approval of the socialists, our bank rate would be even lower. Canadians would be paying even less for family mortgages, rent and car loans, and business people would be able to borrow money at even lower rates to set up new businesses. Every time the bank rate goes down, it is because Canadians understand our message for prosperity. Every time the bank rate goes down, it costs Canadians less for credit card payments, cars and homes.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Cloverdale Park on the West Island of Montreal, in the riding of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner), should not have to pay for the mistakes of the Government. On Monday the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be visiting Cloverdale Park. Some
2,000	residents feel abandoned by the Government because it cancelled an annual subsidy of over $900,000, which allowed the sale of Cloverdale Park to a private developer.
Senior citizens, single mothers, and welfare recipients fear they will be forced to leave their homes because of massive rent increases. I call on the Minister to accept in full the demands of the residents; first, to maintain subsidies for lowincome families; second, to guarantee that rent increases will not exceed inflation and, third, to set aside moneys saved from the cancelled subsidy to help these residents form a housing cooperative.
In addition, the residents have called for a full public inquiry and I think that this is the only way to answer many disturbing questions raised by this sale.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the so-called Liberal factfinding mission visiting Atlantic Canada. The Liberals are trying to find the facts governing Canada's international fishing obligations to France. Well, it is too late. They were in government in 1972 and 1982 when their Government made deals with France. That was the time to determine the facts. It is the effect of the deals which granted France unlimited access to Canadian fish stocks that the present Government is trying to avoid. The lobster is out of the trap and the Liberals are left behind. Yesterday, this inquiry of theirs consisted of a one-man comedy act with the performer being the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) grandstanding.
S)
If the Liberals were interested in this issue they would have stayed until the conclusion of the emergency debate earlier this week.
The present Government of Canada wants the boundary issue resolved by an international tribunal, and it wants to curtail France's fishing efforts. Nothing-absolutely nothing-has been given away. In fact, in 1987 France's fishing rights will be half of its 1986 rights, a position supported by writers today in The Gazette of Montreal and The Globe and Mail.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Beef in British Columbia is a Canadian publication issued by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association dealing exclusively with issues relating to the cattle-ranching industry. The Association has applied and re-applied for second-class mailing status to the federal Government's postal corporation but to no avail. The Association has been turned down time and time again.

January 30, 1987
Oral Questions
We now learn that foreign publications, specifically soft-porn girlie magazines such as Penthouse, Hustler and Playboy receive preferred second-class mail classification status.
The Government's postal corporation discriminates against professional publications such as this, and also against religious publications such as the Presbyterian Record and The United Church Observer, yet gives preferential status to girlie magazines. On this issue the Cabinet should intervene and ensure that, if not a better postal rate, then publications such as Beef in British Columbia should receive at least the same rate as Playboy.


TARIFFS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Christmas tree growers from Quebec, Ontario, and the maritime provinces recently gathered on Parliament Hill to protest the imposition of a 30 per cent tariff on imports of U.S. Christmas trees into Canada. The growers fear that if this tariff is not removed the U.S. will retaliate, causing economic hardship to thousands of Canadians involved in Canada's $90 million Christmas tree export industry.
After their demonstration they met with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), but I am told that the Minister did not understand and that the Government will not remove this counter-productive tariff.
This ill-conceived tariff should be eliminated immediately. The Government is sacrificing an important Canadian industry and important Canadian jobs. This approach is counterproductive and extremely unfair to Canada's Christmas tree growers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by asking whether the Government has resigned, considering that only eight or nine of 40 Ministers are in attendance for the Oral Question Period.


Mr. Beatty:: Where is John Turner?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He is not in the Government, you are.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Official Opposition request for a public judicial inquiry into
the Oerlikon affair has rallied strong support from a huge number of editorial writers throughout the country, and serious-minded journalists have reported statements by businessmen who are quite familiar with the Government's toll-gating pay-off scheme. A criminal investigation into the conduct of a Minister and his cronies does not extend to major pay-off issues, so I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he not realize that the RCMP probe is too restricted and, now that the scheme is headlined in all newspapers, is he not prepared to give us that public inquiry?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Hon. Member had to withdraw and retract some allegations that he made in this House. Here again he is trying to suggest other forms of innuendo and smear.
However, to get to the base of his question, that has been answered on many occasions. The senior law officers of the Crown have indicated in their best wisdom that it would be inappropriate to run a parallel judicial inquiry while an RCMP investigation is being undertaken. Legal experts across the country are of the same opinion. Even one year ago the Hon. Member himself and his Leader were opposed to the commissioning of a commission of inquiry to investigate these sorts of matters. At that time they were recommending a parliamentary committee.
So, given that assortment of support for the route that the Government has taken, we believe that the Government has chosen the right course of action.


REQUEST THAT RCMP INQUIRY BE ENLARGED
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Against our views, and the views of all the editorialists and journalists, if the Government is determined to limit the inquiry of the RCMP investigation I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. The inquiry announced by the Prime Minister in the press release on January 18 refers only to a complete investigation into the property transactions in the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu area linked to the Oerlikon plant. Will the Minister enlarge the inquiry to look at all of the questions relating to the allocation of the Oerlikon contract, including the fact that there are three friends of the Government working in that Oerlikon contract, and to all the circumstances that have been revealed in the House over the last two weeks?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I find it incredible that the Hon. Member does not read his own mail. The Commissioner of the RCMP, in response to a letter that the Hon. Member directed to the Commissioner, replied, and I quote in part:
-confirm to you that my instructions to our investigators are that they are to examine all aspects, direct and peripheral, of that transaction, to determine if there are violations of the law that should be placed before a court for consideration.
January 30, 1987

It further states:
-should we come across activity that might be considered unpropitious to good government, even though short of provable criminal conduct, on the part of senior officials, elected or otherwise, it is our responsibility to make our concerns knownin the usual manner.


AWARDING OF CONTRACT TO OERL1KON
Robert Phillip Kaplan: That letter made it clear that the Commissioner's primary objective was to investigate land transactions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If that is the opinion of the caucus, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if it is his understanding that the RCMP is now authorized to examine aspects of the Oerlikon contract that have been the subject of questioning and criticism in the House?


Henry Perrin Beatty: wonder if the Hon, Member is aware of the interview given by his colleague, the Hon. Member for Sudbury, who is the defence critic of the Official Opposition, on Question Period on CTV last Sunday where he was asked the question: "Do you have any reason to believe, apart from the land scam itself, that there was anything questionable about the tendering process for the defence contract?" The response was: "No, I do not, Alan. I do know that there have been stories that the competitors also felt that it was a fair process in terms of how the bids came about."


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO OERLIKON AFFAIR
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it too relates to the Conservative Government code of ethics.
According to a January 1985 Globe and Mail report an advertising contract had been awarded to Mr. Roger Nantel, a friend of the Prime Minister, on condition that some of the profits be paid into Progressive Conservative Party coffers. In his May 24, 1986 article Mr. Pierre O'Neil referred to the existence of a 5 per cent kick-back scheme, and again today we see a similar article in Le Devoir. Will the Government now set up a commission of inquiry into the whole Oerlikon affair? If not I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government has to hide in this affair.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Government has absolutely nothing to hide. I wish to say to the Hon. Member that my understanding is that Mr. Nantel was quoted as saying if he was good enough to work for a Liberal Government, he surely should be good enough to work for a Conservative Government.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing funny about public sector ethics.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HIRING OF PROJECT MANAGER
Don Boudria: My
supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister is again concerning the ethics of the Government.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why it is that Mr. Dugald Buchanan, an engineer with the Urban Transit Development Corporation, was dumped after being hired as a project manager for Oerlikon in favour of Peter Ohrt, a friend of the Prime Minister? Is there not something wrong when qualified people lose their jobs to unqualified friends of the Prime Minister? Does this not prove that there is something wrong with this whole sordid affair, and that we need a public inquiry, and we need it now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The only thing that is untoward about this whole mess is the reckless way in which Hon. Members cast innuendo-


Don Boudria: I have the letter in my hand.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -innuendo, smear, and suspicion, and there is certainly nothing funny about that.


FORESTRY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns reports today of a study done by the Canadian Forestry Service which shows that the growth in the Canadian coniferous forests has been reduced by one-third as a result of acid rain. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that we have just gone through a major negotiation with the United States in respect of our softwood lumber industry. Would the Government be prepared to try to re-open that negotiation on the basis of the new evidence that not only is the United States doing damage to our lumber industry with respect to trade barriers, et cetera, but it is also doing damage to our industry with respect to its continuing inaction on the problem of acid rain? I am wondering whether on that basis the Government is considering re-opening negotiations with the United States on softwood lumber.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I

January 30, 1987
Oral Questions
thank the Hon. Member for his question. The report referred to in The Globe and Mail this morning is a preliminary release which was made public last March. It points out that there have been some problems in growth in the forests. However, when we look into it, it could be from many other causes. It could be due to spruce budworm. It could be due to climatic problems. When the study is completed, I think we will find that we will be better able to assess the matter.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I hope the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is not doing a Ronald Reagan on us and trying to tell us that these trees are not growing because the climate is cold in Canada, or something like that.


FORTHCOMING CANADA-UNITED STATES SUMMIT MEETING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my matter to the Deputy Prime Minister because it is a major bilateral question between Canada and the United States. It is something for which the Government should answer, with all due respect, and not a Parliamentary Secretary.
Does the Government not realize that the acid rain question is also a dimension of the debate about softwood lumber and a very important aspect in Canada-U.S. relations? Does the Government not realize that Canada cannot afford to fail in getting the United States to act on acid rain? What does the Government intend to do, either in respect of softwood lumber, or in respect of the larger question of what the Government of Canada will be asking of the United States of America when the summit comes up in April?
Hun. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, of course the Government considers the matter of acid rain very seriously. That was the subject of discussions with the Vice-President of the United States last week. Acid rain is and continues to be a high priority. We have expressed our disappointment with the United States in terms of the speed with which it is addressing the problem. I think the message has been heard loud and clear and will continue to be a subject of bilateral discussions, including the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States when they meet in April.


TRADE NEGOTIATIONS INQUIRY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would answer the question about softwood lumber and whether the Government of Canada will make an attempt to connect these two issues in its discussions with the United States. Surely it is very hard to talk about the health of the economy of any particular sector without talking about the environmental basis on which that particular sector exists. Acid rain very much affects forestry in that respect. Will the Government be seeking to re-open negotiations in respect of softwood lumber on the basis of acid rain, either immediately or when President Reagan visits Canada in April?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course trade will be among the top priorities as well in the discussions which will be going on and in the ongoing bilateral discussions respecting our desire to achieve a comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States. We are very pleased with the fact that we have registered the importance of this achievement in the minds of the United States, particularly in the minds of legislators, including the President.
I sense that what the Hon. Member is suggesting is that he is now seeing some value in these talks. Throughout the course of these discussions I think that sort of linkage could in fact be made. However, it is certainly part and parcel of the very important ongoing bilateral discussions. Certainly one of those aspects is the desire for Canada and the United States to achieve a comprehensive trade arrangement which would be good for Canadians, good for jobs, and good for the economy.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday he said that Newfoundlanders were angry because of a little mix-up in telephone calls. The Deputy Prime Minister should know that Newfoundlanders are angry because of this bad deal between Canada and France. Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that an apology is no excuse for this bad deal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Members opposite were pressing me for an apology and I indicated that I did apologize. I would also like to say that 1 have had discussions with the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, Premier Peckford. Officials and the Minister of Transport are in Newfoundland today in St. John's, if the snowstorm did not prevent them from landing there, to discuss this and other related matters with regard to the desire to resolve a dispute which has existed for many, many years. While the opposition has been very critical of the process we have established, Opposition Members have certainly not come up with any alternatives, other than the suggestion coming from the New Democratic Party that we should go to war.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CANCEL AGREEMENT
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has said that this deal is not good enough. The Premier of Newfoundland does not agree with this deal. The fishermen of Newfoundland, whose livelihoods are affected by this deal, say it is not good enough. Will the Deputy Prime Minister have the Government tear up this bad diplomatic deal and replace it with an agreement that will be
January 30, 1987

accepted domestically by Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the course of action that was taken and the proposal offered was made with the best intentions and in the best interests of Newfoundland, the Atlantic provinces and, indeed, all of Canada. Our desire is to try to achieve an arrangement and a settlement that will be in the interests of all Atlantic Canadians and all Canadians.


ATTENDANCE AT FINAL NEGOTIATIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister just indicated that, indeed, at the urging of the Minister of Transport he did apologize yesterday to the Premier of Newfoundland. During his response he indicated that there had been an inadvertent breakdown in communications. Yesterday morning, the Minister of Fisheries on a television program indicated that the decision to exclude the Government of Newfoundland, the fishermen, and the fishing industry from the final negotiations was as a result of France demanding it. What is the answer to this question? Did France demand the exclusion, or was there a breakdown in communications at the official level?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would check the transcript I think he would find that the word demand was not used on that program to which he refers. In fact, when officials of two Governments decide to get together to sit down and sign or initial an agreement on the basis of many negotiations and discussions which have preceded that occasion, if one party or the other requests that only certain persons be present, from a diplomatic perspective I think it is only appropriate that the other party comply. At the same time perhaps Hon. Members could recognize that this agreement is merely an agreement to negotiate two parallel agreements by the end of 1987, both of which will bring substantial benefit to the fishermen and the people of Atlantic Canada.


POSITION OF FRENCH GOVERNMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Reports from his Atlantic Canada Regional Advisory Council have indicated that the Government of France, in a sense, demanded that the Government of Newfoundland, the fishing industry, and the fishermen involved be excluded from any final negotiations and that the agreement simply be made between the Government of Canada and the Government of France. Was it France's request that these major players, the people on the receiving end of this decision in a negative way, be excluded, and the Government of Canada agreed to that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have no evidence nor am I responsible for the diplomatic relations between our two countries to the effect
Oral Questions
that any demands, to use that term, were made by France in this matter.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in charge of Canada Post said it in this House yesterday:
The Canada Post Corporation has advised me that it has no intention of closing any rural post offices in Canada.
Any reasonable person would assume from that statement that there will be no closings of any post office buildings nor any reduction in the numbers of postmasters and postmistresses in Canada. If Canada Post told the Minister that yesterday, could the Minister answering for Canada Post today tell us why Canada Post Corporation is telling everyone else today that it intends to go ahead with the closure of 3,500 post offices and intends to pass them over to local businessmen to operate as franchises? Was the Minister playing post office with rural Canadians yesterday? If he was, he will get no kisses for that type of deception.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement made in the House yesterday by the Minister responsible for Canada Post stands on its own. There will not be wholesale closings or changes made in rural structures or closings of rural post offices. What the Minister has put in place over a 10-year period is a system of consulation which will require Canada Post Corporation to advise the Minister of any plans, and to advise the local Member of Parliament so that consultations with respect to options that are available can be considered.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, with answers like that, he is sure to make the Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STANDARD OF SERVICE
George Baker: Let me ask the
Parliamentary Secretary in all seriousness another question. Can the Member or any Member in this House imagine being on welfare, on Canada Pension disability, or as a veteran having to walk into a local businessman's shop to ask for his Government cheque over the counter when at certain times of the year he perhaps owes half of that cheque to the local businessman-and that is only part of the story? Does the Parliamentary Secretary believe that a part-time businessman can offer the type of dependable and dedicated service that is given by our post masters and postmistresses?

January 30, 1987
Oral Questions


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I think I can only repeat what I said a moment or so ago. There will be no wholesale or rampant rush to achieve what the Hon. Member is so afraid of. Let me reassure the Hon. Member that that is not going to happen.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can he confirm the information that we received from court officials in St. Jean-sur-Richelieu yesterday, namely, that as of yesterday afternoon no such warrants have been executed in the Saint Jean area in connection with the RCMP's investigation of the Oerlikon affair? Will the Minister explain why after two weeks the RCMP does not seem to have taken the basic step in a police investigation? Is this delay what the Prime Minister meant when he said on January 19 that the RCMP investigation would be carried out "immediately and urgently"?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is inviting me to interfere with the RCMP investigation or not. I cannot confirm or deny that particular statement. That is a matter strictly within the hands of the RCMP, and the Hon. Member should know that.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OFTWO-WEEK DELAY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister stems from the fact that a two-week delay is ample time for people to destroy documents which could jeopardize their reputation. Since it is unthinkable that the RCMP should wait two weeks before starting its investigation, if it is planning to act with the swiftness promised by the Prime Minister, does this delay exist because the RCMP is reluctant to get involved in a primarily political matter, or is it because the Government has given explicit instructions to slow down the investigation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has some complaint about the way in which the RCMP is discharging its duties and responsibilities, let him make the complaint directly to the RCMP.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am making it to you.


FISHERIES
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Much has been misreported about the nature of France's fishing rights in Atlantic Canadian waters. Can the Minister tell the House the legal basis for France's fishing effort, and when those rights accrued?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that the legal rights for France's fishing effort in Canadian waters flow from history-A treaty which a previous Liberal Government signed with France in 1972; a long-term agreement entered into by a previous Liberal Government with the European Community, including France, in 1982, and an exchange of diplomatic notes entered into by the previous Liberal Government which turned a blind eye to blatant French overfishing in the disputed zone south of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
In 1987 French cod quotas in Canadian waters are to be reduced to half of what they were last year, making a total reduction of 14,000 tonnes, because this Government refuses to continue those kinds of special arrangements which Liberal Governments propagated over the years.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL SEA PRODUCTS
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the president of National Sea Products has indicated that this arrangement is somehow of special benefit to the Province of Quebec and was designed to garner votes for this Government in that province. Can the Minister outline to the House his opinion of this allegation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think that type of allegation is scurrilous and regrettable, and that the president of National Sea Products should pay attention to operating his company.
I repeat the commitment I made in this House during the debate on Wednesday evening on the matter of what the price should be to resolve, once and for all, this important boundary dispute. As reported at page 2811 of Hansard, I said the following:
Our commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that any price which is too high for Newfoundland and Labrador is too high for Canada.
It is high time that all these armchair experts came up with alternative recommendations as Mr. Jeffrey Simpson has suggested this morning, rather than carping and criticizing.
January 30, 1987


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: In the
absence of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The media have reported this morning that "there is a running battle between Anglophones and Francophones in the RCMP". On several occasions I have warned this Government that the RCMP was sitting on a powder keg in the area of official languages.
In a recent letter to Commissioner Simmonds, the Commander in chief of the RCMP in Quebec wrote: "The feeling expressed is one of rejection of the Francophones on the part of the Anglophone majority." A little further, he wrote: "Francophones' participation in the RCMP is marginal."
Instead of allowing this situation to deteriorate, what is the Government going to do today to rectify it?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this is a matter that falls under the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board. He is not in the House today. I would be pleased to take the Hon. Member's question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister early next week.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time. We have brought this situation to the Government's attention for at least the past four or five months. We have insisted that this is a dangerous situation. Committee members from the Government side even have emphasized that an explosive situation exists within the RCMP. Highly serious comments have been made about this by Hon. Members from both sides of the House. What is the Government going to do today? Will it give the House the assurance that it will put an end to these utterly unacceptable situations which exist within the RCMP?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand very clearly the concern the Hon. Member has expressed. He knows very well that the President of the Treasury Board is very concerned about this matter and is very much seized with the issue. He is working on a response to it, and I am sure that when he is back in the House next week he will be able to make some comments in response to the concerns the Hon. Member just raised.
Oral Questions BANKS AND BANKING


CHARTERED BANKS' INTEREST RATES-SPREAD BETWEEN BANK AND PRIME RATE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday's welcome drop in the bank rate has meant that as of this morning-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: To that good side there is also a flip side. The spread between the bank rate and the prime rate is one-quarter of a percentage point wider now than it was a few days ago, and more than two and a half times wider than it was a year ago. The implications of this are obvious and serious. In view of all this, what moral suasion or other action is open to the Government to induce the banks to narrow the spread between these two rates in order to bring greater benefits to Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has observed, the bank rate is at the lowest level it has been in 13 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That will obviously lead to more housing starts and more job creation and it is clearly the result of the economic policies that this Government has followed and will continue to follow, to ensure that this record is continued.
The Hon. Member has pointed out that the spread between the prime rate and the bank rate has widened. I should point out that today's rate is about average or perhaps a little higher than average, but the spread has been between one-quarter of 1 per cent and a little over 2.5 per cent in the course of the past little while. We are watching this and hope that competitive pressures in the market-place will respond by narrowing that spread. It is something on which we are keeping an eye, and I very much appreciate the Hon. Member raising the question.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is meant to be helpful to the Minister of Transport, VIA Rail, and all of Canada. Every year for nine years now, announcements from six or seven successive Ministers of Transport have been made about the ordering of new passenger rail cars. I have been advised repeatedly that the road-block is the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board. Will the Minister of Finance see to it that funds are appropriated immediately on a staged basis for the immediate ordering and purchasing of at least 130 new rail

January 30, 1987
Oral Questions
passenger cars so that we may put men in Ontario and Quebec to work building them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the interest the Hon. Member is showing in this matter. I will discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, when he returns next week.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, again we have a situation in which a Socialist must teach a Conservative something about sound business practices.


COST OF REPAIRING ROLLING STOCK
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers have already given VIA Rail more money to keep those cars repaired and refurbished than what the new cars would have cost. Would the Minister quit bleeding the taxpayers' money, quit throwing good money after bad and provide the funds for the purchase of new cars? The savings in operating and maintenance costs alone would recover the cost of those new cars in about six or seven years.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand very clearly what the Hon. Member is saying about sound business practices. That is what this Government is following. That is why interest rates are down to the lowest level they have been at in 13 years. That is why 666,000 jobs have been created in the past two and a half years. That is why we have seen over 200,000 housing starts over the past six or seven months. Things are going pretty well here, but I appreciate the concern that the Hon. Member has raised today and I will raise it with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, when I see him next.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: In
the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
We have learned this morning that the Supreme Court of Canada has unfortunately refused to hear the case of early retirees. The House will know that, in December, the Minister of Employment and Immigration met with representatives of the ARSAC group which represents the 35,000 Canadian retirees whose unemployment insurance benefits have been cut. These people, who unfortunately cannot allege close relationship with the Prime Minister as his friends do and who cannot contribute to the secret fund, would like to know when the Government intends to introduce a bill to reimburse the
35,000	early retirees who were unfairly penalized on January 5, 1986.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: In the
absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is attending a Federal-Provincial conference with his provincial counterparts, Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question raised by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). Since he seems to be unaware of it, however, may I tell him that all Canadian early retirees, wherever they may live in this country, can have free access to and conversation with their elected representatives without any constraint whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, any claim to the contrary is simply unfounded.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO REIMBURSE EARLY RETIREES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The junior Minister from Sherbrooke who has just answered a question is not familiar with the system.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Who in the House determines the order in which bills are tabled? Is it the Deputy Prime Minister or the junior Minister of State from Sherbrooke? Can the Deputy Prime Minister say when the bill to reimburse the 35,000 early retirees will be tabled in the House?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, to use the same term as the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, the young junior Minister from the Sherbrooke constituency deeply regrets the tone of the Hon. Member's questions. Admittedly, it is well in keeping with the tone which has prevailed these last few weeks. To be objective and to serve the people who sent us to Ottawa, I shall simply repeat that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, is now attending the Federal-Provincial Conference. I shall respectfully refer the question to him, and he will doubtless wish to reply to it.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the Post Office. I will direct it either to the Deputy Prime Minister or to whomever will answer on behalf of the Post Office today.
The Canada Lutheran has been denied second-class mailing privileges. The Post Office deemed that Canada Lutheran did not have enough religious content. Such magazines as Beef in
January 30, 1987

B.C., Status of Women News and Radio Guide have also been denied second-class mailing privileges.
Can the Government explain why Penthouse, Hustler, Playboy and other soft porn magazines have their mailing costs subsidized by Canadian taxpayers while a church magazine such as Canada Lutheran is denied that subsidy?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the broad area raised by the Member is under serious review and consideration. Due to the importance of the question, will he allow me to bring it to the attention of the Minister so that he can reply more fully upon his return next week?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, that answer is totally unacceptable. Through its post office policy the Government is subsidizing soft porn magazines while denying church magazines that same privilege.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE CONDUCT CROSS-COUNTRY HEARINGS
Simon Leendert de Jong: I will address my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Conservative Party not allow the parliamentary committee on the Post Office to travel across the country to hear the criticisms and suggestions of Canadians in order that, through a consensus process, we can develop a plan for the Post Office which Canadians want? Canadians do not want Penthouse and Hustler to be subsidized while church magazines are not subsidized. Canadians do not want superboxes, and they do not want contracting out of rural services. Allow the parliamentary committee to travel.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary undertook to get back to the Hon. Member with regard to the first part of his question. With regard to the second part, there is a process which is normally followed for committee proceedings.


Simon Leendert de Jong: They were muzzled. They won't even meet.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: These issues are decided at the steering committee level. All items which Members want to pursue at the respective standing committees are considered there. If the Member feels strongly about this particular issue, he should follow that course.
Oral Questions


DAY CARE CENTRES
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Budget which will be brought down in February will reflect the real priorities of this Government. I would therefore like the Minister of Finance to tell us whether his Budget will take into account the urgent situation of day care centres and include a special fund for day care. Can Canadians expect new fund allocations in this Budget to meet the pressing needs for day care centres?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite aware that I am not able to disclose what might or might not be in a Budget. I am sure she is very much aware of the efforts which have been made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women. We are consulting the provinces and private sector groups to try to develop a national program on child care. This work will proceed.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT'S PROVISION OF FUNDS TO ESTABLISH HIGH QUALITY DAY CARE SERVICES
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister for the Status of Women.
We all recall that the Minister needed only a few days to come to the assistance of the failing banks last year.
Can the Minister now tell us how long Canadian families will have to wait before the required funds are provided to develop quality day care services?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, has made a very active commitment to day care. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that there will be a commitment by this June. After 25 years of total inaction by the previous Government, this is commendable.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration refused to accept my request and that of two other Members to withdraw a highly offensive description of his home region as

January 30, 1987
Oral Questions
untouched by immigration and pure in population and culture. I read Hansard carefully as you suggested, Mr. Speaker, and found that the Minister did not follow your lead and that of the Deputy Prime Minister by asserting a true understanding of his region within the Canadian reality.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister act to overcome the regional petty politics of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and ensure that the Minister follows the admirable lead of the Hon. Member for Kitchener on Monday by issuing a full and complete apology for his highly offensive statements?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is presently at a federal-provincial conference. I make no pretence of being objective with regard to my feelings toward the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I think it is generally agreed within this House that the words used by him lent themselves to interpretation. He readily admitted that yesterday. However, no one has ever questioned his intent. We believed that we turned the page on this yesterday. We hoped that the Hon. Member shared that feeling. In the two years during which he has been Minister, the integrity or thoughts of the Hon. Minister on that issue have never been questioned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a simple fact that the page has not been turned on this. I continue to receive representations demanding more.


CONTENT OF STATEMENTS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister, as head of the Government in the House today, point out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that the statements he made a couple of weeks ago are quite contradictory to the campaign which the Minister responsible for multiculturalism launched this Monday which was designed to ensure that Canadians recognize that our society is no longer composed of two solitudes and the others? Will he point out the contradiction between that and the Minister's statements made on Radio Canada?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the contradiction here is that the Hon. Member would want to flog this issue when it is so evident that there is nothing more to be said. The contradiction which we see is that the Member would want to use this issue for petty politics when it is so important to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACID RAIN
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I shall address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
A federal study has revealed today that forest growth in Quebec and Ontario has been reduced by two-thirds because of problems caused by acid rain. We are already aware that the Union des producteurs agricoles is losing $1 million a month because of acid rain.
In view of the so-called special realtionship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, why has the Government been unable to obtain an agreement on acid rain similar to the one which was signed today between the United States and Mexico?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member might want to read the answer that I provided earlier to a similar question. The fact is that this is an issue of very high priority and urgency on the timetable of the Government. It was raised with Vice-President Bush. It will be an issue that will be fully discussed with the President when he comes here in April. We have expressed our disappointment about the inaction in the United States and we will continue to press for full compliance of the arrangements that have been made.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The fact is that almost two years after the shamrock summit we have had no action on acid rain. At the same time, on this very day, Mexico and the United States have signed an agreement.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. How long is the Prime Minister prepared to drag his feet, pretending to have a special relationship with the United States, while the Canadian environment and economy are put at risk?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member complains about two years of inaction. That is absolutely wrong because there has been action, movement, and progress. It is quite different from the 25 years of inaction from the Government with which she was associated. Nothing was done for 25 years. We are moving ahead, and moving fast.
January 30, 1987


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. I am sure all Hon. Members would agree that trying to get satisfaction from the Post Office these days is like trying to shovel popcorn against the wind. I have a letter from a fine businessman in Canada who received six days' notice that his boxes were being changed, even though they were only there six months, that the location was being changed and, most important, that his postal code was being changed. This necessitated a great deal of expense for many businessmen, to print new stationery and new policies. What on earth is the Post Office doing to help small-businessmen instead of trying to drive them out of business?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for bringing this to our attention. He will readily recognize that the situation he has described to the House is not the normal practice. The Post Office advises us that it is very concerned that it remain helpful and not put blocks in the way of small business. I can assure the Hon. Member that the matter is being studied in some depth and I will report to him later.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East, one question please.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Will he inform the House what he intends to do in response to a study that was reported today on CBC which shows that young women in the Armed Forces are working under considerable stress? Will he also check into the need for family support services and child care on Armed Forces bases, and will he actively promote these programs?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question because it is a very important subject. I am presently looking at the reports which were prepared and have been circulated within the Canadian Forces. We are studying their results and will be looking at what options are open to us.
An interesting element of the summary report is the statement that service males were three times more likely to state that they were bothered by their work environment, and service females reported less job stress than did service males.
Oral Questions
It is certainly not an excuse for not dealing with stress at any level, whether it is with males or females, but I think that perhaps the report on the CBC this morning did not point out that particular fact.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laurier, one question.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister who has already taken notice of a similar question. On Monday the Minister responsible for CMHC will be visiting Cloverdale Park in Montreal's West Island. Some
2,000	residents feel abandoned by the Government because it cancelled an annual subsidy, which allowed the sale of Cloverdale Park to a private developer.
Senior citizens, single mothers, and welfare recipients fear that they will be forced to leave their homes because of massive rent increases. Will the Government set aside the moneys that it is saving from the cancelled subsidy and help the residents of Cloverdale Park form a housing co-operative? They should not have to pay a price for the Government's mistake.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to this question on behalf of the Minister. First, I must say that, for one question, it certainly contains a lot of false information. We shall be visiting the projects on Monday. 1 shall be there, as will the Minister. These are the Cloverdale projects and the Jardins LaSalle in the beautiful constituency of the same name. I am therefore doubly involved. I can tell the Hon. Member that this matter has been under consideration at the Department for six months. I can assure the House that, in accordance with the policy of our Government, the neediest people will be amply protected in this sale, at least for two years. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as concerns this contract of the previous Government, we are trying to right wrongs for which we are not to blame. I can assure the House that the Minister has the whole matter in hand and that everything will probably be settled within a month.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines.

January 30, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Stackhouse PETRO-CANADA


INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Privatization. Will the Government be moving to privatize Petro-Canada as recommended by many, including the Economic Council of Canada, and if so, when?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. There are a number of companies under active review, with no final decisions having been reached. I can assure him that we are examining Petro-Canada very closely.


PRIVILEGE
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what is a question of privilege, if privilege is breached when a Member's freedom to speak in this Chamber is inhibited. Yeterday, as happens from time to time, there was a temporary turbulence in Question Period. The result was that only two Conservative Members were recognized in that period. That may not seem a serious matter, but there are about 135 Conservatives eligible to ask questions. Normally they compete for three questions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Go behind the curtains.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where are you all?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has patiently heard matters of this nature raised by both sides of the House and from all Parties. I know that Hon. Members will want to hear the Member out.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the number is reduced it means a loss of a third of our questions. In this Parliament about 45 per cent of the Members have had access to about 15 per cent of the questions.
With respect, I submit that there is no historic basis for the assumption that Question Period must be what at times it becomes, namely, the Opposition laying seige to the corridors of power and the Government trying to keep them out. While that is obviously part of what Parliament is about, Private Members who support Her Majesty's Government are not here just to be spectators.
After vigorous and cogent arguments by Liberal Members of the Twenty-Ninth Parliament, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux recognized the right of government Members to ask questions. I thank my Liberal predecessors and reaffirm their stand, for we too represent constituencies, we too speak for regions, we too advocate causes, we too share the rights that belong to all Members. When that share is reduced, the rights of the House
are reduced. I have raised this point not to lay blame but to seek redress.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make about this point of order. It is not a question of privilege because the Oral Question Period is controlled by the Chair and it is up to the Speaker to decide who will be recognized to ask questions. I simply want to say that the Oral Question Period as we understand it lasts only 45 minutes and that it is our only opportunity to hold the Government accountable for its actions as executive.
It must answer the questions put to it by the Official Opposition and the third party in the House. We see this as one of our daily priorities on which we focus considerable attention. Occasionally, Government Members may, probably for political reasons, we might as well admit it, want to have some visibility during Question Period and ask questions. We agree with the Chair and this has always been our position, that on occasion the floor may be given to two or three Government Members. However, Mr. Speaker, they, being Members of the same party in this House, can see the Minister almost daily in the lobby and talk to him, which we cannot, and hear his position on the particular questions that concern them. So this is our opportunity as Members of the Opposition to put questions to the Government. The accountability of this Government depends on it, since it is not the members who support the Government who are going to make it more accountable. It is up to us, Mr. Speaker, and it is an age-old British tradition that the Official Opposition and the other oppositon party ensure the Government is held responsible for its actions.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Chair might wish to take this matter under advisement, but I would first like to make a few comments. Our whip, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), is correct in saying that, traditionally, Question Period has always been reserved for the Opposition. However, we must not see Parliament as consisting exclusively of Question Period. I realize that because of the interest shown by the media, everything seems to focus on Question Period. I believe that the Chair has been entirely correct in what it has done so far. With respect to the first fifteen minutes of Question Period, so far, Mr. Speaker, you and your predecessors have given more attention to Government Members. So if we divide up all the time spent in Parliament, we could conclude that the Government has more than its fair share of the proceedings. However, if we simply take part of the time set aside for debate in the House, I think the Hon. Member might have a case for what he has been saying today.
During the first 15 first minutes, Mr. Speaker, you distribute rather well in favour of the Government's side and we
January 30, 1987

never oppose that. However, from time immemorial Question Period has been reserved for the Opposition in the tradition of the British parliamentary system, which I defend on every occasion because it is one of the great heritages which I as a Canadian have received from the British Parliament. Therefore, by tradition the Opposition must really be able to question the Government. However, during debate the Chair always recognizes many more Members of the Government. Therefore, we have equilibrium. During the first 15 minutes there is a good distribution. I have made the survey myself and I know the Government is favoured in the first 15 minutes. We never oppose that because it makes sense. The Conservatives are more in number. That is what Canadians democratically decided in the last election. Therefore, the Conservatives are given more.
However, Question Period, and I admit it gets more limelight on television, is only part of our deliberations. It is the same in Parliamentary Committee. The chairman distributes the questions according to the proportions of Members. We have the first round of questions between the three Parties and after that more time is given to the Opposition.
With all due respect, I feel Hon. Members will have to go back to the traditions of this House. They are not badly served because the Government side does ask some questions. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), said, perhaps the Government Members should get together and put questions which are really of great importance, and not just questions here and there of which Ministers are always aware. I do recognize that at times a Conservative Member has a very important question which he or she would like to raise where pre-notice will not be given to the Minister. If Hon. Members would think back to 1984, they will realize that many of the questions put by Members of the Government were questions of which the Minister was aware, were not that important and could have been asked in the lobby, but it is good public politics, and I do not disagree with that, because we are all in politics.
I do not believe my colleague has a very strong point. When we arrive at the Question Period, which is our only opportunity to question the Government, we must abide by the British parliamentary system whereby the Opposition in the House of Commons can ask direct questions. In that respect the British Parliamentary system is much more superior than the Congressional system in the United States.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall). I understand he is about to make an important announcement in the Chamber about a major change in Government policy. I do not know what it is, but I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
I am almost inclined to agree with the Hon. Member who brought up the question concerning Question Period, because I am confident the Liberals are going to be on the Government side of the House very shortly and perhaps we might be
Privilege-Mr. Stackhouse
making the same arguments. However, I have to slightly differ with the previous speaker. I agree with him that we follow the British tradition in this House. In London, as you know, Mr. Speaker, questions go back and forth to the Government side, to the Opposition side, to the Government side and back to the Opposition side.
However, we cannot transplant one aspect of the present British system into our system. We would have to transplant the entire system which would mean that Members of the Government would be able to rise and really attack their Cabinet Ministers. More importantly, the committee system would have to be changed in such a way as to give Members of the Government side total authority to originate their own terms of reference and to delve into whatever they want. The focus of attention in the British House is not in Question Period at all. No one knows it is even taking place. It is in the committees. Therefore, we cannot transplant one aspect of the British system into our system. This is the only thing we have left in our system to make the Government at least partially accountable to the people of Canada for its actions. If we take that opportunity away or dilute it, then we destroy our sytsem.
My only reason for rising is to point out that I am afraid that we are going to be on the other side very shortly and we might be making the same arguments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the representations of other Hon. Members. They have been excellent. However, I want to add two or three points. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 55 states:
The privilege of freedom of speech is-the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.
I want to remind the Hon. Member that if in fact his privileges have been breached, it would mean that he has been denied the right to speak, the right to ask a question. I submit that that is not the case. He has had, in my recollection, a number of opportunities to raise points on the floor of the House of Commons during Question Period and, as a result of recent reforms, throughout the entire day. We now have an opportunity during debate to ask questions, through the question or statement procedure, so that Hon. Members of the Government, who I might add are the overwhelming numbers when it comes to delivering speeches in the House of Commons-a reflection of the percentages of the three political Parties-can ask questions or make statements. Not only do Members of the Government have ample opportunity to raise points and ask questions of the appropriate Minister, at the end of each speech there is an opportunity to ask questions or make statements, to say nothing of the fact that in committee the overwhelming numbers are from the Government side, where again there is ample opportunity to ask questions of Ministers or representatives from the Ministers' office.
The only point the Hon. Member could make in terms of a breach of privilege is if he had been denied, presumably by the

January 30, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Chair, permission to ask a certain question, which of course was not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to the intervention of the Hon. Member, and to other comments.
Fairly recently the Chair indicated to the House that the Chair is very much aware of the fact that there are a great many Members in this Chamber, many of whom have legitimate and diligent questions to put to the Government. I think the Chair has made it clear that when that is the case, and when it is obvious to the Chair that that is the case, questions have been allowed to members of the government side. I am quick to point out that when those questions are what they ought to be, that is diligent and searching, members of the opposition have not objected, for which I am grateful.
The Hon. Member is understandably concerned that because of attention on the Question Period, and perhaps because sometimes the Question Period does not move as rapidly as I am sure Hon. Members would like because of the length of questions and the length of responses, perhaps government Members are neglected. I will strive to ensure that that is not the case.
However, I want to say to government Members that the Chair is aware that they, too, are here representing constituencies and that they, too, have a right to speak. Hon. Members will have noted that not only has the Chair recognized government Members, whose names were not necessarily on a list brought to the Speaker, who rose and showed to the Speaker that they indeed were seeking recognition on an important matter, but the Chair has also recognized supplementary questions from government Members, as in fact was the case today.
With respect to the other point, Question Period is a unique institution. At its best it is something of which Canadians can be very proud. At its best it is an intelligent accountability session for any Government-at its best. It is not always at its best, as Hon. Members know. But that is my problem and I have to do what I have to do to ensure that Question Period is at its best as often as possible.
The comments of Hon. Members are important, especially the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), that this is our institution and it has customs and traditions which are unique to us. While sometimes visiting dignitaries from other lands may wonder at the way we meet, usually after lunch, nonetheless it is our institution for better or worse.
The Chair, while recognizing that all Hon. Members have a right to be heard during Question Period, also recognizes that it is very much an accountability session. That is our tradition. I thank the Hon. Member for raising this matter because it is an appropriate time for the Chair to say something about it. I will endeavour to be as fair and as even as I can be, recognizing that Question Period is an accountability session and that
there are serious and proper questions coming from government Members. I shall try to see those government Members when those questions arise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the benefit of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), there is an ultimate solution if he wants to ask more questions. He could join the Opposition, preferably the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I should have known that there was no way we would get through this discussion without some help from the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to address the House today, and I am delighted to see your honourable self looking so elegant.
I am pleased to make an announcement in the House today on behalf of the Government. The shareholders of Fishery Products International, the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland, and the Bank of Nova Scotia have agreed to proceed with a plan put forward by FPI to return the company to the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: The privatization will include a public offering of shares which will provide an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the ownership of this company.
The sale of FPI is the culmination of a remarkable success story in Canada's Atlantic fishery. FPI was created in 1984, pursuant to a restructuring agreement between the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland to integrate the operations of several seafood companies into a single new company. A key objective of the agreement was to restore the profitability of the offshore fishery and return the company to the private sector at the earliest possible time.
We believe that the company's records show that the time is now appropriate. The company realized a profit of $46 million in 1986. I take this opportunity to congratulate warmly the workers and management of FPI for their dedication and contribution.
The privatization plan announced today will provide key benefits to the Newfoundland fishery. As part of the privatization plan FPI employees will participate to the extent of approximately $6 million in the share offering. The shares will
January 30, 1987

be distributed on a formula that will take into account salary and years of service. In addition, the employees will have an opportunity to buy shares on an ongoing basis through payroll deduction.
FPI will also continue with its declared corporate policy to share profits with employees. In 1986 the company paid 10 per cent of its pre-tax earnings in cash payments and other benefits to company employees.
In order to favour broad ownership, no individual or corporation in this privatization will be able to own more than 15 per cent of the shares of FPI. The privatization plan ensures that the majority of the members of the board of directors will be composed of Newfoundlanders and that FPI will continue to be a major force in the development of the Newfoundland economy.
It is anticipated that the return of FPI to the private sector will be completed during the First part of 1987, depending of course on market conditions. The net proceeds of this share issue are not certain at this stage, but the Government expects to recoup a substantial portion of our investment, and the corporation will be in a strengthened financial position.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to announce this step which makes this company the tenth to be privatized by this Government since 1984. This sale again confirms the commitment of this Government to economic renewal and better management.
The sale of Fisheries Products International demonstrates that our privatization program is well on track. The program is creating new economic opportunities for Canadians and employees. It is conducted in a manner that is sensitive to the needs and interests of all parties concerned.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has announced to everybody in the fish business that it has taken action in the offshore stocks to conserve the stocks, and to be nice to foreign countries in the offshore. This is mainly an offshore company that we are dealing with today. In one area where this company fishes this year the Government has banned Canadian boats from fishing, an area off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. This very day the nose of the Grand Banks is being fished by boats from the United States, France, Korea, Spain, and Portugal, but Canadian boats would be arrested if they went into the zone. That is the nose of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
The Minister says that the reason Americans can go in is that they are not a member of NAFO. But we say, "Yes, the other countries are members of NAFO." The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) says, "Yes. But in NAFO we have a rule that if a member country objects, in this case the EEC, then they are allowed to go in and fish in that area."
Statements by Ministers
So point one to keep in mind is, we have a section of coastline close to where most of these fish plants are located where Canadian boats are not allowed to even prosecute the fishery, namely, the nose of the Grand Banks, which is the best fishing grounds in the area.
Point two, which everybody in Canada knows about, is the Canada-France agreement, the granting of nine factory freezer trawler licences to the French metropolitan fleet to fish where most of these plants are located, off the coast of Newfoundland.
We would have to say that it is a great time to offer this for public sale, because perhaps next year we would not be able to sell a share. On the stock market today the best buy in the fishery is National Sea Products. Its shares have gone way up.
I must admit that part of the reason is that this Government caved in to a request by Mr. Cummings, the President of National Sea Products, to give them a factory freezer trawler licence. Part of the reason then is due to the Government caving in to this company against the wishes of the Newfoundland Government.
When it is all added up, this Government is taking fish away from Canadian companies. There is no future for the inshore-offshore fishery if this Government remains in power, and now the Government is going to offer this company for public sale. Yes, it will be a good sale. 1 am sure that this company, a portion of which is private, will take advantage of the three factory freezer trawler licences, thereby reducing the number of people working on shore in these plants. The Government has offered these three licences to the company which to date this company has refused to take advantage of.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by saying that, in spite of the Minister's comments, the Government now has privatized 10 Crown corporations. The implication is that there is less federal public ownership in the country than there was at the beginning of the Government's administration. I wish to put on the record that in terms of value there is now more federal public ownership than ever before in Canadian history. There is significantly more than on September 4, 1984. I mention that to keep the record clear, and stop the myth building with this particular announcement today.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Good management.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) states that is good management. It has been said in this case, that that has been the case. Under the private sector they could not make a profit and were unsuccessful. The reason this Crown corporation began was that seven private sector companies went bankrupt. The Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada, with assistance from the Bank of Nova Scotia, put together a Crown corporation which has been quite remarkable. In 1984 it lost $35 million after taking over the disastrous situation of the seven companies. But by 1985, as a result of a whole new approach

January 30, 1987
Statements by Ministers
to management, a new approach in terms of its 8,000 employees, and a new approach in each of the 18 fish plants, the losses had fallen to $20 million. As the Minister has stated, in 1986 the profits were in excess of $46 million. This is a real tribute to what the public sector can do in the economy in cooperation with productive employees.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: After the federal Government, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, and the citizens of Newfoundland through their Government, became major players and rescued these failing private sector companies, created employment throughout critical parts of Newfoundland, got everything on a successful path, the Government now decides to abandon it and return to a position in which the sole motive will be profit. Under a Crown corportion there were other aspects in mind. It wanted to create employment, and long-term stabililty to many communities, and that was done. Now with this particular act of privatization the Government is saying that we are going back in time, and it is using a regressive approach. Once again the important thing will not be the future of Newfoundland, the stability of the economy of Newfoundland, the security that it gives to the people of Newfoundland. The only motive that will govern this newly privatized company will be profit.
In closing, I wish to say that in a province of Canada where fishing is the number one industry and touches the lives of every single Newfoundlander, either directly or indirectly, some public participation is a very honourable and useful thing. For that reason, unless we receive substantially more details than these sketchy comments we have heard this morning, we certainly would find it very difficult to support this initiative. The details are non-existent, other than this small sketch, so we will have to look more carefully at this when the details are provided.


THE BUDGET-TAX REFORM DATE FOR PRESENTATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to inform Members of the Government's plans for comprehensive tax reform, and for a Budget this year.
Members will be aware that the greater part of our preBudget consultations with Canadian organizations was concluded just before Christmas. My staff and officials of the Department of Finance have continued to meet with representatives of various groups earlier this month. Formal submissions on tax reform from many of these groups are still arriving. Many of these submissions clearly represent a thorough, conscientious, and detailed effort to deal with tax reform in a realistic way. We are reviewing these submissions in the same conscientious and scrupulous manner in which
they were researched and presented. I consider these views an important element of our tax reform planning.
We knew at the start that comprehensive tax reform would be a big job. As Members know, we are examining all aspects of the tax system, personal, corporate, and sales taxes. In light of the guidelines for tax reform that I released in October, and with the benefit of our consultations with many Canadians, we are making good progress toward a comprehensive tax reform proposal. I am now planning to bring forward the Government's proposal for comprehensive tax reform this spring. However, I do not believe it would be appropriate to defer a Budget for that long. I therefore intend to maintain the commitment I have made to put the budgetary process on a regular basis. I will bring down a Budget next month on Wednesday, February 18.
[ Translation]
We are making good progress toward a comprehensive tax reform proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I am not planning to bring forward the government's proposal for comprehensive tax reform this spring. However, I do not believe it would be appropriate to defer a budget for that long.
I therefore intend to maintain the commitment I have made to put the budgetary process on a regular basis. I will bring down a budget next month on Wednesday, February 18.
As I have said in the past, it is sensible to present a Budget annually in February, sensible because regular timing of the federal Budget makes for greater certainty and orderliness in financial planning for the federal Government, for the provinces, for businesses, and for individuals.
Canadians who are planning their financial affairs should be mindful that some income tax changes proposed in the Budget may take effect at midnight the day before budget day, that is, at midnight on February 17.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are planning their financial affairs should be mindful that some income tax changes proposed in the budget may take effect at midnight the day before budget day-that is, at midnight February 17.

This provision will ensure that budgetary changes apply uniformly to all transactions made on budget day, regardless of where in Canada the transactions take place.
Let me sum up very briefly. I will table a Budget on February 18, and I will be presenting a comprehensive tax reform proposal to the House this spring.
January 30, 1987



Mr. Speaker, I will table a budget on February 18. And I will be presenting a comprehensive tax reform proposal to this House this spring.

I would therefore request that, in accordance with Standing Order 84(3), an Order of the Day be designated to allow the presentation of a budget speech on Wednesday, February 18, 1987.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23, 1986 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said the following in the House:
As the next step in the tax reform process, I intend to issue specific directions for change at the time of my next Budget.
That is another broken promise by the Minister of Finance. On February 18 we will have a Budget and a few months later we may have a tax reform proposal. What will the Budget be? Will it be a "go nowhere, do nothing" Budget, because we will be expecting tax reform in a few months?
In terms of tax reform, the Minister of Finance is not very credible. He announced reform of the manufacturers' sales tax in the Budget of 1985. He was supposed to table a White Paper during the summer. It was postponed. He never tabled it. Then, in 1986, he said that we would have comprehensive tax reform and that it would come in his budget speech of 1987. Now he tells us that there will be no tax reform with the Budget. I do not know what to expect, because he told us on a few occasions that he would table a White Paper on tax reform and never did. After crying wolf on many occasions, I do not know if the wolf will be around this time and we will have a tax reform proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised in this House, last October, that he would table a proposal for tax reform. That reform is needed, but we now hear it will again be delayed, perhaps until next spring, and that depending on consultations, we may have to wait until 1988 for a tax reform. Yet, since this Government came to power, it has brought in catastrophic personal income tax increases. The gap has widened between the rich and the poor. Only people with significant capital gains have benefited by means of exemptions. The gap between the Atlantic Provinces and one part of Ontario is widening constantly, and the tax reform that was to bring in certain corrections, introduce a little more justice in our system, is once more delayed.
This proves the Government is not keeping its promises. It is not assuming its responsibilities, and the Canadian economy is going to suffer. And according to the results of the latest Gallup Poll, 60 per cent of Canadians-can you imagine, 60 per cent-believe this Government is mismanaging the nation's economic business. Of course, they come up with figures, statistics, except for one specific region. Mr. Speaker,
Statements by Ministers
interest rates should be much lower than they are now, if this Government would stop crawling before the U.S. Treasurer.

If the Government would not cave in to the U.S. Treasurer we would have an interest rate much lower than it is today. The Minister knows very well that the spread between interest rates in the United States and Canada is much too great. The only reason he is doing that is that he wants to cave in to the Treasurer of the United States, because this guy wants to have the Canadian dollar at a higher level. It is another example of the way the Government mismanages the economy.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians will welcome the announcement of the Budget coming down on February 18. However, they will particularly welcome the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) if in fact it is designed for all of Canada, not just for the ridings in the area of Metropolitan Toronto.
In the Toronto area the unemployment rate is below 5 per cent. I remind the Minister, since I am sure he has not put all the finishing touches on his Budget, that the unemployment rate in Quebec is over 10 per cent in the Maritimes and British Columbia it is over 13 per cent and in Newfoundland it is at 19 per cent. Those Canadians have a right to expect a Budget which will deal with their problems. They need to have employment and some sense that their economic future is secure, and it is not secure under the Government as things stand right now.
I sense and fear that the Budget will in fact do very little, that it will not respond to the problems in our regions, and that with tax reform taken out of it we will in fact have a formality from the Finance Minister and not much else.
In respect of tax reform, I am very concerned that it is now essentially being put back to 1989 or possibly to 1990. Rather than putting in place tax reform which could affect Canadians in their pocketbooks in a very real way before we go back to the polls in 1988 or 1989, the Government appears now to have decided that tax reform will be another election promise, but not put in law by that time.

I am just saying, Mr. Speaker, that bringing forward a proposal for tax reform this spring means any time up to June 21 this year, and then consultations with the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Furthermore, a Bill introduced in the spring of 1988 cannot be adopted until the 1989 fiscal year, which means after the next federal election.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of Finance and this Government have postponed their plans. Now we have good intentions but no action.

I would suggest that in the Budget itself the Government show ordinary Canadians across the country that it is serious
2926

January 30, 1987
Committee Reports
about tax reform and that the Minister of Finance show whose side he is on.
I suggest the Finance Minister could show that by withdrawing the $500 million tax exemption on capital gains and by stopping up corporate loopholes which create an unjust situation across the country. On average, 80,000 companies pay no tax in each fiscal year despite the fact that they are in a profitable position.
Rather than the Finance Minister talking about endless consultations with the provinces and his colleagues, perhaps he should cut through the Gordian knot that is keeping the Government of Canada from taking the first real steps toward a universal program of day care across Canada. My leader has made a proposal and the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) has brought forward a concrete plan for the inauguration of a national day care plan with expenditures of $320 million. That is enough to start to respond to constituents in my riding and across this country, by saying that it is about time we saw this as a national priority and not as something that just belongs to the provinces. It is about time we ensured that men and women who are parents of small children genuinely have access to quality and affordable day care in every part of Canada.
These are things we will be looking for in the Budget. I call on the Minister of Finance not to use this deferral of his announcement on tax reform as a means of preventing tax reform from coming in soon. Canadians need it now.


MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS SERVICES
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the First Report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services.

If the House gives its consent, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had the usual consultations, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour and the duty to present to the House five
petitions from the Province of Alberta, from people who submit that the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information, that the tariff has had little effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book-sellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and that rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have other petitions dealing with another matter signed by dozens of constituents. They are in order pursuant to Standing Order 106. These petitioners humbly submit that the proposed changes to the Patent Act, which directly affects all Canadians who are not protected by private and Government medicare programs, will raise the costs, already high, of the provincial health care programs. They go on to say that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug prices, that costs will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and that the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Governments concession in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of every Canadian. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 106. The first one is from residents of my riding of Thunder Bay- Nipigon who protest the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which they feel will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They feel that the proposed measures will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on a continuing basis and will result also in higher costs to provincial Government drug plans. They call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from residents of Regina and Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan and from residents of Alberta who assert that the National Association of Japanese Canadians is the only elected national organization of Japanese
January 30, 1987

Canadians with representatives from 15 centres across the country. They point out that the NAJC has held public meetings about redress for the forcible dispossession and relocation that Japanese Canadians suffered during the second world war, and has used a national questionnaire to develop a position on proper redress. They call on Parliament to deal honourably with Canadian citizens of Japanese descent and to enter into negotiations immediately with the National Association of Japanese Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize other Members with petitions I wish to inform the Elouse that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 26 minutes beginning at 1 o'clock p.m. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone), the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) on petitions.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to present petitions. I profit from the presence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and ask him to listen to the petitioners concerning the tax on reading. I bring to your attention, Sir, that they wish to have this tax removed. They have stated that whereas the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information, and; whereas the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, booksellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries-I hope the Minister is listening. The undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.
I deposit for your information and for your action, Mr. Speaker, 327 names from Nanaimo and Vancouver, B.C., Sydney and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, Kincardine, B.C., Ontario, various cities in Manitoba including Winnipeg, Lone Butte, B.C. and other towns and cities in the Vancouver area, Edmonton, Red Deer, Alberta, again Vancouver, B.C., Willowdale, Toronto, more from Toronto and Vancouver, B.C., Burnaby, B.C. These people beg you humbly to press for the removal of the tariff on books, Mr. Speaker.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour of presenting petitions from people living in London, Ontario and in Guelph, Oakville and Mississauga, who wish to express their disapproval of the duty imposed on imports of books in the English language. They
Petitions
feel the duty is entirely unfair and amounts to penalizing the book industry, and they want to see this duty removed as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that the duty was imposed at the same time as an entirely unfair import duty was levied on Christmas trees, and I want to take this opportunity to ask the House, with our petitioners, to have the duty on Christmas trees and books removed as soon as possible.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present pages and pages of a petition. Noticing my friend from Victoria who keeps an eye on petitions, I will say that not all the pages are full. There are a number of pages with a number of signatures on them reflecting the concern of individuals from various places in western Canada about the Government's plan to change the Patent Act. They believe that this will see a significant increase in prescription drug prices and will restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by citizens of the Province of Ontario who object to the Government of Canada imposing a tariff on imported books. The petitioners express the view that such a decision by the Conservative Government will limit access of Canadians to literature and information. They call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises cultural industries in respect to free trade negotiations.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would also present a petition on behalf of citizens of Thunder Bay who complain about the Patent Act amendment proposed by the Government of the day which, according to these citizens, will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on a continuing basis because of the inevitable increasing of drug prices due to the activities of the Government. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will undoubtedly increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour and duty of submitting two petitions to the House. The first is a petition with over 200 names to add to the tens of thousands already submitted. This petition is from Canadians who reside in places in Saskatchewan like Estevan, Elfros, Pangman, Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon and many other locations in the province. Since the Government's proposed amendments to the Patent Act will unfairly hurt Canadians

January 30, 1987
Motions
whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis because of higher prices and because the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans, the petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition from citizens of Edmonton, Leduc, Beaumont, Jasper and Wetaskiwin. In the opinion of the petitioners, transportation is a natural monopoly without economic regulation and the regulatory reform of the dimensions proposed by the Government in Bill C-18 will create unnecessary chaos in the transportation industry leading to unacceptable reductions in safety standards as well as deterioration in the quality, type and frequency of service. Therefore, the petitioners pray that the House of Commons have Bill C-18 withdrawn and see that the principle of public convenience and necessity remain a fundamental factor in the development of public transportation policy.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my honour to present a petition which has been approved by the Clerk as being in proper form. It is from a number of citizens of Campbell River and St. Catharines. These Canadians complain that the increase in prescription drug prices that they see being caused by the Government's current legislation which is before the committee will be a severe hardship for many Canadians, particularly elderly ones and those on fixed incomes. The petitioners see this as bringing no benefit to Canada but, rather, bringing benefit to the United States and it is a point lost in the free trade negotiations. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to reject these proposals and thereby avoid an unnecessary increase in drug prices.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is also my honour to present, under Standing Order 106, a petition from a number of citizens of Cambridge, Guelph and the City of Toronto. These Canadians point out that the low-level flight training of pilots from NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador, is disrupting the way of life of many native people. Even though it may promise them a few jobs, the petitioners believe that it is more healthy to use the kinds of employment they have been using and can use otherwise, and they point out that the training of these pilots at Goose Bay to fly under radar into eastern Europe is a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action which tends to endanger world peace. Therefore, they ask Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will bring to an end all low-level flight training at Goose Bay, Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.



MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS SERVICES


Marcel Prud'homme: If the House is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, and I have reasons to believe such is the case, I would move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services, tabled in the House earlier today, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, further to the announcement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) I wish to advise that there have been discussions among the Parties. I believe you will find unanimous consent for the introduction and passage of the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of the House, at 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18, 1987, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then underway and proceed forthwith to the consideration of Ways and Means proceedings No. 10, for the purpose of the Budget statement of the Minister of Finance;
and that the House shall not adjourn until the adjournment of the debate on Ways and Means proceedings No. 10, following which Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to call starred question No. 62?
January 30, 1987



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY IN LAUNAY, QUEBEC

Mr. St. Julien: 1.	On October 1, 1986, did Canada Post cancel rural mail delivery in concession 4 of the municipality of Launay, in the constituency of Abitibi and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Since the route was established and until September 30, 1986, what was the yearly cost of mail delivery?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) as follows:
1.	Prior to October 1, 1986, 101 customers were served by the local post office through two different modes: 55 customers directly at the local post office; the remaining 46 customers by a contractor through rural route delivery.
Given the high cost of providing two different methods of delivery to such a small number of customers, a decision was taken to consolidate service to these customers through one delivery method. All Launay Station customers can now access their mail six days per week.
2.	At the time the rural route service was consolidated, the service contract cost $5,708, or an average of $124.08 per point of call, compared to the national average cost of $47. In addition, the total number of customers on this rural route was 46, compared to the national average of 225 customers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.