1988-09-01

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, August 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-l 14, an Act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of the office of the Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to establish a Conflict of Interest Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate concerning the adoption of Bill C-l 14 which deals with conflict of interest. The purpose of this Bill is, basically, to establish a system under which the obligation to observe certain imperative directives on conflict of interest becomes binding by law and which provides for an administrative framework that did not exist under the old system which was a set of basic directives.
I believe that this debate and this legislation are of crucial importance, since the subject matter raises the debate above party considerations. 1 think we all have a duty to approach this fundamental issue with a sense of co-operation and solidarity, whatever our political stripe. We are dealing here with an essential attribute of democracy. If there is any place at all in Canada where we can talk about democracy seriously, without fear of ridicule, it is within these precincts where we have been sent as the elective representatives of the Canadian people.
When we talk about democracy, we are talking about something that is part of the very essence of our civilization. With democracy a new concept was born, the concept that political leaders had to have and deserve the trust of those elected by the people. The concept is not brand new. Democracy was born in Athens, and it was Pericles who was first faced with a demand for openness and accountability. There is a
rather amusing story that says a great deal about the perennial obligations and problems governments must face.
In the 5th century B.C., Pericles decided to build the Parthenon, and since Athens was very wealthy at the time and had considerable resources and especially a lot of gold, he had instructed Phidias, the famous sculptor and architect, to make a huge statue of Pallas Athena and to cover Athena with a mantle of gold. Since Athens had a lot of gold, this was not a problem. Phidias followed his instructions and covered this huge statue which was 30 feet high with a fairly thick mantle of gold. Subsequently, the opposition parties, since Athens was a democracy, accused Pericles of keeping back part of the gold. They ordered him to show he had not kept any of the gold for himself and had not given any to his mistress, his courtesans, his wife, his friends or his immediate entourage or, I imagine, to those who helped elect him.
But Pericles, who invented democracy, also knew its difficulties and tribulations, and he had the intelligence and cunning to see to it that Athena's gold mantle could be taken apart in pieces. And once the accusation was made, he took apart the gold mantle and had the pieces of gold weighed that corresonded exactly to the weight of the gold given to Phidias.
This is a lesson that we should all have learned from the history of Athens, Madam Speaker. But we know that this question of conflict of interest and public trust is perennial; it goes back to the beginning of democracy. When there is a tyrant or tyranny, no one cares about the trust that should be placed in tyrants. Tyrants rule by terror.
Remember the maxim of Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily: oderint dum metuant, let them hate me, as long as they fear me. He governed by means of terror, as do all the world's tyrants.
But we are in a democracy, and even in Rome, at the beginning of the Republic, Madam Speaker, you will remember that one of the ways for an ambitious young man to go into politics was to accuse a proconsul returning from a distant province in order to force him to account for his management. That is how Cicero, for example, distinguished himself in his fight against Verres, a proconsul of a Roman province who had lined his own pockets and had to make restitution after Cicero, an eager young lawyer and ambitious politician, had convicted him.
We are dealing here with a basic responsibility and we know that the obligation of integrity for elected officials concerns not only the traditional rules of morality and the traditional virtues. Of course, these are constraining, but politicians are

September 1, 1988
Conflict of Interest
more obliged to be honest, to use a general term, than an individual in private life is required to be honest with his employer. This is because politics also affects the stability of institutions and the very essence of democracy. Every time a politician does something wrong, not only are ethical standards violated, but the strength and credibility of the State are also affected. This is very serious and it imposes an additional obligation.
One must also realize that things have evolved, of course. Like it or not, we all sometimes say, "when I was young," or "In my father's or grandfather's day, people were more honest." I do not believe that is true. 1 believe that we are really witnessing a positive development in institutions and public attitudes. For instance, it is very obvious that morals have evolved and have become more refined as democratic standards have grown more sophisticated, to the extent that what was acceptable 50 years ago no longer is so these days. The extremely clear and evident outcome is that politicians- men and women alike-simply have to be better, if you will, more rigorous than their predecessors.
From day to day, from one year to the next, and from one Government to another, an extremely difficult adaptation has to be made in keeping with the rising expectations of the people, and these expectations can readily be perceived with respect to controls, for example. One of the essential controls these days-not the only one, yet patently basic-is the one exercised by the media.
The media are ever more vigilant. I, for one, do not believe they ought to be taken to task, for they are the realistic image of a parallel phenomenon between public expectations, higher democratic standards, and additional media responsibilities. As guardians of public life and of a minimum of integrity and decency in public endeavours, the media as well must shoulder heavier responsibilities in response to the expectations of the people.
Of course this highlights the fact that public life is becoming ever more trying, that sometimes one wonders why anybody would want to go into politics, that sometimes when a decision has to be made one would even ask the question: should I jump into this lion's den? Should 1 agree to give up most of my own private activities to meet the new requirements of political life? And so we now find ourselves in a position such that we have to make an assessment in the context of the rules governing public life.
Madam Speaker, you are looking at a Bill introduced by a Government which did experience some difficulties and did make the odd mistake with respect to problems of this kind. If we forget all about the acrimonious political and biased debates, if we forget all about the passions which prevail in our obviously partisan proceedings in a venue such as this one, and when we take a closer look at ourselves, we come to realize that such problems have always been part and parcel of political activities and that, generally speaking, they have been much more complex than others we may have experienced during the first years of this Government.
I suggest it would be frivolous and vain to put on trial all Governments which preceded us in Ottawa. We could list names and identify people. We are all aware of the facts of public life. We have all been affected by the news which were published in the newspapers. We could mention a series of episodes throughout the Canadian history, but we will not, Madam Speaker, for fear of losing sight of the main purpose of this legislative initiative.
Madam Speaker, the main purpose is to look to the future, to meet the expectations of Canadian citizens, in order to prevent a repetition of what happened under a Government in 1910, under another Government in 1920 and again in the years after that. And the perfect place to start is right here.
It is not the newspapermen and reporters who can devise an enforceable system. It is not our fellow citizens watching television in their own homes who can change things. This is our responsibility. If we cannot achieve this here, nobody will. The buck stops here! If we should allow the system to continue as it has until now, Madam Speaker, we are well aware that all the Governments which will follow us, because they are made up of fallible human beings, will be exposed to temptations. All Governments are made up of human beings.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lucien Bouchard: Listen! I know that the person who has the floor should remain indifferent to all these shouts, but since I am not as thick-skinned as my hon. colleagues, I should like to be able to say quietly what I have to say, without being interrupted by all these untimely remarks, Madam Speaker. This is undoubtedly the rule of the game here and one should be able to accept that. However, I am extremely disappointed to realize that it is impossible in this House to say anything significant, to deal with basic issues, and to meet the expectations of Canadian voters. I was chosen by 50,000 people and sent here to say what I have to say, and I should like to be able to do so without being exposed to constant harassment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Bouchard: I know, Madam Speaker, that this will not stop people from screaming, but I will go on.
I was saying, Madam Speaker, that every one of us, wherever we sit in this Chamber, will be held accountable by history for this exercise we are engaged in. Little by little, we are in the process together, whether we agree or not, of making things progress, of advancing the exercise of democracy in Canada.
Considering what we have done in the past two years, although I was not here, I believe I have reason enough to be proud of being a Member of this Government which, for the first time, has enacted regulations under which the process for the appointment of judges will be more impartial and objective than ever before. I am not saying, far from it, that bad appoitments have been made, that judges who are now dispensing justice in Canada are not good judges.
September 1, 1988

On the contrary. I have practiced law for 20 years and I can testify that justice in Canada is in good hands, that we have judges who are responsible and at all times aware of their obligations. That being said, the situation must also be perceived as being such; citizens must be certain that the judges appointment process creates the widest possible range of options. We must put an end to the practice of appointing judges because they happen to be members of a Party. We could keep on appointing the best judicial minds within a party and they would prove to be very good judges. However, people would not like a criterion based on partisan politics. The judges appointment process must be diversified. I will not name any names; I do not want to hark back to the past. I believe that we must keep improving the system.
This Government is the first Government in the history of Canada, the first Government in the history of this democracy that has enacted regulations stipulating that eligibility lists must be made up without any intervention by the Government in order to allow a better selection.


An Hon. Member:: Not true!


Lucien Bouchard: It is also this Government, Madam Speaker, which introduced the very important bill on lobbyists registration, in an attempt to deal with a phenomenon common to all democracies in the world, which is the fact that powerful interests can afford to be represented in the national capital by people who are well acquainted with the government machinery, who often know decision makers personally and can therefore sometimes have more influence on a decision, good or bad, than ordinary citizens in the course of their daily occupations who, of course, have no such influence.
It is therefore very important. We cannot prevent people from being represented here, from promoting their points of view. It is a fundamental rule of our democracy that everyone must have freedom of expression. But those whose interests can be represented on a systematic basis must at least be forced to indentify themselves. People must know who is lobbying here, and for what interests and the extent to which they can influence decision making. Here is a government that, for the first time in the history of Canada, has accomplished that. And now this Government wants to go one step further and pass this bill, as I hope it will, with the unanimous support of all Members of this House who can hardly object to legislation so beneficial for democracy.
There was a code of conduct, a code of ethics referred to as a conflict of interest code, but it was not backed by legislation. In a society like ours, there is no substitute for the rule of law. The rule of law is democracy at its best, because it is lasting, because it can be supervised by the courts and because it provides all the necessary guarantees that the desired goals will be reached.
Conflict of Interest
What is being proposed to the House and the citizens of Canada is a set of very important restrictions that this country's elected representatives who are here today will apply to themselves and, through this legislation, to subsequent governments and parliamentarians. I believe it is a measure whose time has come. I do not believe it will make things any easier for people, but we need it just the same. Not just because we think people are dishonest, but there are always exceptions, and we must keep those exceptions to a minimum. The parties themselves must be very vigilant with respect to their own members, each individual must be personally vigilant. We must realize that people have to protect themselves. We have to protect the public, of course, but we must also protect their elective representatives.
We are living at a time, and I have seen this in the four months I have been here ... I have done a number of things in my life. I have been involved in the private sector, where I practised law for a number of years. I was in Paris, where I had the privilege of representing Canada as its Ambassador to France. I know what it's like to be under pressure and to be rushed all the time, but I never imagined, Madam Speaker, that political life could be as stressful, as arduous and as disruptive as it is. Major decisions are made daily in Cabinet and in the House, fundamental decisions that affect Canada's future. They are sometimes taken very quickly, and there are all kinds of priorities that intervene in the life of a man or a woman who is involved in politics. It is very easy to overlook something. And it is very easy to forget the importance of how we are perceived. In politics, perception is far more than just that.
Some people think politics have become a matter of image. I agree that the emphasis on image has been increasing. Yesterday, for instance, we saw people who took advantage of the visual aspect of our proceedings to show the Canadian flag and to wave it as if it were their personal flag and as if Members who did not have a flag in their hands, in front of the camera, were excluded from that national identity. No, I agree the emphasis on image has increased. However, in politics image is far more than that, just as perception is more than perception. In politics, perception is one aspect of reality. When Canadians see the Government at work and when they see all the inner workings of that Government which are so complicated and so difficult to control, they must have the assurance that there are controls and guidelines to which men and women in public life, to which politicians can refer in their daily decision-making.
That is why I believe we must vote in favour of this legislation which will protect us, which will give us control, and which seeks to strike a balance with a concept that is equally delicate: the concept of privacy.

September 1, 1988
Conflict of Interest
Last week, the Canadian Bar Association held a convention and a conference in Montreal. The main conference was on the limits of privacy for politicians in relation to the media. And a Member of this House, a Member of an Opposition Party, also attended this extremely interesting discussion. Perhaps since it took place outside this Chamber, it was at least somewhat unemotional and objective. There was a very worth-while exchange of views with distinguished representatives of the Canadian media also present. It was clearly apparent that there was a fundamental problem, which I believe this Bill is trying to correct, because we all recognize more and more that respect for individual rights and liberties in a society like ours implies that anyone is entitled to his or her freedom and privacy.
On the other hand, we all know too that the press has an extremely important role to play in watching over politicians and what they do. But where do the rights of one stop and the obligations of the other begin? That is a good question, an extremely important one. So it is a dangerous situation if in future being a politician means giving up one's private life. I find that prospect horrifying and personally, I do not agree that we can ask politicians to give up their private lives, because without it, they would become monsters. You cannot live without at least some private life. I believe that it would be very dangerous to have people who had to give up their private lives controlling the levers of power. They could easily become unbalanced and lose sight of reality; they need to keep in touch with poetry, with nature and with the real world.
Now, this Bill seeks to strike a balance by requiring politicians to disclose their assets. If this is done publicly, it may violate one's privacy. A commission is therefore created to receive this information, which it will have to keep secret. I think that this combines the obligations of democracy and respect for privacy very well.
1 see that my time is almost up. I will have to try to conclude. I shall conclude, if you allow me, Madam Speaker. We have a very important decision to make. I hope that we can set aside our partisan differences. I hope that we will not lose sight of the fundamental interests of this country and of democracy.
1 hope that when we vote on this Bill, we look to the future- the distant future, not the immediate future-not the future of partisan concerns, but the future of the public interest of Canada. That is what we are all here for.


Ms. Copps:: Madam Speaker, just how much credibility can this Bill generate if we consider that the former Minister, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), who was found guilty in 14 cases of conflicts of interests, will be running as a candidate in the forthcoming election, with the blessing of the Prime Minister? So where is the credibility in this measure? [English]


Lucien Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I would remind everyone in the House that what we are dealing with today is a measure to establish a system which will look to and address the problems of the future. We are trying to prevent any Government-ours or Governments formed by other
Parties-from having the type of problems that we have seen over the course of the history of Canada.
I was a witness to what happened in Quebec. During the forties and fifties the Government of Quebec was very much considered all over Canada, as well as in Quebec itself by many people, as being corrupt. It was a very bad thing for the image of Quebec. It stained the image of Quebec. I was very young at that time. Many people like myself admired people such as Jean Marchand, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Gerard Pelletier, Claude Ryan, and Rene Levesque. Many of those people fought against the Government then in power in Quebec, and suffered a lot from the image that that gave to Quebec.
In Quebec in the 1960s and 1970s we adopted laws such as this one which succeeded in cleaning up the image of Quebec. For many years now Quebec has been a model of honesty. I hope it will always be the same. It is the case because people in Quebec had the courage to stand up in the House and propose legislation such as this.


Mr. Rodriguez:: The Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) made a very nice speech. No one could disagree with some of the sentiments expressed: a clean slate, look to the future, bad practices of the past, and politics should not be image. Fine words!
The Hon. Minister belongs to a Party that made image the issue. Everyone knows in this country that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was a great believer in the image-maker. The Minister's presence in Parliament followed a by-election where the Government and the Prime Minister had stated we should never buy voters with their own money. He bought his seat in the House with over $100 million.
When this Bill leaves so many loopholes, how can the Minister say "look to the future", when there is what we call the "Gucci" clause which eliminates the declaration of moneys loaned or advanced to Party leaders? Why does the Bill have the loophole that there be no public disclosure? Why does the Bill set up a quasi-judicial body, a bureaucrat, to decide what will be made public, if anything at all? Why is there no abandonment of the blind trust, after Justice Parker, with millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, gave us advice on what a Bill such as this should contain? How can the Minister talk about looking to the future when we have a Bill that is so obviously flawed, or is it just empty rhetoric and nice professorial treatises about what a conflict of interest Bill should contain? I would ask the Minister to come to grips with those types of questions before lecturing Canadians.


Lucien Bouchard: I essentially thank the Hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to say what I think about a few things. First, those sleazy sayings about the Prime Minister, and the "Gucci" clause, and things like that, I am sure are some of the reasons for which many good people will always refuse to become involved in politics and serve Canada. When they see that those things can be said in the House, false things-
September 1, 1988


John R. Rodriguez: Come on!


Lucien Bouchard: I personally know the Prime Minister. He is one of the most honest men I know in the world. He is a friend of 25 years. 1 would not be in politics and be here if I did not believe that the Prime Minister is a man of great honesty. It is completely disgraceful that people in the House of Commons, at this great historical moment when we speak about adoption of great legislation for the future, think about the shoes of the Prime Minister.
There is one further thing I want to say about my election. I could not answer any questions previously, because nobody ever asked a question before in the House and I have been here for four months. I read all the rubbish in the newspapers about the fact that my seat was bought. A few days ago in the newspaper 1 read that $1.5 billion was spent to buy my election in Lac-Saint-Jean. That is awful. It was a perfectly clean election, and no money was spent to buy anything.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) simply announced that the pavement of the airport would be redone. That has been a project for four years, and it simply came up at that time, and it is only $1.10 million. We established a fund of $1.4 billion to create jobs, and that is all, and a few things like that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A few millions here and a few millions there.


Lucien Bouchard: The Opposition attempts to make the people believe that the federal-provincial announcement of $120 million for the development of the region of Saguenay, Lac-Saint-Jean, was tied to my election. It is ridiculous, everybody knows that, and the opposition Members know it themselves perfectly well. It was simply the renewal of the framework agreement between Quebec and Ottawa, signed each five years, for the development of the regions of Quebec. It was late, it was due, and it has been waited for and expected for four or five months, and it was only announced then.
It was also announced that the Government would spend $100 million for the cleaning of the St. Lawrence River. Opposition Members all attribute that to my election. 1 must say that I am very proud that the Government assumed its responsibilities for the environment and the cleaning of the St. Lawrence. It would be a scandal not to do so.
In conclusion, one has to accept such things in politics, and I know it. It is very difficult. I am sure more and more we will see fewer people ready to accept it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The question and comment period has expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
Conflict of Interest


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am damned surprised that a Minister of the Crown would deliver ...


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member would want to use the kind of language which is suitable for the House of Commons.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am bloody surprised that a Minister of the Crown would have us believe that expenditures of $1 billion here and $1 billion there in Lac-Saint-Jean were sheer coincidence.
Madam Speaker, this statement by the Minister is one of the reasons why we are having this debate on conflicts of interests, and this has to be an unbelievable joke on the part of a Government whose recent history spells corruption of people who sought to take full advantage of the system.
I am not surprised that the Minister chose not to answer my question concerning a Member and former Minister, Sinclair Stevens, for we on this side are getting used to hearing the Prime Minister claim that he will introduce a Bill on conflicts of interests while at the same time he has no qualms whatsoever about supporting as a Conservative Party representative a Member whom a Tory-appointed judge found guilty of 14 conflicts of interests. This man is highly regarded and still belongs to the Conservative caucus, yet even his colleagues did not ask that he be thrown out as they did in the case of others who found themselves in a similar predicament.
So it is false to pretend that we will regroup here as one big family.-For instance, the Minister mentioned a big statue in Athens, the statue was weighed at Athens to see whether the gold would weigh the same before and after the insults about conflicts of interests, but I would like to tell the Minister that the $2.1 million statue which was loaned to the wife of a former Minister of the Crown was not visible. It was money tied to an interest-free loan made directly to the wife of a Conservative Minister of the Crown because of his responsibilities. Moreover, the Minister claimed in his speech that several other Governments found themselves in the same predicament. Let him name them, because according to Mr. J.M.S. Careless, who ranks among the best-known Canadian historians or it is not the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, but J.M.S. Careless who wrote a few months ago that this is the first time in Canadian history that Ministers and Members have been trying to benefit from Government funds, something Mr. Sinclair Stevens who is going to run again under the Tory banner during the forthcoming federal election did shamelessly.

September 1, 1988
Conflict of Interest


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Athabasca.


Mr. Shields:: That Member knows full well that you do not refer to Members in this House by name. You refer to them in this House by their riding, and she should know that. I know that she continually breaks the rules of this House, but 1 think that is deliberately-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: It is reprehensible that she would continue to do this knowing full well she is breaking the rules of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is well aware-


An Hon. Member:: What was your husband doing in this office? You forget about that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you turkeys go home?


An Hon. Member:: What is the history of your Party?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I wish all Hon. Members would refrain from throwing insults across the floor of the House of Commons. It is not helping the debate in any way. That goes for Members from all sides. As far as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is concerned, she is well aware of how to proceed, after four years of the rule which says that all Hon. Members should be referred to by the name of their riding. I am sure that she will abide by that rule from now on and help the Chair.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I used the words "Sine Stevens" in this House. I realize it is unparliamentary.


An Hon. Member:: You just did it again.


An Hon. Member:: A complete disgrace to this Chamber, day after day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is wondering why the Hon. Members would make life so difficult for everyone in the Chamber by willingly going against the rules.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can understand why the Members of the Conservative Party are so touchy on this issue. As far as I am concerned, the conflict of interest legislation that is before this House remains an absolute farce as long as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) refuses to accept his responsibilities-

-concerning the Hon. Member for York Simcoe.

-and all that anybody across Canada has to say. I did not say that you had an option. I did not set myself up as the patron goddess of purity, as did the Prime Minister in the debate in 1984. But in fact, it was not the Liberal Party; it was J.M.S. Careless, an eminent Canadian historian, who, when writing about the history of this Government over the last four years, said that it was the first time in the history of Canada that the tone of patronage had changed. In the past, he wrote, Members were trying to do things for their ridings. In this case, you have clear-cut situations of members of the Government, of the Conservative Party, using their parliamentary privilege to fatten their own pocket-books, to take advantage and to receive personal gain.
The Criminal Code does not stop anyone from robbing a bank. If the Criminal Code stopped everyone from robbing a bank, we would have no bank robbers in Canada. Anybody who expects the conflict of interest legislation that is currently before us to absolve this Government of a litany of corruption, a litany of scandals and a litany of self-aggrandizement and self-benefit, really does not understand, that to quote the words of the democratic candidate-


An Hon. Member:: Run a business out of your office.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Mr. Fontaine:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) rises on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Madam Speaker, I should like to find out whether it is proper for an employee or a Member of the House to provide his or her spouse with an office to carry out business of his or her own? Do the conflict of interest guidelines apply to that?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Levis is well aware that he was not raising on a point of order to seek an information, but to interrupt the person who had the floor. What is unacceptable for one side of the House is also unacceptable for the other.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Mrs. Copps) has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: All I am asking, Madam Speaker, and I can understand why the Tories become very irritated whenever we refer to the issue which my friend the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) quite properly designated as the Gucci article .. .
September 1, 1988



-refers to lavish spending on personals. There was the incident of the Prime Minister and two other former Ministers of the Crown eavesdropping on opposition caucus meetings by the former Deputy Prime Minister of the House of Commons. There was influence peddling, insider land speculation, failing to disclose personal loans, awarding government contracts to friends, patronage. The list goes on and on and on, and any type of defence that the Government intends to provide is totally destroyed when we see the name of the Member from York-Simcoe-which is synonymous with the rip-offs of this Government-continues to stand as a candidate with the blessing of the Prime Minister. He is going to be waving that Conservative banner in the next federal election. There were 14 charges of conflict of interest that were levied, not by the Opposition, not by the Liberal Party, but by a judge appointed by the Prime Minister.
The Canadian public spent over a million dollars. In fact, I think it was in the neighbourhood of $3 million that was spent in taxpayers' money to examine the situation, and it was not at the request of the Opposition. We sought a parliamentary committee. It was the request of the Member from York-Simcoe to be exonerated. The Prime Minister said that the judge would exonerate him, but the judge did not. He found him guilty on 14 counts of conflict of interest, according to the conflict of interest guidelines which were described by the Prime Minister in 1985 as the strongest guidelines in the western world. He came out in this House-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South.


Mr. Edwards:: I know that the Hon. Member is trying to score some partisan points, but I would remind her that she strays dangerously close to being in contempt of court. I understand her to have said that charges have been laid and that a party has been found guilty. I think, in the case that she is referring to, that that is not the case at all.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What are you talking about? I do not know what case the Member is referring to. 1 was referring to the findings of the Parker Commission which were tabled in this House. There were 14 counts of conflict of interest found by Judge Parker against the former Minister for the interest-free $2.1 million loan that his wife received for her company business.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the point that I am making is that the Hon. Member should choose her words more carefully. I heard her say "charges" and "guilty". She is leaving a false impression in the minds of Members and the public.


Mr. Nunziata:: Madam Speaker, Mr. Justice Parker, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, after a lengthy and costly royal commission of inquiry, found quite clearly that the
Conflict of Interest
former Minister had breached the conflict of interest guidelines on 14 separate occasions. In effect, he found the Minister guilty of breaching the conflict of interest code. That was the finding of a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario. For the Member to suggest that that is not the case is absolute nonsense. He should go back and read the report which ended up costing the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars because the former Minister was so crooked he could not follow them.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, to come back to my remarks, I think the ultimate point to be considered is that the Criminal Code does not stop people from robbing banks. Let us examine the history of this Government.
I will accept the fact that the current Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard) may be coming at this with a bit of naivety. I hope he is not as naive as he sounded in his comments. In 1985 I was sitting in this House, as were other Members, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) came out with a very thick book. It was covered and wrapped in a lovely blue ribbon. He brandished and flourished it and said: "These are the toughest conflict of interest guidelines in the western world". That was before we saw Minister after Minister after Minister resign under a cloud. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean said: "Let's wipe the slate clean. Let's start all over again in a very non-partisan way and bring in conflict of interest guidelines". But we cannot legislate a personal code of ethics.
The current Member for Halifax had a trustee in a so-called blind trust who had twenty-twenty vision. His trustee was found guilty by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada for not operating a blind trust, yet he continued to be his trustee. Is that covered under the conflict of interest legislation that is before us? No, because the Prime Minister ignored the recommendation of the Parker Commission to abolish these so-called blind trusts where people have friends, relatives and other people in so-called arm's length relationships actually acting in the case of the blind trust with twenty-twenty vision. That has not been dealt with in this legislation.
For members of the Government to suggest that somehow the Parker Commission did not exist, that the Hon. Member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was not found guilty of 14 counts of conflict of interest, and the Prime Minister is not, in fact, endorsing that conduct by welcoming him with open arms as the continuing Conservative candidate in that particular riding makes this whole exercise of conflict of interest guidelines seem to be a sham.
1 was talking about the Democratic presidential campaign in the United States. There is a saying drawn from the Greek language, "the fish rots from the head down". It is also very true that in the area of cabinet appointments, let us remember one thing, those people are appointed by the Prime Minister. If

September 1, 1988
you were the chief executive officer of a company and you consistently put people in senior positions who were there not to benefit the company, not to assist the taxpayers, not to help ordinary people in getting by in their day-to-day lives but to rip off the system, then should you not accept responsibility for that? In the case of the Hon. Member for York Simcoe it was not the Opposition that demanded that he be thrown out of the Conservative caucus but the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party. Yet the Prime Minister ignored that recommendation, and is the Government, in claiming to be introducing conflict of interest guidelines yet keeping that Member as part of the team, not making a mockery of the whole notion of conflict of interest?


Mr. Ricard:: Sit down. What about Bryce Mackasey?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member asks about Bryce Mackasey. Bryce Mackasey was called before a bar of the House and himself asked to be submitted to that procedure. That was exactly the process we suggested in the case of the Member for York Simcoe. If the Government believes that it can deal with the issue by introducing new conflict of interest guidelines that have more loopholes than you can drive a Mack truck through, then I think the Government is underestimating the intelligence of the Canadian people. You can build all the laws in the world but it does not stop individual Members from exercising judgment, Madam Speaker. When you have a Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and a Prime Minister sitting silent this week while the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) is to receive a $10,000 cheque from an organization which believes in apartheid, is against bilingualism, against affirmative action and does not believe in a minimum wage, when the $10,000 cheque will be used for his own re-election-


Mrs. Sparrow:: That is not what he said.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -that shows the kind of bad judgment that no conflict of interest guideline or legislation will cover. It is bad judgment on the part of the Member and on the part of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in permitting that Member to consider accepting a cheque from the National Citizens Coalition.

Madam Speaker, the National Citizens' Coalition is against bilingualism. In spite of that, a Minister of the Crown, probably with the blessing of the Secretary of State who said nothing and did nothing, will accept a $10,000 cheque from an organization which is against bilingualism in Canada. Is that the policy of the Conservative Party? The said Minister clearly indicated in the House that he was going to collect and use for re-election or charitable purposes $10,000 from this national group which is against bilingualism and will not hear of implementing sanctions against South Africa, while fully supporting the apartheid system in that country. That is the
kind of judgment we can expect from such a Minister! I should like to tell the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard) that it is not a bill we are dealing with in the House which will change the judgment of the Prime Minister who was responsible for appointing this Minister in the first place and who now refuses to intervene to stop him and let him know that it would be wrong and against our Standing Orders for him to collect a $10,000 award from an organization which is against bilingualism in Canada.


An Hon. Member:: An extreme right group!


Sheila Maureen Copps: When we raised this issue in the House yesterday, there was no response from the Government. The Prime Minister who in 1985 stated that he would show leadership in the development of conflict of interest guidelines finally delegated this responsibility to the Deputy Prime Minister and others, prefering to wash his hands of the whole mess, something Canadians just will not accept.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, August 31, 1988, debate is now completed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Ontario's Minister of the Environment, Jim Bradley, announced that he is establishing a round table on the environment and economy as recommended by the National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy. For this we congratulate Mr. Bradley. It is interesting to note that Adam Zimmerman, chairman of Noranda and a former member of that task force, is quoted as saying:
The whole case has been thoroughly made. My view is that the task force report really said pretty well everything and now the thing is really to pursue it, do something, and not sit around studying it.
We applaud Mr. Zimmerman's words. As the Chief Executive Officer, he is ultimately responsible for MacMillan-Bloedel in British Columbia, a forest company not noted for its careful treatment of the environment and presently engaged in a battle to clearcut the virgin rain forest of Meares Island.
September 1, 1988

Actions speak louder than words. Mr. Zimmerman could take his own advice and act to stop MacMillan-Bloedel from clearcutting the ancient, beautiful, and culturally important forest on Meares Island.



CANADA SCHOLARSHIPS PROGRAM


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline the importance of the Canada Scholarships Program. The Government is very pleased to honour some of Canada's best students through this innovative program. Fifty-three young Canadians have recently been in Ottawa as representatives of the 2,500 1988 Canada scholarship winners. Each student will be eligible for $2,000 per year for a total of $8,000 per scholar.
The Canada Scholarships Program was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last January in Toronto at the National Conference on Technology and Innovation. It will help fill the pressing need for highly qualified personnel in industry, universities, and government. Our future prosperity will be greatly enhanced by the contributions of these well trained, bright young people. As the Prime Minister stated at the University of Waterloo in March, 1987, the western world is moving toward knowledge-based economies, and Canada must move with it.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, federal employees in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, are being subjected to seeing a benefit quickly become a liability. The northern tax benefit has become a nightmare for over 600 employees owing to the Government's refusal to set the housing benefit at a fair rate. As a result, there is the clearly inequitable situation in which a federal employee in the Yukon might receive a $600 credit in taxes as a result of the northern benefit while a Yellowknife employee receives a $2,000 to $3,000 liability in extra taxes.
To complicated this situation further, Treasury Board has not been deducting the appropriate tax at source and employees are now hit with owing as much as $5,000 to $6,000 in back taxes. So much for fairness for average families. Revenue Canada's response is "Pay up or else". Treasury Board's response is "If you don't like it, leave the North". That is exactly what is going to happen. Yellowknife employees are requesting to be transferred out and other
employees are indicating that they will refuse assignments to Yellowknife.
I challenge the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada, whose Government likes to preach tax reform, to go to Yellowknife and meet with federal employees to resolve this unjust, unfair, and inequitable situation.



RESPECT FOR INDEPENDENT MEMBERS

Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we must deplore the undignified circus atmosphere which took over the House during last night's historic vote on Bill C-130 concerning the liberalization of our trade with the United States.


Mr. Boudria:: Including the Conservatives' badges.


Gabriel Desjardins: The NDP Members displayed on national television a childish behaviour. They acted in their usual irresponsible and immature way. They have demonstrated once again they are not ready to govern this country.
And what can we say, Mr. Speaker, about the noisy and undignified intervention by a small group in the Opposition galleries? It will be up to you to decide, Mr. Speaker, whether the Opposition should be censured for this disgraceful and unbecoming spectacle.
Let me say to the Liberals, who keep on calling for an election, that they will get it soon enough and that they will pay dearly for their foolhardiness. Canadians will teach them a good lesson.
The only dignified event last night was the vote by three independent-minded members of this House. They were not afraid to let their convictions be known by voting with the Government. They understood that the country's best interests required that they do so. For the courage they showed, they at least deserve our respect.



PARLIAMENT HILL


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 1986, I introduced a motion in this House asking Parliament to cause a statue to be erected in honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canada's 13th Prime Minister. Today I am glad to say that the maquette honouring Mr. Pearson was unveiled. We also now know the name of the successful sculptor, Mr. Danek Modzenski, of Edmonton, Alberta.

September 1, 1988
I want to congratulate Mr. Danek Modzenski for having been chosen as the sculptor of the Pearson statue, and I also want to indicate my appreciation to the Elon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, who was the chairman of our committee and without whose help all of this would not have been possible. 1 also want to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) for agreeing to erecting a statue in honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.



A SALUTE

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a fantasy land to millions of people in almost every country in the world. Productive soils, abundant grasslands, beautiful hills and mountains treasuring minerals galore, pure cold waters, timberlands, animals and fish, everything desirable to ambitious humans to work and build, with a burning hope to own their own land are all in Canada. No wonder people of every race and colour and creed want to live in the Land of the Maple Leaf.
I like to think of Canada as a vast mosaic containing something typical of every peoples and the countries from which they came. 1 salute Canada, the land of the brave and the home of the free!



THE FRANCHISE


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party fully supports the granting of full citizenship to all persons who have previously been denied the right to vote because of a developmental, mental or physical disability. Bill C-79 is an omnibus piece of legislation intended to amend Canada's election laws and it includes amendments which would correct this injustice to Canada's disabled community. I am sure Hon. Members on all sides of the House would want to see those amendments passed.
We in this Party have said in the House and in letters to the Government that we would fully support amendments concerning the rights of the disabled. In fact, New Democrats say again that we would be prepared to agree to limited debate on these amendments and would pass them in all stages without undue delay once they are introduced in the House. On behalf of my Party, I urge the Government to bring these
amendments forward in the form of a separate Bill as quickly as possible, especially since we face an impending election.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals let PCBs into Canada. Today, we in Canada are trying to rid the country of all the PCBs that the federal Liberals allowed in without any planning during their 20 years in office. We urgently need a national program for all aspects of the PCB problem, including identification of all PCB storage sites, federal Government inspections to enforce the national storage and surveillance standards, and a technology to neutralize PCBs instead of incinerating them.
It took the Saint-Basile-le-Grand disaster to wake the federal, provincial and municipal Governments up.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are entitled to better protection. Government means anticipating events!



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, green post boxes are growing like mushrooms in Canada since the Tory Government took office in 1984. Mr. Tony Elisi of St. Leonard woke up one morning and found four green mailboxes in front of his house. Four green mailboxes in front of any house is disgusting. Imagine how his house will look when the supermailboxes replace those green boxes. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask any Member of Parliament if he or she would buy a house with four mailboxes in front of it. No, no one would have the courage to buy that house.
For two months I have been asking Canada Post to do something about removing those boxes and relieving Mr. Elisi of this ugly problem. However, Canada Post only says that it will remove them when it replaces them with supermailboxes. What consolation for Mr. Elisi. I think it is time that Canadians threw the Government out of office so that we can change this ugly policy of installing supermailboxes and green boxes in front of beautiful Canadian homes.
September 1, 1988

MO)



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, on a day when the House is debating the conflict of interest legislation with a view to cleaning up politics and government, it is most disturbing to learn that one of the star Liberal candidates being put forward in the coming election, Mr. Frank Stronach, the wealthy owner of Magna Corporation, who will be a candidate for the Liberal Party in the riding of York-Simcoe, has been quoted as saying, after spending $100,000 on his nomination meeting, that: "He who has the gold makes the rules". That is a very disturbing statement. 1 hope that will not be the policy of the Liberal Party in the next election.


Mr. Daubney:: It has been in the past.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF RETIRED EDMONTON JUDGE

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, Mrs. Marjorie Bowker, a 72-year old Edmonton grandmother and retired judge. As she just told me a half an hour ago on the phone, because of her legal background she has the expertise to read the trade deal and, because she is retired, the leisure. Unlike the Minister responsible, she actually took the time to read the trade document and she has this to say about it.
She says that this deal is bad for Canada, will lead to a loss of jobs as Canadian companies close or relocate to the U.S., and means we give up control of our resources. In the end, she believes Canada could face the eventual loss of political independence and our sovereignty as a nation.
She has read the deal. I urge the Minister responsible not only to read it but to read Mrs. Bowker's remarkable document.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, once again Poland is at a crossroads. The recent strikes have demonstrated that the people of Poland will not succumb to the enslavement of the communist system which has denied them basic human rights and is the direct cause of the abysmal economic conditions in their country.
After eight years of brutal suppression, the Polish Government continues to refuse to recognize the legal existence of the trade union movement Solidarity. If Glasnost is to be considered genuine, Polish officials must initiate meaningful
dialogue in order to reconfer the union's legal and democratic right to exist.
1 call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to press Polish officials to reinstate Solidarity, and to fulfil their obligation as a signatory of the Helsinki Accord by guaranteeing freedom of expression, and the recognition of free and democratic trade unions.



DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was reported in the Windsor Star that a "storage facility for 100,000 litres of PCB-laced oil is being planned for Windsor's west end by Ontario Hydro. The oil and PCBs would be stored on the site of the closed J. Clark Keith generating station". It "would be the largest of several dozen PCB storage sites in Essex County".
Therefore, I call on the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to carry through on what he said in this House over the past several days, and immediately "swoop" down and work with Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to ensure that, if this project goes ahead, it will be done with the highest standards of safety and security so that there will be no risk to the health and safety of the people of the west end of Windsor.
I know this site has been planned in order to have a place for Ontario Hydro to use its special treatment facility, and I urge Ontario Hydro, if this site goes ahead, to put this facility to work as soon as possible. In the meantime, serious study should be given to whether the site is necessary and whether this is the best place for it. This is a serious matter for the people of my community.



MEMBER'S OBSERVATIONS

Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this House of Commons, for the first time in my parliamentary career, I saw and heard an aggressive, hostile demonstration in the seats reserved for the Opposition's guests.
I also saw the socialist leader wave, smile, encourage and applaud the demonstrators. I saw the socialist Members urge on the demonstrators with their approving looks and expressions of encouragement and incite them to disorderly behaviour in this House. I also saw the socialist leader give the starting signal to the demonstrators by being the first to take the Canadian flag from his jacket. This touched off the disorder.

September 1, 1988
The muscles of his face were strained and tense, but the socialist leader gave the go-ahead to his party's mercenaries.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, almost 300 Ukrainian refugees who escaped from Poland and are at present in Rome have not been permitted to come to Canada since they applied for permission to come to this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has the floor. I apologize for the fact that he had to be interrupted.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I asked a question on behalf of those refugees and received no answer. A week later my colleague from Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) asked the same question and again received no answer. Last week the Conservative Member for Parkdale- High Park (Mr. Witer) asked the same question and received a non-committal answer from the Minister.
I understand that two days ago the Minister met with a delegation from the Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society who explained the problem to her. I further understand she has now agreed to facilitate the entry of these refugees to Canada. I want to thank her, and pay particular tribute to the efforts made by the Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society, and I am sure all Members of Parliament will join with me in that expression of thanks.



PARLIAMENT HILL


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join with my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in announcing the commissioning of Mr. Danek Modzenski as the sculptor for the statute of the Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
The choice of Mr. Modzenski was made from five Canadian finalists. He was born in Edmonton, obtained his training at
the Alberta College of Art, the Academy of Fine Arts and Crafts in Poland, Red Deer College, Vancouver School of Art, and the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.
The work submitted and the difficulty of making the choice are a tribute to the talent of all Canadian artists. Mr. Modzenski is a fine example of the talent of Canadian youth and we are pleased with his commission today.



APARTHEID


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) claims to be a leader against apartheid in South Africa. In 1985, with much fanfare and with a puffed chest, the Minister announced a series of measures to demonstrate opposition to apartheid in South Africa.
Yesterday in the House I pointed out to him that his own Department was making grants to South African controlled companies operating in Canada. Not only that, the Government has been doing business with South African controlled companies over the last several years, amounting to almost $2 million. How can one seriously accept the Minister's commitment to fighting apartheid when the Government is taking a business as usual approach to South African controlled companies doing business in Canada?
Yesterday in the House the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) said: "I can tell the House that the Department has not provided any financial assistance to Boart Canada Incorporated", one of the South African controlled companies. The Minister was mistaken and I hope he will take the opportunity to clarify the record. Here it is in black and white. Boart Canada has received grants from the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Sometimes the Speaker has a special prerogative. I am going to ask the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) to rise. He and I and others were at a memorial tribute today to a former colleague of ours, the Hon. Jean Marchand.
September 1, 1988

Oral Questions Mr. McDermid: Right.
[ Translation]



THE LATE HONOURABLE JEAN MARCHAND

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to add my modest contribution to what has been said by religious, political and union figures who in the past few days were unanimous in their tribute to that great Canadian, Jean Marchand. He was one of that rare breed of men who not only make things happen but also significantly change the course of a country's history.
Through his commitment to social change, he gave dignity to Quebec workers and opened the way for a vigorous labour movement in the Province of Quebec.
Through his political involvement, he encouraged French Canadians to take, to an unprecedented extent, their rightful place in Canada's political apparatus. He always championed the cause of social justice, he was humble and generous in the exercise of authority, and he was a true friend to the neediest and most vulnerable in our society.
To his daughter, Marie-Eve, to his grandchildren, his brothers and sisters, his nephew Jean Sexton, who reminds me so much of him, and to all members of his family, I wish to extend my condolences and the assurance that his memory will always fill me with gratitude and admiration.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is appropriate to remark that, unfortunately, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was unable to be here several days ago when tributes were paid to the Honourable Jean Marchand. In view of the special friendship of the Hon. Member, and keeping in mind that many of us attended a memorial service this morning, I thought it was appropriate that another tribute be paid.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, when the Conservative majority in the House of Commons was passing the Canada-U.S. free trade implementing legislation, we learned at the same time that once again the Canadian people have been seriously misled about the impact of that deal.
We have been given assurances repeatedly by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that there was nothing in the deal that would affect the ability to deliver regional development programs, a very vital part of Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: At the very same time, the Deputy Minister for Western Diversification, Mr. Bruce Rawson, said explicitly that the Canada-U.S. trade deal was going to be used as a basis for effecting decisions on regional development.


Mr. McDermid:: He did not. Read what he said.


Lloyd Axworthy: I quote directly from the recorded transcript of Mr. Rawson's remarks: "It is most important to avoid, we think, competitive sectors such as red meat that we think are much more likely to cause frictions in a free trade environment".
Clearly, Mr. Rawson has pointed out that the Government is already taking decisions relating to regional development in western Canada based upon the trade deal and what it thinks it will mean and how the Americans will implement it.
Why is the Government continuing to withhold vital information from the Canadian people? Why are western Canadians being penalized already by the Government before the agreement is even in effect?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has toned his rhetoric from his communique, but I am displeased that he has not been able to recognize reality, fact, and truth.
The Hon. Member is talking about an article which inaccurately reflects the statements made by Mr. Rawson. I want to inform the Hon. Member of what Mr. Rawson said, and what I have said consistently. We do not give grants or loans to companies in competitive sectors. I have said so, and Mr. Rawson has said so publicly.
That has been the stand publicly. These statements have been published in our material which I am sure the Hon. Member will read, if he has time.
I said exactly the same thing to the Hon. Member in the legislative committee as Mr. Rawson. Mr. Waddell from External Affairs, the U.S.-Canada Trade Desk, said the same thing to the Hon. Member during legislative hearings. The senior ADM for Western Diversification, Mr. Silverman, under questioning by the Hon. Member said the very same thing to him.
Canada and the provinces are as free to assist and promote regional development under free trade as they were before. The free trade agreement brings us under no other obligations regarding subsidies than we already have under GATT. I hope the Hon. Member takes the opportunity to read the free trade agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: I say in response to the Minister that his statement just confirms the Government's continual intention to mislead the Canadian people.

September 1, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Mazankowski:: Tell the truth. Tell the truth, Lloyd.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the fact is, as Mr. Rawson has said, that the Government is already making decisions on applications under Western Diversification based upon a perception of what it thinks the trade agreement means, how the Americans will react, and how they will define a subsidy. It has nothing to do with our international obligations. According to Mr. Rawson and the Minister himself, it is clearly based upon their reading of the trade agreement which has not even been passed by this House yet.
If it is happening in western Canada, is it happening in other parts of Canada as well? How many other regions are being penalized and how are our other regional development programs already being dictated to by the Americans through this trade agreement?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks why a Department of a Government of Canada would be cognizant of international obligations. I do not quite understand it.
The predecessor Department of Western Diversification and other regional development Departments, probably since 1947, have been cognizant of their responsibilities in international agreements.
The Hon. Member is trying to put forward to the people of Canada an untruth that countervail is only because of the free trade agreement. The Hon. Member knows that we are subject to countervail under GATT. When any country takes a decision that we are harming it, that country has the opportunity to countervail.
I will repeat that there are no obligations under the free trade agreement that are not there under GATT.


Lloyd Axworthy: All I can say is that the Minister shows an abysmal ignorance of the difference between our obligations under GATT and the kind of judgments they are making on the trade agreement.


UNITED STATES OMNIBUS TRADE BILL
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister now agreeing that because of the passage of the U.S. omnibus Trade Bill, which substantially broadens the definition of subsidy according to U.S. law but not by GATT, that we are now making decisions in relation to that U.S. law because it is entrenched as part of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement? In other words, is the Government now saying to all western Canadians who make applications that it will make decisions on the veracity, credibility, and legitimacy of those applications according to U.S. trade law, before it even signs the agreement or has it passed in the Parliament of Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Member's concern about developing the economy of western Canada. I would have thought that he would have been in favour of it.
Mr. Rawson has issued a statement that states: "Recent press reports quoting me as saying that the free trade agreement will adversely affect regional development assistance in western Canada are not true".


Lloyd Axworthy: He also says he is afraid of being fired.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: He also said that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I wish the Hon. Member would make that statement outside the House of Commons where public servants, who served several Governments of several political stripes, do not have the opportunity to have recourse against statements made in this House that impugn their integrity.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank God they tell the truth because you don't know how to tell the truth.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I suggest to the Hon. Member that he take to heart what the Free Press said, and tell the truth.
His Leader was wrong on the Quebec investment plan. His Leader was wrong on fish processing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Rawson is right about free trade.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member is wrong about what he impugns to this development agreement rather than the agreements that we have had in the past.


GOVERNMENT FOREST INDUSTRY POLICY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister for International Trade, or perhaps to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the trade deal and its effects on regional development. On August 29 the Minister for International Trade said, and it was repeated today by another Minister, that this deal has nothing to do with regional development programs.
Caron Fine Wood Products applied under the IRDP to establish itself in my constituency in Alexandria, Ontario, and was told that under the Canadian forest industry policy established as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding softwood lumber, which is incorporated in the trade deal, it could no longer get grants because its project is inconsistent with the Canadian forest industry policy.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now admit what we have known all along, that in fact regional development programs right across the country are being abandoned as a result of this trade deal? That is happening right in the riding that I represent.
September 1, 1988


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question. There are many reasons why we have a new forest industry policy in this country. One of the reasons is that we were running out of trees as a result of the deliberate policy neglect of the former Government.
Therefore, we have decided that perhaps it would be better if we invested scare public resources in the renewal of our forests, in building infrastructures, in stabilizing the resource base, in building technology-enhanced machinery and equipment for our forest industry, and in many other things. That is why we have a new forest policy. The Member is simply putting a red herring on the floor and tying it into the trade deal.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the furniture company which is trying to establish itself in my riding will be very comforted by the ridiculous answer the Minister just gave us.
[ Translation]


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CONSEQUENCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering the fact that the departmental official told me himself that this forestry policy was established as a result of the memorandum of agreement between Canada and the United States concerning lumber, doesn't this prove that industries applying under regional development programs are now being refused grants because of the Prime Minister's trade agreement?

I can only wonder how Premier Buchanan accepted the Government's commitment and policy about regional development.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if there is any justification for a free trade arrangement with the United States it is the forest industry of Canada. The forest industry is no more and no less in peril now than it was before-


Don Boudria: I thought you said we were running out of trees.


Frank Oberle: -as a result of the free trade arrangement.
The Hon. Member may want to make an argument against forest preservation or the way we are handling our products. However, the forest industry, of all industries, is celebrating the agreement because for once it will permit us to upgrade our products and add value to them, something which was impossible to do in the past because of the tariffs which were added on to finished manufactured products.
Oral Questions
Of course the Americans would buy our trees, perhaps in the most primitive form that we would sell them, but as soon as we add value to our products the tariffs go on. That is why the industry is so enthusiastic about this deal. It would be helpful if the Hon. Member would get that into his narrow skull.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS-STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO CIVIL SERVANTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Western Diversification Fund. At the outset it seems very clear to me that we are running through the same movie we went through on the water deal when the Government said that water was not affected and then finally came around to admitting it.
I am sure the Minister will agree with what the Prime Minister said on October 4, that is, that regional development programs are untouched and unchallenged by this deal. The senior civil servant in charge of the Western Diversification Fund said yesterday that that was not the case. I have a transcript of what was said and the reporter stands by it.
Another senior civil servant, the former Deputy Minister of Finance, was quoted last October in The Globe and Mail by another reporter, whose veracity will no doubt be challenged. Mr. Stanley Hartt, then Deputy Minister of Finance, said: "We're going to have to think differently in terms of ways to promote economic development". He went on to say: "We will have to find other unobjectionable ways" to provide industrial development assistance. He was specifically saying that regional development programs would have to be changed.
Last fall a senior civil servant said that they have to be changed and yesterday another Deputy Minister said that they have to be changed. Why is it that they can read the document and understand it, yet the Government does not understand it, or misleads the people of Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, with all seriousness I would like to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party to review the speech that was given by the Deputy Minister of Western Economic Diversification-


John Edward Broadbent: Not the speech, what he said in the interview.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What interview? The Hon. Member refers to an interview. If he would like to check I am sure that the Deputy Minister will say that there was no interview, that he spoke to the Institute of Public Administrators of Canada. He was replying to a question put forward by Gordon Robertson, the former Clerk of the Privy Council. Through that questioning he explained the policies of the Western Diversification Department.

September 1, 1988
Oral Questions
The policies have been well stated, by myself and the Deputy, and they are in our public information. They are that we will not enter into assistance for competitive industries.
The New Democratic Party may want to pick winners and losers in competitive industries. The business men and women of Canada do not believe that the Government picking winners and losers in competitive industries is the best use of taxpayers' dollars, and I do not believe the taxpayers of Canada do either.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 notice the Minister did not deal with the question. I will put it in the most straightforward way that I can.
Mr. Stanley Hartt, former Deputy Minister of Finance, has said: "We will have to find other unobjectionable ways", in terms of the deal, to provide industrial development assistance. He was referring to regional development programs in comparison with the deal.
Is the Minister now telling the people of Canada that Mr. Hartt was wrong, that the Government of Canada does not have to change its regional development programs? I want a clear answer. Does it have to change the regional development programs because of this deal or does it not?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No.


POSITION OF MINISTERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister explain why the Deputy Minister in charge of Western Diversification said yesterday, with reference to one particular sector, that there could be no development programs in that sector any more? The Deputy Minister of Finance actually read the deal and was talking about the negotiations that will go on for the next five to seven years and about what will no doubt constitute a subsidy. Why is it that these experts have one position and cabinet Ministers, who are trying to save their political hides, have another?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Ministers or Members on this side have to worry about their political hides when people look at the alternatives that are being put forward.
I have already explained to the Hon. Member why Western Economic Diversification has been saying since it was formed that we will not be assisting competitive industries. We do not believe, and neither do people in the industry-and he can check with the red meat industry in western Canada-that
Governments should pick winners and losers in a competitive industry. When I said no, there is no need to change because of the free trade agreement, that is accurate.
The free trade agreement does not pose any obligations concerning subsidies that are not already there under the GATT. If we could assist, promote, and not have fear of countervail under GATT, then we can continue to assist, promote, and have no fear of countervail under free trade.
* V *


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am not only a resident of Montreal, a mother and a grandmother, but I am privileged to be a Member of Parliament from the great city of Montreal. I was horrified to learn that the Port of Montreal which is federal land under federal jurisdiction is the largest storage and shipping depot in North America for PCB wastes.
In downtown Montreal, in the midst of three million people, there are hazardous wastes. My question to the Government is this.


Mr. Lewis:: Charlie could have told you that.


Mr. Crofton:: Too bad you didn't discover that when you were in office.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you answer the question, Charlie?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about dangerous chemicals, if the bullies across the way would listen.
Unfortunately, we now know what could happen with this dangerous waste. Has the Minister made a recent check to ensure safe and secure handling of this material as it is shipped into Montreal and out of Montreal? If he has done so will he ensure that it is at the maximum, optimum level of safety? In the case of a PCB disaster, what kind of contingency plan does the Minister have to evacuate the city of Montreal?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I actually do not think that the Hon. Member adds much to this discussion and debate by resorting to such hysterical rhetoric. She says she takes great pride in representing Montreal, as she should. I do not know whether her constituents take such pride in her performance if she is so little aware of what is in her own riding.


John V. Nunziata: You won't tell us, you fraud.
September 1, 1988


Thomas Michael McMillan: In any event, I can tell her that Montreal has been a port of exit for PCB materials that are exported to Wales for incineration. They are subject to the most stringent federal regulations and the full force of law under the Transportation of Hazardous Goods Act. The PCB materials themselves are not allowed to be in Montreal at the port longer than, I think it is, 48 hours before shipment.


REQUEST THAT SHIPMENTS BE HALTED
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister does not have to live in Montreal and be responsible for the safety and security of its citizens.
The Quebec Environment Minister said this morning when asked about a possible PCB shipping accident in the St. Lawrence: "The risks of transporting dangerous wastes in this manner are frightening".
The time has come to stop the storing and shipping of the nation's PCB wastes in Montreal. I am asking the Government if it will stop shipping and storing of PCB wastes in Montreal? Or is it not concerned about the safety and security of the people of Montreal?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as is the wont of members of the Liberal Party across the aisle and the Hon. Member, she quotes the Minister of the Environment for Quebec. She does so very incompletely. She did not go on to complete the rest of his paragraph which is: "It is a question of principle. On a temporary basis exporting our wastes to England from Montreal is fine".
I ask her and I ask her Party, given the fact that communities across Quebec and Ontario have resisted efforts by both Governments-the Government of Ontario and the Government of Quebec-to establish permanent incineration facilities in those provinces, what is her answer?


Mr. Tobin:: You're the Minister.


Thomas Michael McMillan: If we cannot get permanent facilities built in provinces such as Quebec and Ontario because of community resistance, what are we supposed to do? We have been shipping them to Wales. Soon to be on stream in October in Swan Hills, Alberta, is a permanent facility. The federal Government will be working with the provinces to see whether we can overcome community resistance to these permanent facilities.
In the meantime I am discussing with my cabinet colleagues the possibility of some transportable or mobile units that can overcome that very problem of resistance.
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister in charge of the Western Development Fund. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada said to Premier Ghiz of Prince Edward Island when talking about regional development subsidies: "Trust me. They are excluded from the deal", yet the senior bureaucrat involved is saying that the subsidy program is already being restricted because of the trade deal, what I want to know is who the Canadian people can trust. The Prime Minister has already broken promises in terms of senior citizens. He has broken promises in terms of closing down rural post offices. He has broken promises in terms of patronage. He has broken promises on acid rain-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member will get to his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In light of the fact that the Prime Minister has broken promise after promise in the areas of patronage, acid rain, Air Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know quite where this question is going, or the preamble. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, how can the people of Canada trust this Prime Minister and this Government when they have broken so many promises?


Lloyd Axworthy: They just keep lying.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Regardless of what has just been said by the Hon. Member for Fort Garry that we just keep lying-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -I would suggest that he take cognizance of the Winnipeg Free Press editorial which states: "Tell the truth".


Lloyd Axworthy: Why don't you take cognizance of the truth once in a while?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The paper says that the Leader of the Liberal Party was wrong in so many instances regarding the free trade agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: Stop reading editorials and start looking at the truth.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: He was wrong in so many instances on the free trade agreement.

September 1, 1988
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister has kept his word. He has kept his word that we would develop the economy of western Canada. He has kept his word that we will have a share in the decision-making.


Lloyd Axworthy: Tell us about the CF-18.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: He has provided a fund of $1.2 billion that is real, unlike the fund about which the Hon. Member knows, which the previous administration established and which disappeared into thin air.
The Hon. Member says that the Deputy Minister responsible for western economic diversification said that free trade is restricting opportunities. That is not true.
Let me quote from a release by the Deputy Minister which states: "Moreover, I did not say that free trade will impede, restrict, limit, violate or put at risk regional development assistance".


Mr.   de Jong@: And nobody believes you!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: There is nothing in the free trade agreement that provides further obligations on Canada in regard to subsidies that are not already found in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.


DEPUTY MINISTER S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that we share decision-making, and there will be, between Canada and Washington after this deal.


Mrs. Mailly:: Sit down!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It's the same.


John Edward Broadbent: I will be in Saskatoon-we will be in Saskatoon. You should worry.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 hope that Hon. Members who are enthusiastically engaging in an exchange of opinions here will remember, keeping an eye on the clock, that they are stopping other Members from putting questions and stopping Ministers from answering. 1 do not want to have to draw that to their attention. However, I am sure, having done so, they will co-operate.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville will put his question.
[DOT] (M50)


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is a question here of who is being honest with the Canadian people-civil servants like Stanley Hartt, Bruce Rawson, or the Prime Minister of Canada.
In light of the fact that Mr. Rawson has stated that the red meat industry will now be excluded-perhaps that is why Pocklington sold Gretzky to make some money, because he will now not get grants from the federal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question very directly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to know whether or not the Minister will table in the House today a list of sectors that will not get assistance now because of the trade deal, in light of the fact that Bruce Rawson has stated that some sectors, such as the red meat industry, will not receive assistance. What are those sectors? Will the Minister table a list today, and will he be honest and open with the people of Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what could be done to convince the Hon. Member of what Bruce Rawson, the Deputy Minister of Western Economic Diversification, said, a man who has served a number of Governments of Canada, or how I could convince him. Better than that, 1 would only reiterate what Mr. Rawson stated: "Moreover, I did not say that free trade will impede, restrict, limit, violate, or put at risk regional development assistance".
I would be very pleased to table this document.
The other thing I would like to inform the Hon. Member and ask, in a fully competitive industry, 1 know it may be the socialist doctrine that drives the Member-


Mr.   de Jong@: No, it's Peter Pocklington's doctrine.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I believe that the Hon. Member, who comes from my province, has a better understanding than that.


John Edward Broadbent: How many millions did Pocklington get? Tell us about Pocklington's grants.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I am going to leave philosophy and move on to another question. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the last several minutes are ample evidence that we should issue the writ. I hope the Prime Minister takes that into account.


THE MINISTRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that this very day in the House we are discussing the creation of new conflict of interest guidelines, given that earlier this week the Minister for International Trade changed his story on the trip received by his wife and daughter to Thailand-he said that they were representing him-given that Section 35 Subsection 1 of the current conflict of interest guidelines requires a Minister of the Crown who directly or indirectly receives a benefit of over $200 to declare that benefit, what action does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to take since his Minister has violated the current conflict of interest guidelines?
September 1, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: An Hon. Member's question that refers to the activities of anybody in light of the guidelines may well be appropriate. However, the Hon. Member has gone further than that. The Hon. Member, I think, has just made a charge. On other occasions I have said that preambles or questions cannot be used in this place in lieu of a formal charge. The Hon. Member, I believe, is wanting to inquire of the Government, as to what its view is of a certain event. That is a legitimate question in light of conflict of interest guidelines. If the Hon. Member will allow me to reinterpret the question, I think that that is the question. It is not appropriate to lay a charge by way of preamble or by question. The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was put yesterday and I answered it. The Hon. Member will find that answer at page 19111 of Hansard.


MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister-I doubt deliberately-missed the point. The Minister for International Trade has changed his story on the reason for the receipt of the trip. Earlier he said it was a trip given to his wife and to his daughter which, of course, would not be covered under any section on public declaration. He later clarified that, after the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in the House, and stated that his spouse and his daughter were representing him in a semi-official capacity.
Since they were representing him, since the trip was worth approximately $6,500, there is an onus on the Minister to declare. I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister can tell us whether, pursuant to Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 35, the declaration was made?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer remains the same. I invite the Hon. Member to reread it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You did not answer it yesterday.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has long claimed that the trade deal would have no effect on regional development programs. For example, the
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance stated in the House on October 16, 1987, as reported in Hansard at page 10087:
Our ability to deliver regional development programs to all parts of Atlantic Canada will remain absolutely unchanged and unaffected by this agreement.
This morning on Canada A.M. the Minister for International Trade admitted that the trade deal provides no protection for regional development programs, and that under the deal the next five to seven years will define subsidies, and we will then know what is permitted and what is not.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following. Will he not now be forthright about this and admit that the end result of this trade deal will affect regional development programs? Why not be honest about it?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are being honest about it, and it does not affect regional programs.
I am surprised at the Hon. Member for St. John's East saying that, after this Government committed itself to help Hibernia and the people of Newfoundland. I am absolutely surprised. That came in long after the free trade agreement was signed. What is the Hon. Member talking about?


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, we were also told that water was not in the deal, Mr. Speaker.
We know that ACOA is five-year program which some government Ministers have already called the last kick at the can for Atlantic Canada. Coincidentally, this Five-year period is the same period in which subsidies are to be defined under the trade deal.
Will the Minister, or his representative, not come clean and admit that ACOA could in fact be the last regional development program for the Atlantic provinces, because of this trade deal?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first, no, I will not admit that. Second, the free trade agreement in itself is a regional development program, and it will help the Maritimes grow. It will create employment in the Maritimes. It will protect the industries that have been harassed all along.
The Hon. Member is away off base. No, it will not be the last regional development program for eastern Canada. This Government is committed to all regions of the country, and will continue to be.

September 1, 1988
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A few weeks ago, we had a statement by the Deputy Minister of Finance. Today, we have a senior official responsible for regional development confirming our worst fears, namely that regional development programs would be jeopardized by the free trade agreement. What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister, since today, the senior official who told the truth probably had to do what a number of Conservative Members have done before him and issue a clarification, and I imagine the responsible Minister called him to ask him to change his story, like Peter White did . .. What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Could he inform the House today why senior officials who administered the program have to consider criteria for U.S. subsidies, while the Government says the exact opposite?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible has explained that very well. I do not know why Hon. Members across the aisle want to malign distinguished public servants who have served this country and governments over the years.
What we have here is another classic example of, when all else fails, you wallow around in the mud to see if you can find a little dirt to throw at people. That is exactly what is happening, Mr. Speaker.
I would draw the attention of Hon. Members to an article by John Ferguson which appeared this morning. It talks about the manner in which the Liberal Party has distorted, planted fear, and maligned the elements of the trade deal, all for political partisan advantage. Mr. Ferguson states:
Both play on voters' fear of the unknown.
Both claim to be based on a cool analysis of the facts.
And both are dead wrong.
[ Translation]


NEED FOR APPROVAL BY DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister can quote all the newspaper articles he wants, but the fact is that Mr. Lawson's comments are there and they are quite clear.
What I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Could he explain why projects are now submitted to the Department of External Affairs before final approval? Could he explain why the Government is taking into consideration the criterion . . .


An Hon. Member:: . . . the free trade test.


Jean-C. Lapierre: . . . the free trade test, as the Hon. Member pointed out? Why has this criterion be added to the list? And could he explain why, since the beginning of these talks, we have been told that free trade would have no impact at all on regional development? Why has the Government been lying to us for months?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 will say to the Hon. Member, as I have said to others, once again, that there are no further obligations required of Canada in regard to subsidies under the free trade agreement than already exist under GATT. The Member asks, "Why does one department of government consult with another as to international obligations?" We consult on every western diversification application proposal and contract-every one-with the Department of Justice, because it is a legal contract-and all government departments consult. We consult with the Department of Communications regarding international obligations in that field. We have also consulted on two or three occasions, as Mr. Waddell from the Department of External Affairs has said, with the Department of External Affairs on international trade obligations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: At no time was any project rejected after we had consulted with the Department of External Affairs. Therefore, regional development as well will be built upon with free trade and we will go forward.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and concerns eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance benefits.
We know that generally speaking, Canadians must have worked fourteen weeks to receive unemployment insurance. We also know that to allow for regional disparities, in some cases Canadians can get unemployment insurance if they have worked less than fourteen weeks. However, the House must first pass a bill, as it has done since 1976.
Madam Minister, do you intend to introduce legislation this year that will allow Canadians to be eligible for unemployment insurance if they have worked less than fourteen weeks?
September 1, 1988


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the eligibility standard expires on January 4, 1989. I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question, and I can assure the House that between September 1, 1988 and January 4, 1989, we have ample time to adopt a bill for the purpose mentioned.
Since with respect to the objectives we have sought to attain with this legislation since 1976 there always has been full cooperation on the part of all Members of the House of Commons, I am confident that such an amendment can be adopted within a week.


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my first question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. With the PCB fire in Seattle we are becoming increasingly aware of the danger of PCBs still in use, not just in storage. There are some experts who think that the whole Great Lakes system is a PCB storage site.
I ask the Minister if he would not agree that to have an adequate grasp of the PCB problem in Canada we would need a list not only of the storage sites in our areas but also of places where PCBs are in use, or at least major places where they are still in use, and of PCBs in major waterways where they are concentrated in large amounts. Could he provide us with a series of lists in order for us to have an adequate grasp of the PCB problem today?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member will probably know that under very strict federal laws and regulations over the years the use of PCBs has been subject to quite rigorous sanctions, again at the national level.
I will be presenting to my provincial colleagues next week- I think on Wednesday, details have yet to be finalized-a plan from the national Government for their consideration as part of a Canada-wide effort involving both levels of government for the complete phase-out of PCBs.
In that connection, I will take the Hon. Member's recommendation under advisement as to the possibility of a list identifying the major sites where PCBs are used. It would be a very long list and it would be awfully difficult to compile, but to the extent that it could be done, 1 will consult with my officials to see that it is.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF CURRENT INFORMATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, has managed to get at least a partial list, a provincial list, from the Province of
Oral Questions
Ontario, and the rest of us are still waiting for our lists. I wonder if he could not undertake at least to provide information that is immediately available while he is gathering that further information. Could he not give us a beginning, a start on this problem, and then provide us with the rest of the information when it is possible for him to do so?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I presume, in connection with this particular question, that the list that is being referred to is that of PCBs in use. Is that correct?


Lynn McDonald: Storage.


Thomas Michael McMillan: 1 will be very candid with the Hon. Member. I thought, as did my colleague, the Minister of Labour, that we would be able to provide the list of PCB storage facilities across the country as early as today or yesterday. It has not been possible. I have put a greater premium on making sure that the list is accurate and complete rather than on necessarily getting it out early.
I know that the Hon. Member would be the first to criticize the Government if I were to release something that was shoddy or incomplete or that the public could not have confidence in. However, I give this commitment as I speak to the Hon. Member, that the list is being prepared and that it will be as complete as possible when it is released, and I hope that it is as soon as next week.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask Hon. Members to be patient. I will take a single question from the Hon. Member for Trinity. I am then going to move back to the New Democratic Party because there is a Member who has a question for the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I think that it is appropriate that it be asked today. The Hon. Member for Trinity.


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance and it concerns fairness. Three years ago, in September, 1985, the Government moved in an unprecedented way to bail out the depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank, many of whom were wealthy foreigners. But today, three years later, over 200 Canadian employees of that bank have not yet received severance pay.
Will the Minister explain this, and will he explain further why the Ministry of Labour, which has had a legal opinion for two years that those 200 Canadian employees who were innocently caught in this situation were entitled to severance pay, has not provided them with any help and they have been obliged to launch private suits?

September 1, 1988
Business of the House


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would have been able to answer this question better if I had been given notice. It is a serious and very specific question. I should say this. She knows of the proceedings with regard to these two banks being in receivership and being dealt with by the trustee making decisions on these matters. There is a difference between depositors and employees, and they are treated under difference processes, but I will certainly take her representations to the authorities in order to make sure that they are aware of the importance of this.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that this will have to be the last question. I would call on the Hon. Member for Beaches who, I understand, has a question.


VETERAN AFFAIRS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It may very well be the last chance that I have to ask the Minister a question in the House or, indeed, for him to give a response. I regret that very much, because the Minister's work has been appreciated by all Members on all sides of the House.
All Hon. Members: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: Certainly it has been appreciated by the veterans in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Now comes the hard question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: I am always reluctant to ask the Minister a question because I always manage to make him look good.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: In June of this year the Minister announced to the Canadian Convention of the Legion that he intended to expand the Veterans Independence Program to cover those veterans who served only in Canada in the First and Second World Wars.
Is the Minister in a position to announce when that will happen?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To start with I would like to thank all Hon. Members for their very kind and generous expression of goodwill which they accorded me a few moments ago. This is one of the reasons that makes serving in Parliament the finest profession that anyone can have. 1 have enjoyed it tremendously, not only because of the work that we are all able to do but because of the associations that we make,
not only with Members in our own Party but with Members in all other Parties. After all, everyone is here trying to do a job for the people of Canada.
Although our debates may at times get hot and overheated, they are just like football or hockey games. The teams play very hard against each other for an hour, and then usually sit with one another and have a beer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is the spirit I have always found here. I have just as many friends on the other side of the House as I have in my own Party. I like them all very much. I have received tremendous support and friendship from Members on my own side of the House, and I appreciate so much the very nice accord given to me a few moments ago.
I appreciate receiving the question that I have from the Hon. Member for Beaches who has always shown a tremendous interest in veterans and their welfare. He has continued to do so all the years I have known him, and I know he will always continue to show this interest in the veterans of Canada.
In answer to the question, I am very pleased to advise that effective April 1, 1989, the Veterans Independence Program will be extended to our veterans who served in Canada during both World Wars.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This is the last day before the break. There is some indication that there is one question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The time for Question Period is over but the Deputy Prime Minister might be prepared to take the question. It is up to the Minister to indicate whether he is prepared to do so although the time has expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is appropriate to ask the normal business question of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) so that we have an understanding as to what the business of the House will be when we come back after the break. I also have a question regarding the Election Expenses Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus) has raised a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Undoubtedly because he has other business he has left the House and it is well beyond the end of Question Period. Perhaps the Minister of State will be prepared to respond.
September 1, 1988


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker. I wish to advise the House that when we return on September 13, the Government will be calling two Bills for consideration, Bill C-147, the Human Rights Institute followed by Bill C-152, the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Bill. We hope, although I do not believe it is firm at this point, that there will be all-stage consideration of both Bills on that day.
On Wednesday, September 14, we will begin report stage consideration of Bill C-136, the Broadcasting Act.
My friend asked about the Elections Act. One knows that we presently have before us Bill C-79. There have been discussions and an exchange of correspondence with respect to election expenses. I understand that the matter of my friend's correspondence is still under consideration.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, just further to the comments from the Deputy House Leader, will the Government be in a position to respond with regard to the election expenses prior to the scheduled reconvening of the House on September 13?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I will have to check into that, Mr. Speaker. My friend's letter had some suggestions in it. I think we want to consider those suggestions fully. In any event, we are looking at the whole matter. I think if we come back and have some time, it is certainly something that could be considered.
* *
*


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I received a communication notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, Stan Schellenberg-er,

-for the electoral district of Wetaskiwin by resignation. Accordingly, 1 have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new Writ of Election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of people in Nova
Petitions
Scotia, mainly from Halifax, but also from other parts of that province and Canada. The people from Nova Scotia in their petition express concern with the Government's proposals regarding child care. They believe it neither contains national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements and, as a result, will not ensure that families have access to higher quality child care.
Whereas the proposed Child Care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women or families in Canada, the undersigned call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith. The petitioners have signed the petition and the petition has been certified by the Clerk of Petitions.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by residents of Scarborough, Markham and Ottawa, Ontario; Sydney and Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia, and Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. In both petitions they say that the Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, that a trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege of presenting a petition from many citizens of my riding of Hamilton Mountain and residents of the City of Hamilton as well as Peterborough, Scarborough, Stoney Creek and Belleville. All of these petitioners feel very strongly that families throughout Canada need a high quality, available, affordable child care service. Whereas the proposed child care Bill is not in the best interests of young children, women or the families of Canada, they therefore call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Bill forthwith.

September 1, 1988
Order Paper Questions DESIGNATION OF ROUGE RIVER VALLEY


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to the Elouse of Commons today a petition about helping to save the Rouge Valley, and the petitioners join with thousands of volunteers who have been working on this project for some years. The Rouge Valley is a unique and precious natural area. Protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas is in the national interest. I would like to invite Hon. Members of the House of Commons and those listening today to visit the Rouge Valley. It is a beautiful place. The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada and the provincial Government to make this area a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park and the petitioners join with the Scarborough City Council, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have 17 petitions concerning the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement to table today. The petitioners humbly declare that the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada without obtaining anything in return; that Canadian industries are still not protected from American trade laws; that the United States got everything they wanted in all the important sectors, in particular in agriculture, energy, automobile trade, financial services and investments; that the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened; that the Conservative Government has not provided any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers.
For these reasons, they humbly ask Parliament to censure the Government for having signed the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, on behalf of petitioners from the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, Ontario, a petition in which the petitioners say that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, affordable child care services and that the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for a comprehensive, non-profit child care system and that the child care Bill proposed by the Government contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements. The petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Bill forthwith.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House today 16 petitions on
behalf of Toronto residents who wish to state their opposition to the closure of the Canadian Embassy in Ecuador and the hardship imposed on individuals seeking to apply for emigration to Canada or visitors' visas. The petition urges Parliament and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reopen the Canadian Embassy in Ecuador.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and privilege of tabling a petition today, a petition that has been certified correct and true to form by the Clerk of Petitions pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners who are residents of the Province of Ontario are concerned about the child care Bill currently before Parliament. They point out that it has been recommended that child care services be available for families throughout this country, that the legislation should contain national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive, non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada and they call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Bill forthwith.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour and privilege and indeed the obligation of presenting a petition signed by a number of citizens of Canada. The petition has been properly certified by the Clerk of Petitions pursuant to Standing Order 106. In this petition, the petitioners point out the need in Canada for high quality, available, affordable child care services and point out the fact that these services should be available for all families. They say that these services should meet certain national objectives and that there should be appropriate mechanisms provided for the development of a comprehensive, non-profit child care system which is accessible to all families. Whereas the child care Bill proposed by the Government of Canada contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality care, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada to withdraw the child care Bill forthwith.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 1, 1988



POINT OF ORDER


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, 1 would just indicate that during Petitions, the rules of the House were deliberately broken by the Whip of the Official Opposition. In light of what happened yesterday and in light of arguments earlier this morning, a dangerous trend is developing. People are deliberately breaking the rules of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: As Speaker, naturally I have to take into account the representation of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, and I assure him and other Hon. Members that 1 will be careful to ensure that the rules of the House are not broken, and if they are, I will try to take appropriate action.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the Parliamentary Secretary has bootlegged in this accusation, I would like him to make a specific charge if he has one as to what rule was broken. The petitions I tabled were certified by the Clerk of Petitions as being appropriate. They were tabled in due course and at the appropriate time. There is nothing wrong with that.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can settle that. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has raised a matter and I said that I would of course always be conscious of matters that are raised. I made no ruling one way or the other as to whether or not the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was in breach of the rules, and I take the representations of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary as just that. I do not, in my comments, indicate for a moment that I have made any decision that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier was in breach of the rules.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point, and I know you will be reviewing it, but I would like to remind you that this is just one of a number of charges that the Government has made over the last year in an attempt to restrict the ability of Members of Parliament to present petitions. I think in almost every case when this has been done, you have found that the points have not had any validity and you have ruled against them. I suspect that that will be the case again today. We do have a process for having petitions certified. Obviously this took place on this particular occasion, and 1 find it reprehensible that the Parliamentary Secretary continues to try to restrict the ability of Hon. Members to present petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not take it that the Parliamentary Secretary was necessarily trying to restrict the right of Members of Parliament to present petitions. I think his remarks were aimed, perhaps, at the length of the explanation, and these things are matters which the Chair has to take into account. The Chair on occasion has perhaps been too generous, but nonetheless, the Chair has tended to go as far as is appropriate in allowing Hon. Members to express in the Chamber the intentions of their petitions. However, there is of course the rule that the explanation should be brief, and 1
know that all Hon. Members will want to co-operate with me in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the fact that I have received two applications for an emergency debate and they are on the same issue. I first want to point something out. I have some considerable doubt as to whether, given the order, I can even entertain the applications. However, I know the applications, one of which I received last night, are serious.
1 must indicate to both Hon. Members who applied that it will take some persuading for me to move in the direction they ask. However, given the issue I am prepared to perhaps overlook to a degree the order for today and I will hear first the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) because his was the first application, and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). It is the same issue and I am sure they will buttress each other's remarks.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given your intention to extend some latitude, and not knowing what is about to be said, I hope the Government will have a right of response if that is indicated.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule is that an application for an emergency debate is to be a succinct statement by the Hon. Member applying. It is not to be a debate on the issue, it has to be the argument for the case. The reason it must be a succinct statement is that otherwise, of course, it would be appropriate for the other side to respond. That is the rule and under the rules only the applicant can speak and the argument must be succinct. I know both Hon. Members who are applying are experienced and 1 trust they will not take advantage of that rule. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would not have to rise on a point of order because of any infringement of that rule.
I will hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29 1 ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the public statement by the Deputy Minister for western diversification that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States will be harmful and is already harmful to regional development programs. That statement is a clear contradiction of claims made in this House by the Government. That statement was retracted only this morning by the Deputy Minister, obviously under clear intimidation by the Government.

September 1, 1988
1 will just make this point. Because of this order agreed to-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: May I be allowed to complete my statement without interruption by this jerk?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there has been an accusation made about the behaviour of the Government, that it is clearly intimidating someone. That simply cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. There is no intimidation.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the Hon. Member's point. I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will try to keep his remarks as succinct as possible.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, after that unnecessary interruption let me just make this point. I recognize your admonition about the problem we are facing in these unique circumstances. Yet the House will be adjourning for 10 days and there will be absolutely no opportunity to continue discussion of this very important issue. Therefore 1 hope you will give it proper consideration and give Members of Parliament the opportunity this afternoon to debate it properly and see where the truth really lies.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as you indicated, under the same provision of Standing Order 29 to argue very concisely that the situation would be alarming indeed if, as we contend, we now have another senior public servant of the Government of Canada, this one in charge of western diversification, adding to what the former Deputy Minister of Finance has already said, that regional development programs are going to be affected by the trade deal negotiated between our government and that of the United States.
If true, as we contend it is, this is alarming for western Canada, Atlantic Canada, and the northern parts of most of our provinces in particular. However, the key point with respect to the rules of the House is precisely the question of the adjournment. Today is the last day for debate in the House before we adjourn. We are supposed to be coming back a number of days down the road, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said publicly, and I want to underline this, that there is every possibility an election could be called during that period of time. The traditional four-year period of the Government, as the Prime Minister has described it, is now up. He has said he would be expected to call an election barring some very exceptional circumstances which he said do not exist.
It is for those two reasons, Your Honour, that I suggest the application for a special debate falls within the framework of the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I have stretched the rules considerably to hear these applications because they arise over a matter of great importance to the country. I indicated that, at least on what I knew of them earlier, I was probably not too partial to ordering an emergency debate this afternoon. I have listened carefully to both Hon. Members. They are very experienced, one being a former Minister and a senior critic in his Party, and the other of course being the Leader of the NDP.
I understand fully the concern expressed by both Hon. Members and others during Question Period. I also listened very carefully to Question Period and, without sitting in judgment, it seems to me, and I know I was admonished by the reform committee not to give reasons for turning down an application, this issue is so important it may be helpful if I say why I am not inclined to grant the debate at this time.
First, as I said, I considered the matter very carefully when I received the first notice from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I considered it very carefully today. I considered very carefully the exchange in Question Period. There was a difference of opinion in Question Period on this matter. However, it is extremely difficult for the Chair to think that it amounts to an issue on which there must be an urgent debate. The Deputy Minister may or may not have said something. In any event there are differences of opinion as to what he said. Of course, there will be different conclusions drawn from what he may or may not have said. Even given the very great importance of this issue it is very difficult for the Chair to decide that this afternoon there ought to be an emergency debate.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa raises another matter, and this is certainly speculation and not something upon which I can comment, that this day will perhaps be the last day of this Parliament. No one can be certain about that but it seems to me that in itself does not give cause to extend the sitting beyond the agreed order into this afternoon.
I want to say to both Hon. Members as well as others that I listened very carefully because the country has been listening very carefully to the debate in this chamber. I know there must be a very great temptation among other Members to get up and comment upon this issue. However, we have had Question Period. I of course have no more idea than anyone else what may happen in the ensuing days. There seems to be at the moment a very serious difference of opinion on what a senior official has said and the implications that flow from it but that is not sufficient at this time to order an emergency debate.
I thank both Hon. Members for the succinct way they presented the matter and I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary and others for their forbearance.
September 1, 1988


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS Mr. Rodriguez: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-271 standing in my name as a Private Member.
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, August 31, 1988, this House stands adjourned, I think, until Tuesday, September 13, 1988 at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, September 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers