1988-04-20

[Stage Direction]
[English)

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the protection of the environment was given a boost at the conference of the Interparliamentary Union held in Guatemala last week when parliamentarians from over 100 nations adopted a strongly worded document on environmental protection and sustainable development.
The policy document which is now being reported to other Parliaments as well contains substantial recommendations on key subjects such as the protection of the ozone layer, energy efficiency, pollution control, acid rain abatement, conservation of natural resources, population policies, debt relief to developing countries, climate protection, genetic diversity, development assistance, peace, arms race and disarmament, transportation of toxic wastes, education, protection of the world's artistic and cultural heritage, tropical forests and the like.
Parliamentarians have an important role in informing the public about global trends which affect our life on this planet. This policy document which is now available should be the object of serious consideration by all parliamentarians here in Ottawa and by the Government of Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT FROM CANADIAN REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, 70,000 Canadians cannot be all wrong. The Canadian Real Estate Association, CREA, which is holding its annual executive meeting here in Ottawa, has given its full support to the free trade agreement with the United States. They as well as a growing number of Canadians realize the benefits that the
free trade agreement will bring to the service industry in Canada.
Homes in Canada will cost less to purchase. Opportunities and growth will occur in all related industries. This alone will translate into a great many jobs across Canada. As a service industry, the Canadian Real Estate Association understands the importance of such an agreement. We must ensure our existing markets and create more.
The service industry is one of the fastest growing Canadian exports. In coming years Canada must be ready to accept the challenge and offer our children the chance to grow and live in their native land.
CREA, like a great many other national associations, is encouraging the acceptance of the free trade agreement with the U.S. as a great step forward in maintaining our freedom and expanding our economic base. For CREA and all Canadians let us make sure we take advantage of this great opportunity.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Post Office declared to a group of citizens soon after his appointment that he was not responsible for the Post Office. Perhaps this explains why he has refused to take decisive corrective action on issues of such fundamental importance to many Canadians as that of supermailboxes.
The supermailbox program disadvantages the elderly and disabled, making the mail virtually inaccessible during the rigours of winter. Supermailboxes have adversely affected property values and there are serious security concerns associated with them.
Instead of recognizing that supermailboxes were a super grandiose disaster and revoking the policy, the Minister chooses to fudge the numbers and tells Canadians that to extend home mail delivery to all homes would cause the price of a first-class stamp to rise to 60 cents. That is utter nonsense and he knows it.

April 20, 1988
In response to a question I put to him in the House on this topic he said that in front of his house there was a mailbox, an electrical utility box, and telephone poles. That later proved to be incorrect. Clearly the Minister is not responsible to the Canadian public. Clearly it is time he offered his resignation.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the Government must be congratulated on taking a difficult but correct decision in deporting bogus refugees such as the Turks. This decision means personal hardship for those individuals. However, it is imperative that the world be given this clear, concise message: liars and cheaters are not welcome in Canada.
Genuine refugees are welcome. Immigrants who have waited in the immigration process are welcome. However, fairness dictates queue jumpers are not welcome.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to bring up once more the problem of family violence. I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) several times to reflect on this deplorable situation of family violence in this country. We have learned that, following Ontario's lead, Quebec's Minister of Justice yesterday increased his budget by $1.8 million to deal with the growing number of cases of family violence.
Yesterday morning, before the parliamentary committee reviewing his Estimates, the Minister of Justice said that the number of attorneys dealing with such cases increased fivefold in 1987 alone. Also, the various police forces in Quebec had to answer 6,559 cases involving offences. New services were set up, such as telephone services to help the victims of family violence.
That is not enough. Mr. Speaker, we must still re-examine the cause of this violence as well as amend the law. One of the things that could be done is, instead of taking women and children from their homes and sending them to shelters, to send the spouses and husbands who are responsible for this violence to shelters. The federal Government has cut grants, with the result that the shelters are not big enough and are now overcrowded.
So I again ask the Minister of Justice to reconsider bringing in amendments to improve the present law in cases of family violence.


WORLD CONFERENCE ON GLOBAL SURVIVAL
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, last week our colleague, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), and I had the opportunity and privilege of attending the World Conference on Global Survival held at Christ Church, Oxford University, England.
It was organized jointly by the Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development together with the Temple of Understanding, and served to bring together for the first time over 100 spiritual leaders of the major world religions with a like number of parliamentarians from around the world to talk about issues which challenge the very survival of life on our planet.
This unique conference heard keynote speakers in the arts and sciences who had messages to offer to the delegates. Workshops of smaller numbers provided excellent opportunities for sharing and exchanging views on three main topics, namely, physical and spiritual resources, crisis and human responsibility, and global opportunities.
The conference concluded by approving a statement which I shall circulate in both official languages to all Members of this House and the other place.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation is trying to sell its privatization policy by telling small businesses they can't lose on a postal concession because it will attract more customers.
However, privatization has the effect of dramatically reducing the salaries of employees who work in those concessions, and we know that most of these employees are women. This policy will certainly not help reduce the wage gap between men and women.
April 20, 1988



As well, Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is giving its services an image that is certainly inappropriate for a government corporation. Many of these new franchises are convenience stores or video rentals that are selling pornography. Many women, and certainly those with children, are not interested in having to patronize stores that sell images that are degrading to women and disturbing to children.
The Government, in supporting Canada Post's policy of privatization, has clearly shown once again its lack of commitment to equality for Canadian women and to the strength of Canadian families.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the cordial and supportive reception members of the select Club de la garnison de Quebec gave on April 18 to Canada's Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Perrin Beatty.
For those attending, it was a unique opportunity to become more familiar with the Conservative Government's defence policy.
In keeping with its respect for the democratic process, the Mulroney Government has proceeded with many consultations on the views of Canadians about "peace and order in Canada". The concerns expressed in the course of these consultations will help us determine how we can make Canada a country that seeks peace through freedom, and security through international cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, the present Government will continue to meet its responsibility, which is that of any free and sovereign State, to ensure our common freedom and security.


MINORITY RIGHTS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the federal Liberal Caucus met the President of the Association culturelle franco-canadienne de la Saskatchewan. Rupert Baudais, a Saskatchewan Francophone from Prince Albert whose ancestors settled in Saskatchewan in 1883, was accompanied by Vice President Margot Michaud of Gravel-bourg and the proud President of Jeunesse fransaskoise, Francis Machildon of Zenon Park, where I had the privilege of campaigning several times back in 1964 and 1967.
Oral Questions
They expressed their anxiety and concern, now that the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan, under the leadership of Mr. Devine, is about to adopt Bill 2. I hope Mr. Devine's government will review its position and start by consulting with those directly concerned, the Saskatchewan Francophones themselves. I found their representations so reasonable, and I wish they were better known to Canadians, that I fail to see why the government intends to adopt this Bill. The Fransaskois are reasonable people. They are asking far less than what is already provided by Section 133 of the Constitution in Quebec to protect our Anglophone minority, and I hope that.. .
Altogether, we should depoliticize this question and ask Mr. Devine to take the necessary steps by consulting the fransaskois themselves.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. For nearly two weeks now, the Prime Minister's Office has been aware that Le Monde juridique was to publish an important article on Judge Crete's succession. I therefore ask the Minister of Justice: When the Prime Minister's Office was informed on April 5, was the Minister of Justice also informed that the article was to be published?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Hon. Member that this matter was brought to my attention in a very general way possibly within the last two weeks, but it had not been published and there had been an absolute denial.
I think the Hon. Member will know that, indeed, Mr. Yves Pratte wrote to the publisher and the author of this article, indicating that it was without foundation and there would be serious legal consequences if the publication proceeded.
As we now discuss this matter, legal proceedings are being initiated to have this matter dealt with by a court of law. According to my information, I understand there will be an action commenced and served within the next day against the author, against the publisher and other defendants with respect to this matter. An absolute denial by Mr. Roy has been made public. I hope the Hon. Member will accept the statement at this time and let the court decide exactly what are the circumstances.

April 20, 1988
Oral Questions


INDEPENDENCE OF JUSTICE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INSTITUTE INQUIRY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question, because yesterday evening again, Mr. Andre Gagnon, who is a law graduate, was attached to Quebec's Minister of Justice and is editor in chief of this specialized journal, continued to maintain his allegations. Therefore I ask the Minister of Justice, setting aside the civil matter involving Bernard Roy, does he not think that it is his duty as Minister of Justice to look after the public interest and to ensure the independence of justice? Given the seriousness of the allegations, has he considered instituting an inquiry?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it may interest the Hon. Member to know that I am involved in the matter in terms of the appointment of judges in the courts. I can assure the Hon. Member that at no time has there been any influence attempted by any member of the Cabinet with respect to judicial appointments. I hold very seriously any suggestion that any of my recommendations are tempered by any improper act. If the Hon. Member wants to make that allegation I ask him to stand in the House and make it.
I tell the Hon. Member that this matter will be dealt with, not by any third party but by Mr. Roy himself. He will bring this matter forward so that it can be decided by the court. I think we will have an opportunity at that time to see exactly what are the circumstances.


REQUEST THAT MATTER BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice. Outside the civil and private matter involving Mr. Roy, would it not be in the interest of this House and of justice for this matter to be referred to the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, where Mr. Gagnon himself has told us he is ready to testify at any time because he knows that civil proceedings could take very long and that we would be in doubt for a long time? Hopefully, in the interest of Mr. Roy as well, this will be cleared up as soon as possible. Could the Minister of Justice suggest some procedure like that where the integrity of the process would no longer be at stake?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, of course we can have any number of proceedings at the same time. I believe the Hon. Member is a lawyer who has standing at the Bar of Quebec. I think he will understand that when a very serious allegation is made with respect to the integrity of an individual, that person, regardless of their position in our country, is entitled to seek legal recourse. I think that is what Mr. Roy intends to do and
is in the process of doing. I think the matter will be dealt with expeditiously, that justice will be served in the courts, and that the full story will come out.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It concerns the latest scandalous misuse of taxpayers' dollars by the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel. Can the Minister explain to the House why the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel spent $61,000 of taxpayers' money to publish five thousand 24-page colour brochures featuring the Member of Parliament for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) and his cousin Pierre Hardy congratulating each other for the fine mess they created at Mirabel? Is this Pierre Hardy's revenge, or is this Roch LaSalle's last hurrah?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the previous Government expropriated 98,000 acres of property which adversely affected some 10,000 people. It spent $225 million and engaged in $100 million worth of law suits. This Government settled the law suits, brought in investment to the extent of $22 million, restored the properties, and social justice has now been given to the people. It is a good investment to tell that story.


Don Boudria: I don't blame the Minister for not answering the question. He is probably just as embarrassed over this as everyone else.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works to explain to the House why a contract for $36,960 was awarded to have this publication printed and why the contract was split in two, which contravenes Chapter 310 of the Administrative Policy Manual.
Why did this happen? Why were Treasury Board guidelines ignored?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I would think an expenditure of $1 million would not be enough to remind the people of Canada of the mismanagement and scandal of that Government.


Mr. Rossi:: In other words, you don't know the answer.


AWARDING OF CONTRACT-MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
April 20, 1988

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Last night The Journal ran a powerful documentary-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -on the losses in economic independence that this country will suffer from the U.S. trade deal. That is the true tragedy of this deal. Will the Minister be forthright and confirm one of the key points made in that documentary, that this deal would prevent us from ever putting in place performance requirements on a foreign firm such as those we put on RCA, which gave us Spar Aerospace, now a dynamic high-tech firm with exports world-wide?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, luckily last night I was able to watch this program which the hon. gentleman describes as powerful. I found the arguments put forward by Mr. Lipsey to be most powerful, convincing, and intellectually honest. I don't want to mention any of the politicians who were on the program, but the Minister of Finance was a shining star there as well.
The U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement does not in any way prevent us from acting. It governs how we may act in certain situations but it certainly does not prevent us from acting.


Mr. Riis:: You are acting now.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have to act in ways that are fair and nondiscriminatory with the people who engage with our chief trading partner, just as they have to treat us fairly in a nondiscriminatory way down there. That is the nature of the bargain. That is a very powerful case for approval of this agreement, as soon as we can get it, so that regime will commence.


PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPANIES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister claims that this is a non-discriminatory deal let me ask him this question. Is it not true that if a foreign company from another country is involved then performance requirements are possible, but if a company from the United States is involved then performance requirements are not possible? In short, there is complete discrimination here. Are these not the facts?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, of course those are not the facts. I have not
Oral Questions
heard the Hon. Member give a fact yet in this whole discussion.
As far as whether it is discriminatory or not, let us look to an outside source, Mr. Arthur Dunkel, the GATT Secretary-General, who said this as quoted in today's Globe and Mail.
The proposed free-trade pact between Canada and the United States "will
in no way hinder" each country's trading obligations with the rest of the
world-
He is advised by his Secretariat that the agreement generally conforms with the crucial section of the GATT charter banning discriminatory trade practices against other nations.
That is the hallmark of this agreement. What is sauce for the goose in the agreement is sauce for the gander.


CANADIAN INDEPENDENCE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly clear who got goosed in this particular agreement. I have to say that it is definitely this country.
I want to suggest a last question to the Minister since he listened only to one side of the argument last night. It was the argument of those in favour of the deal, such as Mr. D'Aquino, who was absolutely clear that there was some loss of independence. How can he justify this giving away of Canadian independence for no more than jobs 25,000 per year, which is the maximum estimation of the Economic Council of Canada? How can he justify that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman forgets is that what is good for the Oshawa goose should be good for the Canadian gander generally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no loss of independence under this agreement. There is a loss in certain choices that can be made, just as when we entered into the GATT agreement. The hon. gentleman's Party believes in GATT. Why was it not up moaning and shrieking about GATT when we entered into the GATT?
There is a certain loss of independence in the sense that one loses certain choices because it is a bargain between two independent countries. When a man and a woman marry they each give up certain of their independence. Would anybody say that they are both slaves? They might be love slaves, but they are not slaves in any other direction.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman's argument is completely silly. The Americans give up certain rights of independent action of theirs in certain areas, as do we, for our mutual benefit, for increasing the economic wealth of the two countries. For heaven's sake, grasp the fundamentals.

April 20, 1988
Oral Questions FINANCE


FLOW-THROUGH SHARES TAX DEDUCTION-EFFECT ON MINERAL EXPLORATION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On March 1 of this year John Larche, President of the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, said that flow-throughs can perform despite the market conditions. He went on to say that at present flow-through is the only viable means of raising risk capital for mineral exploration.
On Monday of this week the Minister of National Revenue said in reply to a question I raised on flow-through shares: " ... the Government is giving the matter close consideration."
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance this. When will he be ready to act? When will he give a favourable announcement and tell the mineral industry that this first-rate excellent tool for economic development is going to be retained?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me reaffirm what my colleague said on Monday. We are giving close consideration to this particular matter. Let me also say to the Member posing the question that the flowthrough share mechanism has been retained.
There are some allegations made that tax reform has had some serious effects on the flow-through share mechanism. I would point out to the Hon. Member, as I have on previous occasions in the House, that the change since the stock market crash of October 19 has had the effect of upsetting equity financing for all industries, not only flow-through shares.
These are things that have come to bear on the attractiveness of flow-through share financing to investors. We are considering this matter closely, and in a short time I hope that I will have some announcements.


EARNED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, comes as good news. I wish to remind the Minister that he knows the industry does not want grants or subsidies. What it wants is retention of the earned depletion allowance. Time is a vital factor, because there are projects that are presently on hold, and also jobs.
I want to say to the Minister, if he is reluctant to accept these demands from the Opposition that, if he would listen to some of his own Members from the ridings of Timmins- Chapleau, Timiskaming, Western Arctic, and Abitibi, he will get exactly the same response, and that is, save the flowthrough.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we are fully in agreement. We are saving the flow-through share.
We made some changes in the December announcements on tax reform which changed some of the provisions of the flowthrough share financing with a view to improving its attractiveness.
The Hon. Member says that we should extend earned depletions. I also ask him to consider what he and others of his Party have said, that we should avoid tax shelter gimmicks. The Hon. Member is shaking is head.


B. Keith Penner: Not gimmicks.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member should read some of the literature that his Party has written, and some of the things that his colleagues have said. This is one of the considerations that we are going through in discussions that we are having on flow-through share financing. I would expect that we would get his support.


MINORITY RIGHTS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister about language rights in Saskatchewan. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said he was pleased with Premier Devine's intention to declare Saskatchewan bilingual fifteen years from now, but strangely enough, he refused to criticize Bill 2 which will deny the historical and age-old rights of the Francophone minority in Saskatchewan. My question is this: Since the federal Government and the provincial Government are negotiating the future of the Fransaskois in their absence and in the upmost secrecy, is the Government now prepared to make a commitment to involve representatives of the Francophone minority of Saskatchewan directly in these negotiations?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the New Democratic Party in this issue with respect to the Province of Saskatchewan. In fact, the federal Government, through my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I believe through other officials of government who are dealing with this particular issue, is in communication with L'Association des fransaskois. 1 think that I have made it a point to keep them fully informed with respect to the position of the federal Government in this matter.
As far as I am aware, there have also been communications with the French minority group in Saskatchewan by the provincial Government. It is in the process of ongoing discussions with them, and receiving the benefit of their views.
As I indicated, and as the Prime Minister has indicated, it is our hope that we will be able in our discussions-and I like to
April 20, 1988

term them as discussions as opposed to negotiations-to make our position quite clear. The Prime Minister has stated in the House of Commons, outside the House of Commons, and in a letter to Premier Devine, the position which we as a federal Government take.
On these issues at this point in time, we are always wanting to carry on these discussions to resolve them on a co-operative basis. That is my hope for Saskatchewan. I trust that the members of the New Democratic Party share that particular point of view.


PROPOSED TRIPARTITE SPONSORSHIP OF RESOLUTION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice not aware that L'Association des fransas-kois, which has taken the trouble to come here to meet with the three caucuses over the last 24 hours, has stated quite specifically that it is excluded from participating in, from being present, or involved in any way in the negotiations or discussions that are now under way between the federal Government and the provincial Government?
In the meantime, Premier Devine refuses either to abandon or withdraw Bill 2, or substantially amend it.
Under those circumstances, is the Government ready now to come to the aid of the proposal of my Leader that the three political Parties in this Chamber should come together with a resolution which would clearly signal the desire of every Member of Parliament to support the rights of the francophone minority in Saskatchewan, and press the Government of that province to delay adopting Bill 2 until there has been a real consultation with the Saskatchewan francophone minority?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the Hon. Member put the question in the manner that he did. If he talked to his colleagues in the New Democratic caucus who come from the Province of Saskatchewan, he might be able to understand the nature of this problem.


Mr. Benjamin:: We do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a problem which resulted from the Supreme Court decision, which is a matter within the provincial domain and jurisdiction at the present time. We in the federal Government have taken exemplary leadership in going forward and trying to assist the Province of Saskatchewan as best we can in the interests of the minority in Saskatchewan to resolve this matter.
Am I to take it that the Hon. Member is stating the position of the New Democratic Party, the federal New Democratic Party and, indeed, the provincial New Democratic Party, that he does not want us to carry on with these discussions to advance the cause of minority rights in Saskatchewan? Is that the position the Hon. Member is taking? If that is the case, shame on him.
Oral Questions


Michael Morris Cassidy: We want the fransaskois to be involved.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns his Government's attitude in two cases: First, the transfer of funds from the Department of the Secretary of State to Alliance Quebec, funds that are used to fight the French fact in Quebec and Bill 101; second, the Government's cavalier treatment of Public Service language teachers with respect to their working conditions and the impact this will have on the availability of services in French to all Canadians.
My question is this: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the fact that Alliance Quebec obtained $1,109,000 in 1984; $1,183,000 in 1985; $1,150,000 in 1986; and $1,215,0000 in 1987? And this is still going on now! Is he aware of the fact that these funds have been used largely to fight the French fact and Bill 101 in Quebec? What do the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government intend to do to remedy a situation that is both unfair and dangerous?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the direction in which the Hon. Member is pointing his question is a perilous one, because I think it would be extremely imprudent to make any value judgments about the way Alliance Quebec's funds are spent. I was once Secretary of State and I was involved in providing assistance to all language minorities in this country, both in Quebec and outside that province, to both Anglophone and Francophone minorities. I think the policies of the Department of the Secretary of State, which were established before this Government and which consist in helping minorities, are excellent and should be maintained as a reflection of the way this country was built and the way we want to continue to live in this country.


CONSEQUENCES FOR FRENCH SERVICES
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, I have the facts here and I can show the Minister.
Now, about our language teachers: What do the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government intend to do about their working conditions, since these will have a direct negative impact on French services offered to Canadians across this country, and also considering the fact that his Government's attitude seems to be in direct contradiction with the Government's own language policies?

April 20, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, questions have been asked about that particular strike several times in the House.
We have indicated that the Government accepts the majority report of the conciliation board and that it is ready to go back to the bargaining table with the language teachers at any time.


POSITION OF SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to come back to the Saskatchewan question and ask the Minister of Justice a question. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister, in answer to a question I put to him, said:
In rny judgment, and I believe in the view of my hon. friend, minority rights
are indivisible. You either believe in the protection of minority rights or you do
not. You do not believe in them three-quarters of the time or half the time.
That is the position that I adopted in Saskatchewan-
That was the position of the Prime Minister yesterday. We know that there are existing acquired rights in Saskatchewan now in regard to languages, French and English. We know that Section 110 of the Northwest Territories Act gave that obligation and gave that access to the people of Saskatchewan in both English and French. There exist today certain rights.
Does the Minister believe that the Government of Saskatchewan in proposing to abrogate those rights, to reduce those rights, to make them possibly subject to the whims of Governments, is meeting the requirements of the Prime Minister, that the rights are indivisible, that you believe in them fully, that you do not cut them up and do not abrogate them?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, of course I stand with and behind the Prime Minister in his position with respect to the indivisibility of minority rights in our country. That is why the Prime Minister has taken so many initiatives with respect to this issue in the time that he has been Leader of our Party in opposition and in government as Prime Minister.
1 think the Hon. Member would agree with me that the Supreme Court itself in its judgment recognizes the fact that its declaration with respect to this issue was one which indicated that there should not be a declaration at the time of the judgment and that there should be a reasonable opportunity for appropriate measures to be put into place with respect to the rights of the minority.
What I am saying is that it is important for us on an urgent basis to do what we can in the federal regime to assist the Province of Saskatchewan to meet the full implications of the Mercure decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In that I share the same point of view as the Hon. Member. There is no difference between us. It is a question of us working has hard as possible to obtain justice for minority rights in Saskatchewan.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is condemning Premier Devine who is actually going to abrogate those rights. If I understand the Minister clearly, he is actually critical of the measure before the Saskatchewan Government, because the Minister cannot have it both ways. You must either stand or not stand. That problem is there. You cannot have it half way.


PARTICIPATION OF FRANSASKOIS IN NEGOTIATIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Fransaskois who were here today told us they were not involved in current talks between the federal Government and Saskatchewan. They felt left out of negotiations that, after all, concern their fundamental rights and their future. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that as a participant in the current negotiations, he will make sure the Fransaskois are invited to the negotiating table and are present when their future is being discussed and when decisions are made concerning their future in Saskatchewan? I want to ask the Minister to give the House the assurance here today that the federal Government will ensure the Fransaskois are at the negotiating table to discuss their future.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, first I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. I do not accept the commentary of the Hon. Member on my last answer before the premise to the next question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think he has caught up with me, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have indicated that in our discussions we have been cognizant of the role and participation of the fransaskois. The Prime Minister had a very good meeting with representatives of the association in Saskatchewan. We are in the process of dealing on behalf of the federal Government and discussing, among other things, what we can do on the federal government side on this very important issue. Naturally we are going to be in communication and we will be having an ongoing discussion with the fransaskois. We think it is important that we have the Association's point of view as we discuss the matter with the Province of Saskatchewan.


DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL SPORTS RELATIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and
April 20, 1988

Amateur Sport. First, let me congratulate him on his new responsibilities.
Earlier this year his predecessor, in conjuction with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, announced the formation of an international sports relations body to represent Canadian sport around the world. Will the Minister explain why, when there were approximately seven Canadians who applied for the job of Director of International Sports Relations, his Department hired a British citizen?
Elon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon colleague for his best wishes. It will be a very difficult challenge for me to replace my predecessor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charest:: The item to which my colleague is referring stems from an initiative announced jointly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and my predecessor which has as an objective to give Canada more prominence on the international scene as far as sports are concerned.
The information that I have at this point would indicate that we searched for the best candidate for the position. That is why the person to whom the Member is referring was chosen. He has not yet taken up the position. This person was chosen because of the very specific needs that we were looking to meet.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-[DOT] Atikokan, a short supplemental, please.


EXPRESSION OF VIEWS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, why would the Government of Canada choose someone with a reputation for expressing the views of Great Britain, particularly when the views of Great Britain are known to differ from that of Canada, particularly as they relate to apartheid in South Africa? Why didn't the Government hire a Canadian, and why did it give a slap in the face to the sports fraternity of Canada?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would want to share in what my colleague has said. I have no evidence that what he said would be the case. I will look at the matter very closely and see whether there is any foundation to what the Hon. Member has just alleged.
As far as I am concerned, the person chosen was chosen because there were very specific detailed needs. This is a new initiative and, as far as we know, this was the best choice in the circumstances.
Oral Questions TAX REFORM


FORMAT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week the Government released draft legislation on taxation in 360 pages of arcane language, with no index or table of contents, and no technical notes. The public is given only until May 20 to respond.
Is this the Minister's idea of appropriate consultation on a major tax change?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is well aware that we heard the first reports of this as a result of tax reform in December and we have had a fair amount of consultation with the community since that time. In fact, there has been quite a bit of consultation. I do not think that there are any new concepts in the proposals released last week. I think that that, together with the ongoing process of legislative review, which will probably take us into June when we get to the final legislation, will give plenty of opportunity for people to provide us with their views.


INTRODUCTION OF SECOND PHASE OF TAX REFORM
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister set the date of May 20, and much of this is in fact new. The Minister also continues to put off introduction of phase two of tax reform, although he calls the present sales tax system a silent killer of jobs. Why does he want to rush through phase one without proper examination while phase two remains shrouded in mystery until after the next election?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear. The comments we are looking for by May 20 are on the draft legislation. There will be final legislation put forward then. That can be amended, as my hon. friend is well aware, so I do not want to have her leave the impression that May 20 is the last opportunity.
As regards phase two, my colleague is quite aware of the very full discussions we are having with the provinces and others. There is a difference between phase one and phase two. Phase one involves a number of changes to the existing system. Phase two involves the introduction of a new sales tax system. That is why we must have these fuller discussions. There are some very complex issues at stake.


CO-OPERATIVES UNITED MARITIME FISHERMEN CO-OPERATIVE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Business. The Minister is aware that the New Brunswick Court of Queen's

April 20, 1988
Oral Questions
Bench yesterday placed the United Maritime Fishermen Cooperative in receivership, just days before the Atlantic fishing season is to start. Could the Minister explain why the federal Government refused to join with the Government of New Brunswick in providing assistance to management that was trying to put this co-operative on a sound basis and needed new capital to do so?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, first I would tell the Hon. Member that we were never asked by the province to participate in the refinancing of this operation. The Hon. Member must know and understand that in 1982 DRIE's predecessor Department provided a guarantee of $7 million for this operation. In 1984 the guarantee was converted to a $6.5 million interest-free repayable contribution which does not have to be repaid until the year 2000. With assets of about $10 million to $ 15 million, this operation had a total debt estimated at some $41 million.
The feasibility of the financial plan that was submitted was looked at carefully by the Department. The conclusion was that, unfortunately, that plan would not ensure the viability of the operation. Hence, we have declined to put more money into something which obviously could not make it financially.


FISHERMEN'S LIVELIHOOD
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggests the need for co-operation, so I seek his commitment that he will take an active role in this matter on behalf of the federal Government to ensure that the reorganization of the United Maritime Fishermen Co-operative is carried through successfully in order to save 650 jobs in various plants and to safeguard the livelihood of some 3,000 fishermen.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have already had contact with the President of UMF, Mr. Menard, among others. If the Government can be helpful in any way to the reorganization of this on a sound financial basis, of course we will be there to be helpful.


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In regard to the desperate situation facing thousands of honey producers in western Canada due to the Canadian embargo on replacement packages of bees from the United States, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government was
advising producers in western Canada to bring these packages in from Australia.
I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can certify that the bees in Canada are absolutely free from infestations of the borer mite. Since bringing in these replacement supplies from Australia will completely double the cost, will the Government provide the difference in additional costs to the honey producers of western Canada?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I understand that the Hon. Member put the question to my Parliamentary Secretary, and I have been informed that his answer was very complete and indeed very accurate.
I have to take advice from the inspection branch of my Department with respect to the first part of his question. I have been advised that the Department is certain that we are mite-free in Canada. I take my Department's advice on that subject and, indeed, the Department continues to monitor and will continue to carry out surveys of this.
In conjunction with the industry, we have looked at the possibility of some type of a compensation plan, but to this point in time most of the attention has been directed at the people who would indeed have to pay an additional cost for bringing in packages. However, this industry is one with some division within it. It is an industry that has some difficulty reaching a common position. That has not been all that helpful to me, at least to this point in time.
We are cognizant of the additional costs required. Yet on the other hand we are fully aware of about 95 per cent of the industry which fully-


Mr. Speaker:: Considering the hour, I would ask the Hon. Minister to resume his seat. The Hon. Member for Algoma on a short supplemental.


REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOR PRODUCERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to be fumbling around on whether or not he will provide any assistance in bringing in replacement supplies from other countries that are free of the infestation. If he continues to fumble and cannot make up his mind if he will provide any assistance, will he provide direct compensation to these producers, some of whom are expecting to lose tens of thousands of dollars this year? After all, they do not want to be stung by this Government again.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, obviously I want to reject the Hon. Member's reference to fumbling around. This is a very complex and a very difficult problem and we are working on a day-to-day basis with the industry.
I have indicated to the Hon. Member that we continue to look at some method by which we could apply some compensation, but every option so far brings with it some inequities in
April 20, 1988

the system. To this point in time we have concluded that it would not be possible to make a compensation payment and still be fair and equitable to all producers.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services. It is always a concern to the outlying regions of Canada such as the one I represent that they might not be getting their fair share of government procurement. What action is being taken to ensure that all regions have equal access to government contracts?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, much has been done in this area by my predecessor since 1984. We need only look at the tremendous success that has been achieved in the Atlantic provinces in government procurement through the Atlantic Opportunities Program. Nevertheless, I am currently and actively working with a number of my cabinet colleagues in building on these successes and initiatives taken in the last three years to bring a greater emphasis on openness and fairness to all regions and all Canadians, something that the previous Liberal administration did not know anything about.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkervilie):: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if Canada would deliver aid to Eritrea and Tigray by the northern route through the Sudan. 1 now have an answer from the Minister for External Relations which I appreciate, but this letter indicates that there are difficulties in assuring delivery and obtaining the co-operation of the Sudanese Government. The NGOs that are willing and able to deliver this aid dismissed this claim.
Today we learn that a shipload of food is in port in Asab and will probably never reach the North. Is not the real reason for Canada's hesitation about the continued unnecessary starvation in the north Canada's policy against cross-border aid, and an excessive deference to the autonomy or sovereignty of the Ethiopian states, given the massive starvation going on there?
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question, and I share his concerns and the concerns of all Canadians and the Canadian Government about the situation facing millions of Ethiopians today.
Last week, the Hon. Member raised the question of the delivery of aid by non-governmental organizations.
Mr. Speaker, the NGOs play a very important role in the delivery of our aid programs in Ethiopia and elsewhere, but today, when we consider the possibility of delivery through Sudan, the point is that we are not sure, and we are now trying to find out, whether the Sudanese port and the various routes would be able to handle and carry this aid to the people who need it.
We are concerned about finding the best way to route this aid, and we believe that if the Government allows NGOs to return to the North, that would be the best solution to the problem of how to deliver aid to the people that need it.


AUTONOMY OF ERITREA-IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has confirmed the assumption that we are going to fiddle around trying to deal with a Government which refuses to deal with us while people starve in the north. Last week I pointed out that Resolution 390 assured the autonomy of Eritrea in the Ethiopian confederation. In her answer she indicated that resolution no longer applies. It still applies, and it is the basis of the war and the cause of starvation.
Will the Government not take initiatives in the UN to force the UN to assume its responsibility with respect to the implementation of Resolution 390 which is the basis on which the war must end?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all the alternatives to ensure that aid is delivered as soon as possible.
At the present time, we have been given the assurance that the mission conducted by the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ahtisaari, has produced results, in that Ethiopia will allow the United Nations to return and help deliver aid in the regions where people are starving.
Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all the possibilities, and we are also prepared to consider any suggestions the Hon. Member may have.

April 20, 1988
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 11 petitions bearing Nos. 332-3951, 332-3994, 332-3995, 332-3998, 332-3999, 332-4127, 332-4136, 3324180, 332-4196, 332-4223 and 332-4228.



[Stage Direction]
of Kitchener. The petitioners support the Government's initiative in Bill C-54 to combat pornography. As they say, pornography offends standards of decency, portrays an abnormal view of societal values, and is harmful to normal family associations.
These 99 signatures are added to the close to 2,000 I have presented in the House previously which call upon the Government to bring in Bill C-54 and deal with this very serious social problem.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present two petitions signed by several hundred of my constituents in Spanish, Ontario, on the north shore of Lake Huron, as well as petitioners from St. Joseph's Island and Richard's Landing, as well as a number of petitioners from Sault Ste. Marie, who deplore the action of the Government in its massive increase in regressive taxation on all manner of commodities. They call on the Government not to impose a tax on food.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of constituents concerned that the trade deal the Government signed with the U.S. will have a very fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence. They believe the agreement will result in a loss of jobs not only in many sectors of the economy but in various regions.
Therefore, they ask the Parliament of Canada to obtain a clear mandate from the people on this critical issue through a national general election.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam
Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Waterdown, Ontario, in my constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth. This petition is one of many circulating in my riding and so far we have approximately 1,300 signatures.
My constituents are very concerned over Canada Post's proposal to provide supermailbox service to 850 general delivery customers. The Flamboro Town Council passed a resolution objecting to the plan. Council stated, together with the majority of the users of the Waterdown Post Office, that they would rather see the existing building expanded. I support the petitioners' request and urge the Government to consider their wishes. By expanding the facility, Canada Post will be able to provide, in the most practical and realistic way, the best possible postal service for the next 25 years.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from 99 constituents of the riding


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today, both of them signed by constituents of mine. The first petition relates to the issue of the illness of schizophrenia. The petitioners point out that it costs Canada $3 billion annually to treat that illness. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in the future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness.


Peter James Peterson: The second petition deals with a concern expressed by a number of constituents regarding the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) when he charged that the State of Israel was using food as a weapon to control the riots in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ask the Department of External Affairs to provide the Canadian people with the evidence to support the charges made by the Minister.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 275, 296 and 304.
April 20, 1988



DSS-GRANTS AND/OR LOANS WITHIN METROPOLITAN TORONTO


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Supply and Services make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Otto John Jelinek: Since September 4, 1984, the Department of Supply and Services has not made grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within metropolitan Toronto.


Mrs. Sparrow: On January 1 (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d) 1984 (e) 1985 (J) 1986 (g) 1987 (h) 1988, what were the percentage figures of unemployment in Calgary?


Otto John Jelinek: Statistics Canada reports: The unemployment rates for these months were:
January, 1981	4.6%
January, 1982	5.5%
January, 1983	13.5%
January, 1984	12.0%
January, 1985	12.5%
January, 1986	8.4%
January, 1987	12.0%
January, 1988	8.5%


Ms. McDonald: 1.	On February 24, 1988 did a lighted cigarette fall to the floor and cause an emergency landing for the 155 passengers on Air Canada flight 123?
2.	Is it the position of the Department of Transport that there is no safety hazard posed by passenger smoking on commercial aircraft?


Benoît Bouchard: 1. On
February 24, 1988, on Air Canada Flight 123, a passenger dropped a lit cigarette on the floor into an area where it could not be seen directly nor retrieved. A flight attendant discharged a fire extinguisher in the area. As a precautionary step, the Captain elected to land in Winnipeg, where the dead cigarette was located and removed.
2. Aircraft are equipped to safely permit smoking, with items such as enclosed metal ashtrays, fire retardant seat cushion material and lavatories equipped with smoke detectors and automatic fire extinguishers for waste bins.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for papers stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.