1988-06-15

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to Parliament in 1984, I have often had the occasion to use the Government's access to information services, and every time, or at least most of the time, I received piles of documents within the prescribed thirty-day period.
However, on May 12 this year, I asked the service for a breakdown of expenses incurred by the former Canadian Ambassador to France and candidate in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, Mr. Lucien Bouchard.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to my great surprise I received a letter advising me it was impossible to provide this information within the prescribed period.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it was just a coincidence that I was denied this information just before the by-election. I am sure that by next Tuesday, the information will be available.
* *
*


PROPOSED CHANGES TO SYSTEM WELCOMED
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, I have travelled across the country studying parole and sentencing. We have heard from a clear majority of Canadians of their concern about violent criminals not serving enough of their sentences.
I am encouraged by the proposals of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) that the time all federal inmates must serve before becoming eligible for parole will be increased and the system of earned remission, under which inmates can receive up to one-third of their sentences off for good behaviour, will be replaced.
The time is right, the Solicitor General says, for us to demonstrate our primary concern for public safety and our collective commitment to improving the system with that in mind. I commend the Solicitor General for this initiative. I hope we will see legislation brought forward in this House to ensure that public safety is first and foremost a consideration when looking at parole and sentencing.
*
* *


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government appears to be considering more spending on highways. Under agreements with each of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, Transport Canada spent as much as $80 million in 1985-86 to improve the Trans-Canada Highway in each of these provinces. In 1987-88 Transport Canada added agreements with the four western province and spent $75 million on the Trans-Canada and Yellowhead Highways in nine provinces. The National Capital Commission similarly spent $69 million in highway construction in the 1979-87 period, all of it under joint projects with the Province of Quebec.
The federal Government is now apparently discussing twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway across Newfoundland, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has suggested federal assistance to complete the highway from Lac St. Jean to the James Bay power projects.
The people of Northern Ontario experience very little of southern Ontario's prosperity. They want the Trans-Canada Highway significantly upgraded through northern Ontario to encourage economic development in our region. The time has come for the federal Government to stop discriminating against northern Ontario in making agreements with the provinces to support highway improvement.

June 15, 1988


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln, in a speech in 1854 said: "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent".
For 105 years, ever since Banff National Park was created, the people of Banff have been governed by a "Mayor" who lived in Ottawa 2,000 miles away. However, this week things have changed. The people of Banff voted for self-government and now the Mayor and Council of Banff will govern with the consent of the people and will be accountable to the people.
Self-government for Banff has been one of my objectives ever since I was a elected as their Member of Parliament. I want to thank our past "Mayor", the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), for his positive attitude and help, and a splendid school board, a visionary park warden and staff, the Chamber of Commerce, the Crag and Canyon, the Government of Alberta, and a host of Banff citizens for their tireless and relentless work which culminated in the favourable vote.
Ring out the old! Ring in the new!


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak on sewers and submarines. According to the Science Council of Canada, less than 60 per cent of Canadians are served by sewage treatment plants. In Quebec the number falls below 20 per cent, and in Newfoundland to 12.7 per cent.
Often untreated sewage is discharged into our rivers and lakes or pollutes ground water. Every summer, public beaches are closed. For example, in August, 1987, beaches in Toronto were posted as unfit for swimming because of the risk to health posed by polluted waters.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities urges every year that the federal Government pay a share of the $15 billion needed to help municipalities build the necessary sewers. Ottawa refuses. This Government does not believe clean water and sewage treatment are national priorities. Instead, it prefers to build nuclear submarines. What a perverse set of priorities! By contrast, the Liberal Party is committed to pay the federal share in order to provide Canadians with clean drinking water.
[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, one of the three subsidiary agreements on official languages the federal Government has just signed with Saskatchewan concerns education in French.
To ensure that Francophones in Saskatchewan will be able to administer their own schools, the federal Government will provide financing of up to $26 million over a period of ten years.
The same agreement provides that $10 million will be provided over the next five years for a series of measures aimed at developing French educational services and offering Francophones better access to education in French.
The agreement also provides $17 million over a period of five years for establishing a language training institute that will play a major role in promoting French as the other official language.
Mr. Speaker, the agreements that have now been signed are not a panacea, but we must admit this is a very encouraging start, since the agreements concern education, an area vital to the existence of a language community.
Mr. Speaker, this is one more example of how the Progressive Conservative Government honours its commitments to the language minorities of this country!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I recently met with Jim McCabe from Belfast whose innocent young wife was killed when struck by a plastic bullet fired by the police into a street crowd. These alleged non-lethal bullets used by the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary have killed 16 and seriously injured 200 persons in troubled Northern Ireland.
Why has the British Government authorized the random use of these bullets against innocent persons? For those who think that these bullets are small, harmless projectiles, this is not the case. This is a plastic bullet which is fired by a high-powered shotgun, often at point-blank range.
Some Hon. Members:: Order!
June 15, 1988_______________COMMONS


Mr. Allmand:: It is a large lethal projectile. That is why the relatives of those killed and injured want them banned as a means of crowd control. They have no place in the police tactics of a democratic country.
I would ask Members in this House to approach the British Parliament to stop the use of these plastic bullets as a means of controlling crowds and demonstrations in Northern Ireland.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to read that on Saturday, June 4, 1988, the delegates attending the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec annual assembly voted overwhelmingly to oppose any plans by the federal Government to recognize sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Social Concerns Committee presented a resolution to oppose plans by the federal Government to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This resolution passed by a three to one margin.
A federal Private Member's Bill, C-212, which would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination, was first read in the House on October 8, 1986. I serve on the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Human Rights but I would oppose Bill C-212, or any government initiative, to change the Canadian Human Rights Act to recognize sexual orientation.
As Members of the House of Commons we have an awesome responsibility to ensure that we maintain a wholesome, family based society in this great country of ours.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, Members on all sides of this House know that I have been doing my best to get help for the men and women who used to work at Massey Combine Corporation. They lost their jobs, medical benefits, and some pension income when the company went into receivership in March.
There is one former Massey employee that I do not have to worry about. That is Victor Rice, the man who created Massey Combines. He is now the Chairman of Varity Corporation. While he says Varity does not have any obligation to help his old employees, Mr. Rice is paying himself over $1 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
Do not think that Mr. Rice has not learned anything from the fate of his old employees. He has also negotiated a golden
parachute to keep himself from ever losing his salary and benefits if something goes wrong at Varity. Mr. Rice can use this termination agreement to get four times his annual salary, plus a bonus.
Thank God I will never have to stand in this House and plead for help for Mr. Rice. I just wish he would give the same kind of deal to Massey's other 3,000 former employees.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the federal Government has signed four landmark language agreements with the Province of Saskatchewan. These 10-year agreements, totalling some $60 million, are a good example of the Government's commitment to work with the provinces in a productive, co-operative, and progressive way.
The agreements include a commitment to enhance our already well-received French immersion programs in Saskatchewan schools, an excellent opportunity for all young people of our province. The federal contribution will allow for the translation of Saskatchewan's statutes and regulations, and for wider use of French in the courts, as well as assisting implementation of the management of French schools by the fransaskois community.
These agreements allow all people of Saskatchewan access to the language of their choice. I commend the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) for his hard work in securing these agreements, and I thank the province for its co-operation and assistance.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was at UNSSOD III on Monday and was at great pains to exhort other nations to sign the non-proliferation treaty, and to lecture other countries about the principles and practice of non-proliferation.
One of the concerns that we have on this side of the House is that the Government has eroded its credibility, and Canadian credibility in general, on this issue by proceeding with the decision to purchase nuclear powered submarines. This is a

June 15, 1988
Oral Questions
violation of the spirit of the non-proliferation regime and a decision which has caused Canada's credibility to be eroded in this area.
1 call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Government to be consistent with their own rhetoric, to be consistent with Canadian policy in the past, and reject the proposal to buy nuclear powered submarines.

[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Secretary of State, Lucien Bouchard, has just made public the details of an agreement reached between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan on the promotion of official languages in this province. It is a master agreement that involves three subsidiary agreements dealing with the courts and the legislature, the promotion of French and education respectively.
Under the first agreement on the use of French in the courts and the legislature, the federal Government is committed to spending up to $3,250,000 over the next 10 years. The second agreement provides for the establishment of an Office of Francophone Affairs and Translation. The Government of Canada has undertaken to spend $300,000 annually over the next five years for this purpose. Finally, under the third agreement, which is meant to give francophones management and control of their schools, the Government plans to spend $26 million over a 10-year period.
Mr. Speaker, I think that with these agreements, Canada has taken another step forward on the road of promoting our linguistic duality, and thus Canadian identity, always in the spirit of national reconciliation that is so important for the unity of our beautiful country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
The Minister cannot continue to deny the existence of Article 2201 of the deal's Tariff Schedule which states: "Waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters ..." It does not say only natural waters, or only artificial mineral waters, but all waters. The Minister has repeatedly given a wrong reading of that section to the House and to the country.
Can the Minister explain why he repeatedly gives a false explanation of that section to the country?
['Mr. Speaker, I join with the Hon. Member in saluting my colleague who is bringing forward a draft Bill for discussion purposes in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction.', 'Introduction of Bills {Division No. 384)\nJune 15, 1988\nThe hon. gentleman will know, because I consult with him very often with respect to justice matters, and take his advice very often, that the matter of sentencing is a joint federal-provincial responsibility. The administration of justice is very much involved in this. As a result the Hon. Member will know and applaud the fact that I am taking leadership in arranging full and close discussion with the provinces on this sentencing initiative. I look forward to any suggestions that the Hon. Member may have in this process. They will be listened to.']
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, can the Leader of the Opposition explain why he and members of his Party are continually giving a false representation of what the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement has to say about water? In fact, he is in the league of McDonalds with the whoppers that he is producing in connection with these water provisions.
May I repeat that the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement does not commit Canada, does not force Canada, does not compel Canada, and does not impel Canada in any way to permit the export of water as a natural resource to the United States of America, or to anyone else. That is the plain state of the facts in connection with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has a contrary view. In his book of some years ago he says that in the future we might well proceed toward a negotiation using water as one of the positive advantages we have here in Canada. But there is nothing in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement that commits or compels Canada in any way to sell water in its natural state to the United States. We have adopted a policy that we will not do that and the date of it was November of 1987.
Why this continual effort by the members of the Liberal caucus and the Toronto Star to convince the public that somehow all Canadian water is going to go to the United States of America under this agreement? It's pitiful and it's wrong.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has repeatedly and consciously misstated both my position on water and the Government's position in this trade deal on water.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Remember the book.



John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is very wrong for the Minister of International Trade to continue to mock those Canadians who are genuinely concerned about the inclusion of water in the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States.


John Napier Turner: I remember the book, and the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister will recall when they recited words from my book printed in 1968. We laid that canard to rest before Your Honour about six months ago.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Oh, no you didn't.


John Napier Turner: Oh, yes we did. I want to say to the Minister for International Trade that a lot of things
*



June 15, 1988

have happened in the last 20 years. My position against a continental water policy has never changed. In the same 20 years his political position has changed three times between the Liberal and Conservative Parties.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister deny that Canada wanted an exemption from water specifically spelled out in the deal with the United States but caved in at the last minute? Will the Minister explain why Canada failed to get that specific exemption?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the position of the Leader of the Opposition on water, I quote from his document wherein he says:
And if some day we can agree to the sharing of this continent's water by offering some of our water for export, we might want at that time to insist that if water is to be considered as a continental resource, markets should also be considered on the same basis. We might wish to export water not for money (as we sold power under the Columbia River Treaty), but in return for access to your markets.
That, as I see it, must be our position.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
Water will occupy the best minds of our two countries for the next generation.
It occupies the mind of the Leader of the Opposition which is now frozen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that speech was made to the United States Chamber of Commerce in 1967.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Minister is being selective. I said quite categorically that the "suggestion that the waters of North America should be considered as a 'continental water supply'"-as the United States Chamber of Commerce was then suggesting-"is where we in Canada say: 'Hold on a minute!' We say there is Canadian water, and there is American water (and there is Mexican water), but we do not like the new vocabulary which calls our water 'continental water'".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: As I said some time ago when the Deputy Prime Minister was quoting those same words, keep it up, we still have a few of those books to sell.


REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN WORDING OF AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple proposition for the Minister. Since the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Mr. Burney, is apparently still in Washington and is now almost into the thousandth day of negotiations of this agreement with the United States, with the Government allowing us five days of debate after 1,000 days of negotiation, why does Mr. Burney not suggest adding two simple words to the deal: "excluding water"?
That will not make the deal acceptable over-all, but it will clarify that particular point. Why will the Minister not agree to a specific exclusion of water by adding two simple words: "excluding water"?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, first let me set the hon. gentleman's mind at rest. Mr. Derek Burney is upstairs in his office, doubtless watching the screen with one eye to see what kind of nonsense the Leader of the Opposition will come up with next.
To quote the Leader of the Opposition again, he said:
We in Canada recognize that the United States is our closest neighbour, and we consider you to be a very good neighbour.
That is what he says when he is in the United States, Mr. Speaker. He continued:
Our relations have always been friendly and we hope they will always remain so. We happen to share most of the North American continent- indeed we are co-tenants, as President Kennedy said to our Parliament in 1961 ... We are both fortunate in our natural resources ... There is no reason why we should not continue to make use of these resources to our mutual and individual advantage... I am sure that we will be able to resolve the future use of the water of this continent in a spirit of realistic friendship.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Mr. Lawrence Herman of SNA Canada Limited said that a fleet of 12 French nuclear submarines can be built for $7.5 billion. Mr. Jack Daniel of Vickers Shipbuilding Ltd. said that 10 Trafalgar class British submarines can be built for $8 billion in current dollars. We know this is just the

Oral Questions
beginning of a major, long-term commitment of billions of dollars for special harbour facilities and maintenance costs, among others, for the lifetime of a nuclear submarine fleet. The costs could run upwards of $25 billion.
Instead of just talking about the cost of construction of the nuclear submarines, will the Minister tell us how much it would cost for the construction of harbour and onshore facilities alone to service the proposed nuclear submarine fleet? Let us get all the costs out on the table.


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to inform the Hon. Member once again that he should take a look at what the practice has been. When we bought CF-18s we did not include the cost of the fuel those planes were going to use. You buy a certain product at the price it is then.
The cost of the 10 or 12 nuclear submarines will be $5 billion. We also set out that the cost of infrastructure, training schools, docks, maintenance facilities, will be $3 billion. That totals $8 billion. We are very satisfied with those figures.


DEFENCE EXPENDITURES
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, unknown to the Hon. Minister, we had airports for the CF-18s before they were bought but we do not have onshore facilities for nuclear submarines.
The Minister always glosses over the fact that his Government has totally failed to keep its promises of financial support to his Department. That is a fact of life. The Government has not only failed to keep its financial promises to the Department, at the same time it is mortgaging the Department for years to come.
How can the Minister justify a committed, even if not admitted, long-term expenditure on a nuclear submarine fleet when the Government has already cut the third batch of six Canadian frigates, when the Prime Minister has not kept his promise to bring the Canadian Forces to 90,000 personnel within three years of his election, and when the reserve forces are being cut back on training time? By the year 2000, 12 1/2 per cent of Canadians will be senior citizens and more money will be needed for them, and more money will be needed for agri-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Why is the Government's nuclear submarine program more important than other areas of national defence, or the economy, or the quality of life for so many-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!
June 15, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the finest and longest speeches I have ever heard in Question Period. I stopped counting at 12 questions.
If the Hon. Member would like to go out to Halifax to visit our forces out there, he will find that we do have some docks and some training facilities now. Just in case he is interested, we do have harbours. As a matter of fact, we have not built the submarines yet either, but we will have the facilities before that, just like we had airports before we had the CF-18.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister has recently expressed some concern about bank service charges. Yesterday a small business man who should be close to the heart of the Minister, by the name of Rick Harman, who runs a Go-Go Pizza in Oshawa, received an interesting letter from the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Bank of Nova Scotia is Mr. Harman's next-door neighbour. They share the same building. Mr. Harman happens to have a $500 personal bank account with this branch.
Mr. Harman got a "To Whom It May Concern" letter that said that henceforth he will be charged 40 cents a roll for every bit of change he requests, so that if he wants 50 cents in pennies, he will have to pay 90 cents to get them. This has been applied to every bit of change that this man, who has a bank account with this bank, will acquire. Does the Minister think this is economic justice?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for bringing that example to mind. I would like to pursue it further on behalf of his constituent if he would like. I would also like to tell the Hon. Member that we are coming forward very soon with new legislation and regulations with regard to bank service charges, and I think he will be very pleased with them.


ROYAL BANK OF CANADA-VICE PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER ON COMMITTEE PROPOSALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the House Finance Committee made recommendations supported by all Members of the House, Members on the government side as well as on this side, and these proposals have been incorporated in a Private Member's Bill standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York-[DOT]
June 15, 1988

Scarborough. It certainly has the support of this side of the House.
We have learned that the Vice President of the Royal Bank of Canada has written directly to the Prime Minister, going over the head of the Minister of State for Finance, urging the Government to do nothing about this. Given that, will the Minister give assurances to the House that he will politely tell the Vice President of the Royal Bank to take a hike, and will he give assurances to the House that the proposals being recommended by this committee will get prompt action in the House of Commons?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that reports that are presented to Parliament by Standing Committees are responded to in the normal fashion, and in this case I think there is a 150-day time frame. I am sure the Minister of Finance, as he has indicated on previous occasions, will be responding to it very, very quickly.
I want to congratulate the leadership of and the Members on this side of the House who participated in a such an impressive fashion on the committee, and particularly the Chairman who, I think, has shown good balance and common sense in his leadership in this regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the question, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking that this Private Member's Bill be given serious consideration. There is a parliamentary process that it goes through. I am sure he would not want us to interfere or intervene in any way, but to the extent that it can be brought forth for quick debate, I am sure all Members of the House would want to co-operate in that fashion.


John Edward Broadbent: Whenever a Conservative Member does something good, we are only too happy to praise that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXPEDITIOUS PASSAGE OF PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for two assurances. One is that the Minister will reject the request made by the Vice President of the Royal Bank of Canada and say so publicly, and second, will the Minister respond to a proposal I am officially making on behalf of my Party to expedite this Private Member's Bill, to have it introduced quickly in the House of Commons, to have it passed after a couple of speakers from each side, and to ensure it becomes law quickly? Will the Minister give us that assurance?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance will respond in a proper fashion, as is required by the parliamentary rules. With regard to the suggestion by the Leader of the New Democratic Party that we should circumvent the rules, I find that rather strange coming from him. We have had his House Leader saying how wrong it is to circumvent the rules.


John Edward Broadbent: I'm not suggesting you circumvent the rules.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The process is in place. We are asking for additional hours and perhaps sitting into July. With that kind of support and co-operation, I am sure we will be able to deal with this very expeditiously.


INTIMIDATION ALLEGED ON PART OF BANK
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance and is about the same issue. The gentleman in question of the Go-Go Pizza, Mr. Rick Harman, received a note that advised him in part that a recent review of business accounts indicates that his company deals with another bank.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: We on this side of the House think that ordinary Canadians being intimidated by banks is an important issue, contrary to the heckling we hear across the way.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in a week that we have heard of this kind of intimidation. Last week a Canadian citizen was charged $2 to change a $20-bill so she could do her laundry at a coin laundry. This time a businessman is being charged 40 cents for a 50-cent roll of coins. When will the Government put its foot down and put an end to this kind of intimidation of ordinary Canadians and small businesses by the chartered banks of Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the Hon. Member for Oshawa, I would be very glad to help his constituent with regard to this matter. I should also remind the Hon. Member who just asked the question that the Bank Act will be changed with regard to these matters. The regulations will be changed, and that will be coming very, very soon.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ISSUE STATEMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people want the Government to put its money where its mouth is. Canadians want to know when the Government will order the chartered banks to put an end to this kind of intimidation. There are several other examples of it and all Members of Parliament are being made aware of them.
Again, I ask the Minister if he will immediately state publicly that the Government will not tolerate this kind of

June 15, 1988
Oral Questions
intimidation, with the chartered banks trying to punish Canadians and gouge Canadian consumers.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there have been many letters to the Minister of State for Finance, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and on each case we mediate on behalf of the constituent. We want to go further than that. We want to formalize the process and make it stronger, and that we are going to do.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Minister for International Trade who continues to insist that water is a subject for "Laugh-In North" rather than a serious concern of Canadians. Michael Harrt of the Trade Negotiators' Office has said:
-a good legal argument could be made that water would be considered a 'good' under Article 409 of the Free Trade Agreement-
In view of that comment, and in view of the comments of David Rockefeller this morning on Canada AM who said that, under the Trade Accord, Canada could conceivably be forced to export water to the United States-


Mr. McDermid:: No, he did not say that. Tell the truth, he did not say that!


Steven W. Langdon: -will the Minister stand up and admit that water was part of the negotiating process and that it was given up in the final set of negotiations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the NDP becoming disciples of David Rockefeller and believing implicitly in anything that David Rockefeller is supposed to have said. What a travesty, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Are you calling him a liar?


John Carnell Crosbie: Might I quote Ambassador Tom Niles who said-


John Edward Broadbent: Your friend.


John Carnell Crosbie: The American Ambassador.


An Hon. Member:: Quoting the boss again.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the NDP can quote Americans, I can bloody well quote Americans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I quote Ambassador Tom Niles who said: "Water was never, never raised at any point during the negotiations. It is not an appropriate subject". Then I quote Clayton Yeutter, the United States Trade Representative, who was interviewed on CTV Question Period, who said: "It would have to be negotiated between the two countries, so I don't think anybody in Canada should be concerned that our water supplies are now going to be committed to the Americans. Obviously that will not happen except by deliberate decision of the Government of Canada". That is quite accurate. It does not happen under the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, because nothing in the agreement obligates Canada to sell water to the United States. Nothing in the agreement obligates Canada to approve projects for diversion of Canadian waters for export.
Furthermore, on November 5, 1987, the Minister of the Environment-the first real one we have had this century- said that the federal policy prohibits large scale interbasin export of water, but not smaller scale exports-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: What about him?


Mr. Axworthy:: Who was the Minister in 1979?


John Carnell Crosbie: With the exception of my desk mate, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That is one.


John Napier Turner: And Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: And the Speaker, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Never did a Minister deserve more to be cut off. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: We will definitely drink to that, Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject which I think the Minister must take much more seriously than he is. Given the statement by a Canadian official, Michael Harrt of the Trade Negotiator's Office, that a good legal argument could be made that water is a good and therefore subject to the trade agreement, why is the Minister continuing to insist that water is somehow automatically ruled out by this agreement when every point in evidence suggests that it is part of what could be part of the agreement itself?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, surely the question is whether there is anything in the free trade agreement that obligates Canada to sell water to the United States of America. The answer is no, there is not.
June 15, 1988

With respect to bottled water, some kind of water that goes in a bottle like Perrier water, or bubbly water, or something like that, according to GATT bottled water is a product. We could sell bottled water to the United States if we wished. We could sell thousands of bottles of water if we wanted to sell bottled water to the United States, but there is nothing in the agreement that obligates Canada to divert our natural resource, to do anything with water that we do not want to do.
I know that we could not trust a future Government on the other side, but we have our environmental policy which states that we will not divert water as a natural resource to the United States or anyone else. What could be plainer than that?


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Knowing that the Prime Minister, the Right Elon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have made representations to the British Government with regard to the current legislation being considered that would have a tremendous negative impact on our Canadian fur industry, will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House and thousands of anxious Canadians involved in the trapping and trading of furs whether he intends to raise the concerns of the fur industry not only with Prime Minister Thatcher but with all the leaders at the Economic Summit next week?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first may I compliment the Hon. Member for the manner in which he has pursued this very important issue. I can advise him that the Government of Canada has repeatedly and very forcefully expressed its serious reservations and concerns over the negative impact that the initiative of the British Government would have with respect to the labelling regulation respecting furs.
As he has indicated, several representations have indeed taken place. The Prime Minister raised this issue with Prime Minister Thatcher last month. It has been followed up by a letter as a result of the emergency debate that was held here in the House. It will again be raised when Mrs. Thatcher comes to Canada next week. Hopefully she will react positively because she has undertaken to register those concerns with the appropriate authorities. I am hopeful that a satisfactory solution might be reached.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday, because they were running scared in Lac-Saint-Jean, the Tories took patronage and abuse of public funds to new heights, when the Secretary of State, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, announced a grant of $1.4 million for a job creation centre that had yet to make a formal application to the Minister for a grant. I wish the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion would explain how a grant can be announced when the application hasn't even reached his Department, much less been analysed. This sounds like Quebec under Duplessis when they were ready to dig a river bed so they could promise to build a bridge. What is the Minister trying to do? Isn't he sick and tired of having Lucien Bouchard make ridiculous promises about the space agency and now about the grants his Department will give?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bouchard is running for election. Mr. Bouchard identified a project that he felt was a very valid one and that would create jobs in his riding. Mr. Bouchard indicated his support, and I would like to point out that he did say he was giving his support in principle for a major grant that would help this new projet to create jobs in one of the regions the Opposition Party had neglected for years, thus leading to extremely high unemployment rates. 1 think he is to be commended.


VERACITY OF CANDIDATE LUCIEN BOUCHARD'S STATEMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: The Minister confirms that no application was sent to his Department and that Lucien Bouchard announced a grant without the Department's authorization. In fact, it is clear this announcement was a pure falsehood. I want to ask the Minister whether the job creation centre in Alma has had an offer of $1.4 million. Yes or no? Did Lucien Bouchard tell the truth or was he just making promises?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we can already say that this nonprofit enterprise, and I think it is important to mention this, has been very successful in creating jobs in the region and that with the future help of the Government, it will be able to create even more jobs. It was said from the very outset that the purpose was to create jobs, more and more jobs, and especially in Quebec's disadvantaged regions.

June 15, 1988
Oral Questions


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. During the years of Liberal Governments, Conservative Members of Parliament particularly from western Canada protested vigorously and quite properly that the procurement policy of the then Government favoured Ontario and Quebec and discriminated against western Canada. Will the Minister explain why, in the last few years for which we have figures from the Government, Saskatchewan with 4 per cent of the population got only one per cent of government procurement, and Manitoba with 4 per cent of the population only got 2.7 per cent of all procurement spending?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I answered precisely the same question in the House just last week. At that time I pointed out that because the West had indeed been ignored for some 20 years by the previous administration there was a lot of catching up to do.
We are very proud of our achievements in the West. We have doubled in the last couple of years the number of contracts that have gone to the West. We have still not gone far enough, and both in consultation with the Minister for Western Diversification and other cabinet colleagues, we are now in a position to be on the verge of making some very important announcements which in fact are going to bring fairness to the West, as is the policy of this Government, to bring equality of opportunity to all regions of Canada.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are in the fourth year, the last year this Government is going to be in office.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Orlikow: I point out to the
Minister that it is not just Manitoba and Saskatchewan I am concerned about. British Columbia, with 14 per cent of the population, received just 4.1 per cent of the contracts. Alberta, with 9.6 per cent of the population, only received 3.7 per cent of the contracts. Western Canada has developed a very diversified economy. When is the Government going to live up to the promises it made when it was in the Opposition?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why did you vote against Western Diversification?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, first, by the comments the Hon. Member is making, it appears to me he is not supporting the initiatives this Government is making in the West-*


John Edward Broadbent: Where are they?


Otto John Jelinek: -when he is saying we are not moving in the right direction.


John Edward Broadbent: No, you sure aren't with those results.


Otto John Jelinek: The Leader of the New Democratic Party, of course, only thinks of Oshawa instead of the West and that is why he is saying-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could complete his reply.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member in fact repeated his question, I will repeat my answer, and that is that great strides have already been made by this Government in respect to procurement in the West. We have doubled procurement contracts in the West in the last couple of years.
I repeat again that in the very near future the Minister for Western Diversification, other Cabinet Ministers, and myself will be making some very positive announcements that will bring equality of opportunity to the West and to the rest of the Canadian regions.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Can the Minister confirm that some Atlantic Canadian business people are being denied assistance under ACOA because the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency lacks the authority to provide help pending passage of Bill C-103 by the Senate?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm that this is an impediment to the operations of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Liberal Opposition in this House voted against the Bill and that now has been followed up by obstruction in the Senate.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Speaker ruled that the Bill could not be split, that this would create two new Bills which would be viewed as originating in the Senate. The Liberal Senators voted to overturn the Speaker's ruling and have done just that. The result is that the spending of an additional $1 billion in Atlantic Canada in the next five years has been hampered, and that the flexibility the agency should have has been reduced-


Some Hon. Members:: Speech!
June 15, 1988


An Hon. Member:: Let him finish.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou.

fTranslation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. According to the study of the costs of home mail delivery by Canada Post, the increase in total cost for all pickup and delivery services is $1.3 billion and the increase in cost for superbox delivery is only one fifth of that amount. My question is: Why did the Minister mislead the House and Canadians by increasing the cost of superbox mail delivery, which Canadians find unacceptable?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member is referring to.


Mr. Nunziata:: Wake up, Harvie!


Harvie Andre: The committee to which the Hon. Member, I believe, belongs, made a recommendation with respect to the cost effectiveness of door-to-door delivery and Canada Post provided a study to the committee that lays out in detail the cost of door-to-door delivery and the cost of extending that service to every door that does not now receive mail in that fashion. The figures are there. I am not sure what else the Hon. Member is referring to.


CORPORATION'S STUDY OF COSTS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister be briefed by Canada Post because those figures released yesterday to the committee do not indicate supermailboxes but all the increases in all the costs of delivery and pick-up service. I want to know from the Minister if the cost of installing and buying supermailboxes is included in the study, because in the corporate plan the cost for the next three years that Canada Post will incur in buying and installing supermailboxes is $145 million. Is the $145 million included in the $1.3 billion?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there are capital costs involved in proceeding to make the changes to which the Hon. Member is referring. They are all there in detail in the study. If the Hon. Member wants to re-examine that study, read it over, and then if he has some questions about the specific details, he need
Oral Questions
only approach me and I would be willing to discuss them with him.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrora (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. I am sure the Minister is now aware that his officials are conducting a investigation into allegations of price fixing by gas retail companies in Saskatchewan. These allegations were made by the former marketing manager of Turbo Industries in that province. I wonder if the Minister at this time could confirm publicly that such an investigation is now under way. Can he bring us up to date on the status of that investigation? And can he tell the House whether or not he is satisfied that his investigators are having complete access to the documentation they need from the oil industry?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly satisfy the Hon. Member. I have complete confidence in the Competition Bureau and its qualifications, capabilities, and the fact that it will examine the situation and ascertain the true facts. Beyond that I will have to get back to the Hon. Member with the details of the questions he asks.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Ask him about Trailmobile.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is surprising the Minister does not know the details of an investigation that is indeed going on into allegations of price fixing by gas retailers in the province.


PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to know, and I suppose the Minister does not know, if this investigation is confined only to the Province of Saskatchewan. Or is this investigation going on elsewhere in this country? And can the Minister tell us at this time when the investigation is to be completed and assure the House that, once that happens, the results of the investigation will be made public so that all Canadians know what is going on?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in fact there is within the Competition Bureau a special group or team that examines petroleum pricing because accusations of price fixing and so on come up from time to time, not just in Saskatchewan but throughout the country. Because of that, and because of the concern of consumers and the nature of the business, there is almost an ongoing kind of watchdog operation. In terms of the specific details of where they are in this investigation, as I told the Hon. Member in answer to his first question, I will get back to him.

June 15, 1988
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Minister knows that the qualifying period for unemployment insurance in southeastern New Brunswick has been increased from 10 to 16 weeks, although the unemployment rate in the rural part of this region was 26 per cent in February, March and April. The problem for the rural areas is that the unemployment rate in urban areas is 9.4 per cent.
Would the Minister be prepared to take steps to separate the urban and rural areas for the purposes of unemployment insurance? Would she be prepared to make changes to accommodate the people of the rural region?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is always the possibility that one can divide areas up smaller and smaller in a way to meet a particular objective to qualify for a particular program. I think the important thing to note about this region of New Brunswick is that unemployment over all has gone down quite considerably. That is why the region does not qualify.
I recognize within that there are differences, but the distances are not large and we cannot just divide up regions block by block and house by house to meet the Hon. Member's objectives.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR JOB CREATION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister again that the unemployment rate in the rural region is 26 per cent and that it is very difficult to find work for more than 10 weeks.
So, given that the rural unemployment rate is three times as high as the urban rate, is the Minister prepared to share the money from the employment development program in the same proportions? Would it not be fairer to share the job creation funds in this way, i.e. by giving three times as much to the rural regions where the unemployment rate is three times as high?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the difficulty that there is in some of our high unemployment regions. I recognize the unevenness of the difficulty throughout some regions. At this stage I am not considering any changes to the system. I
think it has been working well. Even where unemployment is high we have seen it come down quite considerably.
I would be very happy to look into the specifics of the Hon. Member's problem. However, I am not in a position to adjust the program.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, a single question, please.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Hamilton Help Centre in my riding cannot get funding for older workers. Nor can the West Kootenay Women's Association which has a program for severely employment disadvantaged women.
How is it that the Minister could miraculously find $1.4 million for the Lac-Saint-Jean area for job creation? Or is this just another way of buying votes for the candidate there?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there are programs available from which all Hon. Members can benefit. All of them can apply for various kinds of grants and various kinds of projects. I think it is a worthy candidate who goes out and says that he is going to fight hard for his region to get one of those projects.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Earlier today the Solicitor General for Canada announced his intention to tighten up the parole system of Canada. Bearing in mind the fact that the Minister of Justice has now had the Archambault sentencing commission report in his hands for over a year, when does the Minister intend to follow the courageous lead of his colleague, the Solicitor General, and introduce changes in criminal sentencing procedures? Soon will not be soon enough.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Hon. Member in saluting my colleague who is bringing forward a draft Bill for discussion purposes in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Introduction of Bills {Division No. 384)
June 15, 1988
The hon. gentleman will know, because I consult with him very often with respect to justice matters, and take his advice very often, that the matter of sentencing is a joint federal-provincial responsibility. The administration of justice is very much involved in this. As a result the Hon. Member will know and applaud the fact that I am taking leadership in arranging full and close discussion with the provinces on this sentencing initiative. I look forward to any suggestions that the Hon. Member may have in this process. They will be listened to.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the thirty-third report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*


ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-299, an Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion carried.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that the motion has been passed, is this not the time when I have an opportunity to explain what the nature of the Bill is?


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member is quite right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill that is about to be introduced is to transfer to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) the responsibility for the operation of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. By Order in Council dated May 14, 1971, pursuant to Section 26 of the Act, the Governor in Council delegated certain of its powers under this Act to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Transport. This Bill would transfer all of those powers to the Minister of the Environment, a much more appropriate focus for northern environmental protection.


Nelson Andrew Riis: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Introduction of Bills


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


EXCISE ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-300, an Act to amend the Excise Act (exemption of home brewed beer).
June 15, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The New Democratic Party has now forced a vote on three procedural matters which usually go on consent. These tactics
*1
(Division No. 386)		
YEAS		
Members		
Grondin	Nystrom	
Heap	Orlikow	
Hopkins	Parry	
Jewett	Riis	
Keeper Killens	Rossi-19	
McDonald		
(Broadview-		'ili
Greenwood)		
NAYS		
Members		
June 15, 1988

have completely wasted the time of the House. We had intended to call the motion to extend the sitting this afternoon, but unfortunately we have been unable to have any debate on that motion.
I would suggest that the wasting of the time of the House is not something in which the Liberal Party is joining. Therefore,
I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day is called for resuming debate on the motion that is Government Business No. 26 on the Order Paper, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could seek clarification on the point of order of the Deputy House Leader. Did the Deputy House Leader announce that the Government plans to enforce a closure motion, that it will no longer allow debate on the motion to extend the hours? Once again, are we seeing closure being used by the Government? I am simply seeking clarification to make sure that it is closure we are seeing as opposed to time allocation.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to clarify this for my hon. friend. My hon. friend and his Party, the New Democratic Party, have now moved three deleterious motions and votes which have completely wasted the time of the House. Had we not had these votes, we would be debating the very motion that my friend suggests we are eliminating debate on. If my friend wants to cease and desist on the delaying tactics, we would be glad to debate the motion right now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could seek some clarification. The Deputy Government House Leader mystifies me. Was it not his Party that shut Parliament down for 16 days?


Mr. Gustafson:: We had a good reason.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Was it not his Party that did that?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not believe that last intervention is really a point of order. I think the Hon. Member will want to explain his Bill which he has sought leave to introduce.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Private Members' Bill entitled "An Act to amend the Excise Act (exemption on home-brewed beer)", is to remove antiquated requirements that are now imposed on home brewing of beer under the Excise Act.
The Act now requires that before beginning to brew beer for one's personal use, a person must give notice in writing to a collector of his intention to brew and to provide the collector with a list of equipment to be used.
Current legislation also restricts use of home brewed beer without a licence to a person or his family. Such requirements do not exist for home wine-making. The law does not restrict a
Introduction of Bills
person making his own wine from offering it to his guests inside or outside his home.
This Bill would amend the present legislation to bring home brewing of beer into line with the treatment of home winemaking. It is an effort to bring equity to those who make their own wine or make their own beer for their own consumption.


Nelson Andrew Riis: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
(Division No. 387)
++YEAS
Members
Gray
(Windsor West) Grondin Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
Jewett
Keeper
McCurdy
++NAYS
Members
McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) Orlikow Riis-16

June 15, 1988
Motions


MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 10,1 move:
That, commencing Thursday, June 16, until Thursday, June 30, the House
continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and adjourn at 8
p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and at 3.30 p.m. on
Fridays.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), on a point of order.


Jacques Guilbault: 1 would like to ask the Chair to consider the effect the motion before us might have on another motion that is already before the House. The Government moved its disgraceful motion to have the House sit all summer long. I subsequently moved an amendment whose purpose was quite similar to what was proposed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I wonder whether the Hon. Member's motion is in order, since its purpose is quite similar to the motion that was already before the House, in the form of an amendment to the Government's motion.
Perhaps the Chair could take the matter raised by the Hon. Member from Kamloops-Shuswap under advisement and consider whether his motion is compatible with the amendment I myself moved, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to join with my hon. colleague and suggest that the motion is out of order since there is presently before the House, and in fact debate has commenced on, a motion which encompasses what my hon. friend is trying to do. I submit that if he wished to make any changes in the times when the House would sit between the passing of the motion and June 30, the proper route would have been an amendment to the motion which was debated earlier this week.
I also want to point out that we have had an afternoon of delay which serves no purpose to either Party or country. I suggest that we get on with the business of the House and proceed to Orders of the Day where we can debate the motion upon which we commenced debate this week. I do not think we serve any purpose by delaying action any longer. We have a busy schedule ahead of us. We are toward the end of the calendar year and we want to complete the business on the Order Paper. We want to debate the abortion motion, we want to debate the free trade Bill. We are prepared to work. We are
not prepared to sit much longer and watch the delaying tactics of the New Democratic Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I know it is quite unique for the Government Deputy House Leader to follow the Standing Orders, which is all I am trying to do. Standing Order 10 reads:
On the tenth sitting day preceding June 30 a motion to extend the hours of
sitting to a specific hour during the last ten sitting days may be proposed,
without notice, by any Member during routing proceedings.
It goes on to provide for two hours of debate and so on. I am simply suggesting that we follow this Standing Order. I know this is at significant variance to the usual approach which the Deputy House Leader takes toward Standing Orders. He continuously wants to either suspend them, set them aside, or ignore them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion moved by the Hon. Member is indeed similar to other motions that were brought before the House. However, the motion is more restrictive than the Government's motion, on which a decision has yet to be made. Although the motion moved by the Government proposes to suspend Standing Order 10, the House has yet to decide on this matter. As far as the Chair is concerned, the motion is in order, we can proceed and the House will decide.
Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to debate the motion which you have now ruled on to indicate the intention of the New Democratic Party to debate a variety of pieces of legislation which would come before the House of Commons.
Perhaps this would be a useful time to indicate that on many occasions I have made the point that we in the New Democratic Party are quite prepared to debate expeditiously appropriate issues as they come before the House and to pass them expeditiously, to move in a most co-operative way.
I will use as examples two items. Yesterday discussions occurred between the House Leaders of the Government, the Official Opposition, and the New Democratic Party as to whether or not it would be appropriate for us to extend the sittings of the House last night to allow all of those Members who wanted to participate in the Meech Lake Accord debate an opportunity to do so. That required a departure from the usual sitting hours. It required co-operation between the Government, the Liberals, and the New Democratic Party.
I felt that that was an appropriate initiative, that it was an important issue to deal with. There were Members from all Parties available to speak. That willingness resulted in a co-
June 15, 1988

operative decision between the three House Leaders representing the three political Parties to extend the debate into the evening and that was done.
A few days earlier willingness to co-operate was demonstrated when the Government House Leader inquired whether the opposition Parties would be prepared to consider as a package on the same day three different pieces of legislation dealing with native people in order to facilitate the passage of that legislation. As a matter of fact, I believe that one of the Bills was initiated by Chief Jules of the Kamloops Indian Band and was with regard to taxation on Indian lands.
That Bill moved through second reading, report stage, third reading, and Committee of the Whole all in one session. In addition, a number of other Bills were moved through various stages. That again demonstrated the willingness to co-operate on legislation which is obviously in the best interests of the country.
I could go on with a whole set of examples. As a matter of fact, I think the Government House Leader himself was indicating with some pride that in this session of Parliament we have passed more legislation than any session of Parliament in recent history. At the same time government Members say that the Opposition is holding up legislation. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot be passing extraordinary numbers of Bills and at the same time make a case that the Opposition is being obstructive. I want to make it clear that that is not the case.
There are Bills on the Order Paper which the Government has indicated interest in bringing forward and which we believe ought to have some debate and study in committee. They are Bills which we do not necessarily oppose in principle but would like to have improved. For that reason we are anxious to get on with it. However, the Government never brings them forward.
I use as an example the concerns of the disabled with regard to the National Transportation Act. We have been hearing for weeks that the disabled communities of the country want these changes to the National Transportation Act in order to facilitate movement of disabled people. We want to pass this legislation expeditiously and do what we can to co-operate. However, the Government never brings it forward and we cannot, therefore, co-operate. If the Government brought that legislation forward today, I can guarantee that we would pass it in 15 minutes. However, the Government does not bring it forward. It is fixated on the trade deal at the expense of all other legislation.
Today my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), said that if the Government brings forward a Bill such as the Private Member's Bill of the Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) to restrict the banks' ability to introduce service charges in the willy-nilly, comprehensive way in which they are, we will pass it in one hour. That is the kind of co-operation we are prepared to provide on this critical matter.
Motions
Let us go through the list. If the Government brings forward a Bill on bank charges tomorrow, it will be passed through all stages by the end of the day. If it brings forward a Bill on the disabled, it will be passed in an hour. We have not seen the legislation on child care so I really cannot indicate to what extent we are prepared to co-operate on that. We have been talking about proposed legislation for nearly four years. When we see the legislation we will certainly be willing to co-operate and move on it.
There is as well the trade Bill, Bill C-130. We as New Democrats feel that that Bill is a sell-out of Canada to the U.S.
I think it was on January 2 when I indicated we were not prepared to co-operate in that sell-out. We were not prepared to co-operate on a Bill that does away with everything we fought for over generations. This is one major piece of legislation we are not going to co-operate on.
I do not know what people are surprised at. We are trying to stall the legislation so the Government will call an election and give the people of Canada an opportunity to indicate how they feel about it. The Government lacks a mandate to proceed with Bill C-130.


Mr. Siddon:: We have a mandate to do what we like.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Oh, now we hear it. The Minister says they have a mandate to do whatever they like. That is called a dictatorship. It is called a tyranny. It is called totalitarian Government. We will do whatever we want. Forget about Parliament. Forget about the responsibilities and obligations you have to all Members. The Government knows what is right and as the Minister says, it has the right to do whatever it wants.


Thomas Edward Siddon: With a vote of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If Members opposite do not like the Standing Orders, what do they do? Tear the pages out and throw them away. Ignore them. Suspend them.


Mr. Fennell:: Live up to them and debate the motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They would rather tear them up than follow them. It is very clear that we are against that initiative, but to prove the point I put forward this motion. We are prepared to start tomorrow.


Thomas Scott Fennell: You're acting like a child.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If the Government wants to sit late, that is what we will do. Let us recognize what is taking place. We are saying we are prepared to sit into the evenings to discuss and facilitate passage of legislation dealing with restricting the ability of the banks to impose service charges. If the Government wants to introduce legislation on flow-through shares, we are prepared to co-operate to facilitate its passage.

June 15, 1988
Motions


Thomas Scott Fennell: You are not the Government, stupid.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Then there is the matter of pari mutuel betting. There is a whole list of legislation but the Government refuses to bring forward that on which we say we will co-operate. We will pass it in one hour, two hours or half a day. Yet every day the Government says it wants to bring in the trade legislation and jam it through the House. We refuse to do that. We are not interested in supporting the Government's initiative on the trade deal with the U.S. for a whole set of reasons.


Ms. McDonald:: Explain the reasons.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps I will explain two or three just so it is clear to Hon. Members. Bill C-130 provides for the diverting of Canadian rivers to the U.S. That is the selling off of Canada's waterways.


Gordon Edward Taylor: All you are doing is wasting time. Keep on going.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member is puzzled that I am wasting time. I told the Government House Leader we will not cooperate on the trade deal. Bring in good legislation and we will co-operate like you have never seen before.
Let me go on about what I think seems to have touched a nerve across the way. I do not understand it. We are saying extend the hours for debate.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is what we are saying.


Philip Derek Lewis: We will do it our way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Extend the hours to six o'clock, seven o'clock or eight o'clock, Monday nights, Tuesday nights, Wednesday nights, Thursday nights. I do not understand why people are yelling at me. We are trying to do what the Government has suggested it wishes to do. We are trying to facilitate the process.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are trying to hold everything up.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have to take exception to that. If the Government brings in legislation for the disabled, we will pass it in one day. If it brings in legislation to restrict the banks in imposing service charges, we will pass it in one day.


Thomas Scott Fennell: You do not run the show.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I could go on and identify all the Bills presently on the Order Paper that we are prepared to move on quickly and co-operatively. There are other Bills like the refugee Bill or the immigration Bill, I suppose, that we were called back last August to deal with. That was the emergency last August. It is now almost a year later and we still have not passed it. It is still being debated in the House. I have yet to hear a single expert who understands the issue and who supports the Bill. Not a single witness. Yet the Government wants to jam it through Parliament.
In spite of what the Minister said, the Government cannot do whatever it wants to. We have a Parliament. The rights and obligations and responsibilities of the Opposition are clearly laid out, but unfortunately they are laid out in the Standing Orders. The Government has indicated its interest in throwing out the Standing Orders or suspending them if it deems that to be in the Government's best interests. We reject that. We have developed the Standing Orders over decades through unanimous consent. Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and other political Parties as well as independents have cooperatively and unanimously agreed on the Standing Orders. We feel Canadians want that kind of tradition and they do not want a Government which throws it out.
I remember when the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who is speaking over there, stormed the Chair. He was part of the group in 1982 who stormed the Speaker's chair and disrupted the House of Commons of Canada for 16 days.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who did?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Muzzled it. You did.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I did not. That is a lie.


Nelson Andrew Riis: All right, Madam Speaker, I will take it back. Perhaps he was absent, but the rest of his colleagues were there that day.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You can sit down now, you have wasted the time. Shirley Carr will love you.


Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. It is now six o'clock. I note the motion made by my hon. friend under Standing Order 10(1) does not provide for debate to be extended beyond six o'clock. I would suggest that if the Standing Order had meant that, it would be stated in the Standing Order. Therefore, I would submit that the House should be adjourned at this time and that the motion should then take its normal course on the government Order Paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's interest in this debate. I would remind the Hon. Member that Standing Order 10(2) reads:
Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon,
the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
The word used is "shall", not "if', not "maybe". It seems to me that the Standing Order once again is perfectly clear. We could have a two hour debate if that were to be of interest, but at the end of whatever debate takes place, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the motion that has been put forward.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my contribution, very humbly, to this debate in the spirit of wanting to follow the rules of the House. I would read to the House the Standing Order we use every day for the daily
June 15, 1988

adjournment, and that is Standing Order No. 9(1) which reads:
At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
We are presently in Routine Proceedings, debating a motion under Standing Order 10(1) for the extension of sitting hours on the tenth sitting day preceding June 30. I submit that nothing in Standing Order 10(1) says anything about notwithstanding Standing Order 9(1). Therefore, Standing Order 9(1) supersedes, in my view, any other Standing Order unless explicitly stated. I would like to have the co-operation of the House in working within those rules. I agree with the member of the NDP who says we should be working within the rules, and I submit that you have no alternative, Madam Speaker, but to adjourn the House at this time.


Mr. Althouse:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, before you make your ruling and as a result of the intervention of my friend from Ottawa-Vanier, I would draw your attention to Standing Order 9(3) which reads:
When it is provided in any Standing or Special Order of this House that any business specified by such Order shall be continued, forthwith disposed of, or concluded in any sitting, the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.
I submit that this particular motion should be disposed of before the House adjourns.
[ Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to a specific Standing Order, 10(2), because that is really the one that has to be interpreted. It reads:
(2) Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
I think that we should take "after the commencement of proceedings" to mean two hours of actual debate. That is what it means. It means that the debate cannot take more than two hours. It does not mean that the debate cannot be interrupted by a lunch break or the normal adjournment of the House, like this evening, and be continued the next morning. What it means is that when Members have debated this question for a period of not more than two hours, the Chair has no choice.
The Speaker who is in the Chair must then rise, interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. I therefore maintain that since it is now after six o'clock-to continue along the same lines as my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier-the normal time for adjournment, the Chair should adjourn the House and continue tomorrow, in the first hour of the sitting, the debate on the motion very properly moved by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. In this way, Members will have their right to debate the motion for a full two hours, the Chair will comply with the Standing Order by putting every question necessary to dispose of the motion
Motions
before the House and the Chair will also comply with another Standing Order, namely that at six o'clock on a day like today, we call it quits.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I want to thank all Hon. Members. Their comments have been quite helpful. While listening to Hon. Members, I was also re-reading Standing Order 117. It seems to me that all other motions moved under Routine Proceedings including one under Standing Order 117 relating to time allocation are subject to the interruption of the hour of adjournment. The Standing Order reads in part:
Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon,
the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed
adjourned.
Considering this, I do not feel that the motion would overrule the normal Standing Order for the time of adjournment. Hence, I know it will be my duty to adjourn the House.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have a statement which I think should be read to the House. I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' Business on Thursday, June 16, 1988. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39. Accordingly, I am directing the Table Officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Since notice will be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be cancelled and, pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
It being after six o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned-


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may very well be that the Hon. Member cannot be here Thursday, but it seems to me that we passed a House order, in view of the visit of the Chancellor of West Germany, that the business of Thursday would be treated the same as the business of Wednesday. Therefore, there would be no Private Members' hour tomorrow. I think it should be communicated to the Hon. Member that if he wants to be here Friday, he would still be in order and could take his normal position of precedence. I do not want the private Member to lose his right to move his Bill simply because he did not realize that we had made that change in Thursday's business.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Returning to Votes and Proceedings, the special order provided for Private Members' Business to be taken up between five o'clock and six o'clock, which is why we had to make that announcement and make the proper arrangements.

June 15, 1988
Motions
It being after six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Order made Thursday, June 2, 1988.

Thursday, June 16, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers