1988-08-10

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


[Stage Direction]
2,4-D-SUGGESTED BAN FOR NON-ESSENTIAL USES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, statistics show a steady increase in the occurrence of a form of lymphatic cancer linked to the common weed killer 2,4-D. The frequency of this type of cancer and the number of deaths it causes have doubled, claiming 1,500 lives in 1986, at a time when most other types of cancer have been declining.
About 5,000 tonnes of 2,4-D are sprayed annually on seven million hectares of land including crops, parks, golf courses, lawns, in forests, and under power transmission lines.
We urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), as a first step, to ban all non-essential uses such as municipal and residential spraying, and instruct all federal agencies to stop using 2,4-D immediately. Then, the use should be reduced to a minimum in agriculture and forestry.
At the same time the Government must intensify research on alternatives to 2,4-D instead of cutting research and corners at the expense of public health.


THE LATE FELIX LECLERC
Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, for the past two days, Quebecers and other Canadians have mourned the loss of our great national poet which filled us with a sense of profound sadness and sorrow. This "Grand Canadien", as the French called him, was the best ambassador we ever had, who not only made his people known but also gained recognition for them as a people.
Mr. Speaker, this man, who was integrity personified, who was both very forthright and extremely sensitive, has left us a treasure that will be a lasting tribute to his memory.
Like Felix Leclerc, let us be proud and stand up for our ideals. Thank you, Felix Leclerc, "le Canadien", we will never forget you!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my Party has always been a strong advocate of the United Nations and its peacekeeping role. That is why I am very happy that Canada is taking part in the peacekeeping force that is on its way to the Persian Gulf. I would like to offer my Party's official support for this action.
We can only enhance Canada's international reputation as a peaceful nation by helping to supervise the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq. We all hope that this will also contribute to the final resolution of this conflict. It might even show other troubled nations that there is a way to resolve their differences peacefully; and it will surely strengthen the role of the United Nations in resolving international disputes.
I wish our troops well. May they have a safe trip and, more important, a speedy return. Of course that depends on Iran and Iraq. They must show the world that they are willing to resolve their differences peacefully. A cease-fire is better than war, but it is not enough. The world needs a lasting peace in this troubled region.


DISASTERS
[Stage Direction]
1987 EDMONTON TORNADO-COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, on July 31 of this year I had the privilege and honour to represent the people of Canada in Edmonton North at a ceremony which paid tribute to those who were lost in the tornado of July 31, 1987.
On their behalf, Sir, they wish me to convey through you their sincere thanks to all Canadians who so generously helped

August 10, 1988
them in their time of need. On their behalf I am presenting you this plaque I hold in order that you can put it in the Hall of Honour.


PORT OF CHURCHILL-NON-SHIPMENT OF GRAIN
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the very serious circumstances facing the Port of Churchill. That port is an essential part of the grain delivery system for western Canada. At this time of the year it has yet to receive any allocation of any grain shipments whatsoever. In other words, the port is completely dead still and not in operation.
That runs totally contrary to an agreement signed in 1984 with the provincial Government of Manitoba when the Wheat Board offered to make best efforts to ensure that grain shipments would go through the Port of Churchill. What we are experiencing now is not only the loss of jobs in Churchill itself, but the loss of a very vital and essential ingredient in the economic development of western Canada.
I call upon the Government to ensure that there are grain shipments through the Port of Churchill, and that it live up to the commitments made by the previous Government in 1984.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, last month the Government announced plans to acquire badly needed minesweepers. In doing so it stated that it hoped to give smaller shipyards with a proven expertise a chance to develop Canadian shipbuilding.
A national consortium of smaller shipyards already exists and is geared up to do the type of work ordered. There are six different yards in four provinces, headed by Canadian Shipbuilders and Engineering Company of St. Catharines. A proposal for design and ship construction has already been made.
It has been stated by people in high places that an unemployed shipbuilder anywhere is still unemployed.
These yards are capable and now available. The Government will be able to close that disgraceful gap in our coastal defence earlier and more economically by negotiating with the CSE consortium without delay.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent government statistics, the four western provinces, which make up 30 per cent of the Canadian population, received only 11 per cent of national contracts handed out by the Department of Supply and Services in Ottawa.
My home province of British Columbia, with 11.4 per cent of the population, received only 3.6 per cent of the contracts from this administration. Incredibly, the Conservative Government has given the West an even smaller share of these contracts than the previous Trudeau Liberals-and you know what the West thought of them, Mr. Speaker! Ontario and Quebec received between them 77 per cent of federal procurement.
It is an attitude. The Government sees the Province of British Columbia mainly as a source of natural resources. The Government does not understand that British Columbia needs funds for research and development. We are not asking for any more than our fair share, but we want our fair share of contracts for our printers, computer programmers, advertising agencies, consulting firms, and research and development.
There is going to be an election. The Conservative MPs from British Columbia will have to answer to the people of the West on why they have let the West down.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the total number of potential refugee claimants reached an all-time high of 56,237 as of July 22, 1988, thanks to the Liberal controlled other place playing cheap political games. This figure is expected to increase dramatically even with the passage of Bills C-55 and C-84, since their provisions to prevent abuse of our immigration system will not be in effect until January 1, 1989. In the meantime, unscrupulous individuals and so-called consultants will have another four and a half months to create further chaos in Canada.
The Government must create a mechanism to prevent this possible onslaught of bogus claimants until the new regulations take effect. The Canadian people will not forget how the Liberal controlled Senate played politics with the lives of human beings.

August 10, 1988


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, on June 9 the Minister of Regional Economic Development and his Quebec counterpart announced a federal-provincial agreement worth $970 million that would benefit certain outlying areas and Quebec as a whole.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, since then the Canadian Government has been dragging its feet, and none of the regions where announcements were made that several million dollars were forthcoming have been able to benefit from any concrete programs. I personally checked this with all the department's regional offices in Quebec. None of the regions have any programs whatsoever, and no forms are available. Mr. Speaker, this means that at this very moment, developers in Quebec cannot apply to the federal Government for funding.
Again, the Minister is dragging his feet, and Quebec's developers are suffering the consequences. Mr. Speaker, I hope all this was not just a lot of electioneering, that it was not just a smoke screen, and that economic development will take place as promised and that is why it is important to get this program on track as soon as possible.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, in my area the Government's job strategy is working and its success is reflected in the latest unemployment figures for St. Catharines, Niagara. In the Niagara Peninsula we are experiencing the lowest rate of unemployment in 22 years. For the month of July unemployment was at 3.7 per cent, a figure that we have not seen since the 1960s. We are talking jobs, jobs, jobs.
In another few weeks 132 students will complete their summer jobs under Challenge '88 and return to school. Over the past four years hundreds of students have been able to put what they have learned at school into practice. At the same time, they have increased their chances for jobs after graduation.
The success of Challenge '88 and other federal job-creation strategies is matched by the positive response of private industry to the improved economic climate in the past four years. The record low unemployment figure in Niagara is proof that the Government has delivered on its promises. Canadians are working because this Government's initiatives are working.


S. O. 21 SPORTS &quot;THE GREAT ONE&quot; GOES SOUTH
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 99 per cent of Canadian hockey fans across Canada were disappointed to hear that our famous No. 99 will be lost to the Los Angeles Kings and no longer will be playing for the Edmonton Oilers. For all Canadians, especially the youth of Canada, Wayne Gretzky was a model sportsman and a model athlete.


An Hon. Member:: He still is. What do you mean was?


Nelson Andrew Riis: He was a very special symbol for all Canadians, being not only an outstanding athlete in terms of expertise but also in terms of talent, and he always played fairly and showed great sportsmanship. I simply want to say that we are sad to see him leave Canada and go to Los Angeles. Los Angeles' gain in this case will not only be the Edmonton Oilers' loss but Edmonton's loss and all of Canada's loss.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has written an urgent letter to all Members of Parliament. The Federation is demanding a meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because of its concern about the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States. Canadian agriculture will be compromised by this deal.
The Federation is concerned that the deal will have a negative impact on marketing boards and our supply management system, on the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing system, on the standards of quality of Canadian agricultural products, and on the sacrifice of the horticultural industry. It is also concerned that our existing marketing system will not be protected because there is no action to put poultry or broiler hatching eggs under import controls; because of failures to consult with industry on the administration of the import control system, and because of the failure of the Government to make a strong public commitment to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said that it cannot endorse an agreement which would undermine the Canadian farmers' ability to maintain and implement the necessary structures and programs to assist Canadian agriculture. That is exactly what the Prime Minister's free trade deal does, it undermines Canadian agriculture.

August 10, 1988
Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on August 8, 1988, I attended the inauguration of the administrative office in Mistassini, north of Chibougamau. This is an impressive complex bringing together all the administrative services required by the people of Mistassini.
Chief Henry Mianscum cut the ribbon at the inauguration, accompanied by members of the band and in the presence of Great Chief Matthew Coon-Come and two children.
We then had the opportunity to attend a grand show in pure native tradition put on by the wise men and children of the reserve.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outstanding achievement of the James Bay Cree people and we cannot help admire the way they run their affairs.
*
* *


THE FRANCHISE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, once again a lower court has decided that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms penitentiary inmates have a right to vote in federal and provincial elections, in this case provincial, and once again Attorneys General, in this case the provincial Attorney General for Ontario-and recently the Attorney General for Canada-have decided not to appeal these decisions.
I want to express my objection to this interpretation of the Charter, and my hope that these decisions will be appealed by some courageous Attorney General somewhere in our country. To me the idea that inmates ought to be able to vote in federal and provincial elections is totally unacceptable. Losing the right to vote is a sanction, like loss of freedom, which ought to be acceptable in a democratic society as reasonably justified.
I regret very much this turn of events and urge Attorneys General to appeal these lower court decisions.
* *
*


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GLOBE AND MAIL EDITORIAL
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, during the last several weeks we have heard a lot of rhetoric about
how the Opposition would rip up the free trade agreement. The Opposition would be well advised to read today's Globe and Mail, and I quote:
It is whistling Dixie north of Windsor to suggest that Canada could tear up this agreement now and make another one with the United States soon. No U.S. administration is going to start over to seek essentially the same ends after such a rebuff. Let us not parade our naivety so conspicuously, or offer comforting assurances so disingeniously.
No one should pretend that rejecting this free trade agreement would not damage Canada's economic prospects and lead to higher unemployment than would otherwise occur. No one should pretend that rejecting this deal would not expose the Auto Pact to early renegotiation in much tougher circumstances.
Let the Opposition deal with reality and let us get on with what is good for Canada, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in his very first speech to this House of Commons, in the same speech where he mentioned social programs as being a sacred trust, the Prime Minister said that the Canadian Government, and I quote his words, "must honour that fundamental British tradition in this country which calls for an election within four years so that the people can judge".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: What about the Senate?


John Napier Turner: Those were the Prime Minister's words. That same day the Prime Minister moved a motion of non-confidence saying that the House of Commons, and I use the words of the motion "requires that an election be called in accordance with the Canadian custom, practice and tradition of holding a general election at least every four years".


Mr. Darling:: Wait for the four years.


John Napier Turner: My question is for the
Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister still believe that? If he does, why hasn't he called an election to be held on or before September 4, 1988, so that the people can decide and pronounce on the trade deal with the United States?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is a lawyer and he has some expertise in constitutional law, and I think he knows-
August 10, 1988


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Some.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some. I think he knows that the requirements are that elections be held within a five-year mandate. Every Government is elected for a five-year mandate, and any time after the fourth year expires generally we start thinking about an election. When the fourth year comes upon us, maybe we will start thinking about calling an election.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that four years or so ago the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Erik Nielsen drafted that particular motion, and I would have thought he would have held to it today, conceding that the people do have a right to decide.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues told us that no trade agreement with the United States would be signed if the American omnibus trade bill applied to Canada. Furthermore, all the Conservative Members of the House Committee said that it should be abandoned if the American omnibus bill applied to Canada.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows very well that last week, the U.S. Congress officially ratified the omnibus bill. It is ready for the President's signature and this bill applies to Canada.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Government persists in going ahead with the Bill to implement the trade agreement with the United States, now that the American omnibus bill applies directly to Canada?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the right hon. gentleman. As he knows, the omnibus trade Bill that was looked at by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons has been drastically changed. It has been watered down rather dramatically. Most of the concerns of Canadians have been taken out of it. Others have been watered down rather dramatically. There is nothing in the U.S. omnibus free trade Bill that we can see at this time that is in contravention of the free trade agreement, so we are satisfied that the free trade agreement should go ahead for the betterment of Canada and all its people.


ACCESS TO AMERICAN MARKET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to read the new, revised, and completed version of the American omnibus trade Bill. He will find that not only does it apply to Canada, despite the unanimous wishes of every member of the trade committee of the House of Commons, it adds a whole new set
Oral Questions
of unilateral trade remedies available against Canada at the discretion of the President and the Congress of the United States.
In 1983 the Prime Minister of Canada, in a campaign for the leadership of his Party, said he was against free trade. In 1984 the Prime Minister of Canada did not say a word about free trade during a general election. In 1985 the Prime Minister of Canada began bilateral negotiations with the President of the United States on free trade. In 1986 the Prime Minister of Canada said he would not accept a deal unless there was guaranteed access to the American market. In 1987 the Prime Minister of Canada said that U.S. protectionist trade laws should not apply to Canada.
It is now 1988. We have no guaranteed access to the American market under the trade deal, and now new American protectionist trade laws apply to Canada. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada if it is not time to let the people decide.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing that the right hon. gentleman would ignore the advice of a $23 million Royal Commission headed by a former colleague of his which came out very strongly in favour of a bilateral trade agreement with the United States of America.
The Royal Commission report said: "The Canadian nation is not a weak and fragile plant doomed to disappearing merely because we trade more freely and securely with our American neighbour. Free trade will reduce regional divisions and enhance Canadian confidence. Canadian nationalism and our collective identity as a people are deeply rooted in more than a century of our evolutionary common existence". I think those were words well spoken.
I find it rather strange that the right hon. gentleman, who sometimes plays a little footloose and fancy free with the truth-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -even as late as October 26, 1987, in this House said, and I quote from page 10359 of Hansard-


Ms. Copps:: What page?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is 10359:
I happen to believe that Canadians can compete with anyone, including the Americans. I believe we can compete without sacrificing our sovereignty and political independence.
I have faith in this country. I have faith in Canadians and I have faith that we are mature enough, talented enough, confident enough and tough enough to make our own choices in our own way-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 10, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is exactly what this trade deal does.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what that statement that the Deputy Prime Minister just read has to do with the pathetic agreement which has been signed between Canada and the U.S. on trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APARTHEID
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the regrettable continuing economic and diplomatic relations between Canada and South Africa. I want to remind the Minister that on October 23, 1985, speaking at the UN General Assembly the Prime Minister said the following:
My Government has said to Canadians that if there are not fundamental
changes in South Africa we are prepared to invoke total sanctions against that
country and its repressive regime.
If there is no progress in the dismantling of apartheid, our relations with
South Africa may have to be severed absolutely.
The situation in South Africa with respect to the black majority has deteriorated. Has the Government taken the Ronald Reagan approach of constructive engagement, or the Margaret Thatcher approach of worrying about the well-being of the South African economy? In other words, when will the Prime Minister be prepared to do what he said he would do in front of the UN in 1985, cut off economic relations and terminate diplomatic relations with South Africa?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have not followed the American example or the British example.


Mr. Shields:: Or the Liberal example of doing nothing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have followed a Canadian approach which is thoughtful, and I think the initiatives taken by this Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the very important meeting that took place in Toronto a few days ago, are a clear indication of the work-[DOT]


Robert Phillip Kaplan: A farce.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member says it was a farce. The participants do not share that view. It is clear progress is being made.


Miss MacDonald:: The Liberals did nothing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As has been said on previous occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if you cut off all ties, the opportunity to influence any change in South Africa would be diminished. The Hon. Member may want to engage in tactics, which may not be productive, as a headline seeking game, but the proof is in the pudding. Progress is being made. It is a co-operative-


Some Hon. Members:: Where?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Progress can only be made through the co-operative efforts of more than Canada alone. It requires the co-operation and inspiration of everyone, and that is the kind of leadership we are providing.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is no progress in South Africa. It becomes more of a Fascist state every day, and the Government knows that. Last year, before the Standing Committee on Human Rights, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he had full authority from Cabinet for comprehensive, economic and diplomatic sanctions against South Africa. Does he still have it? And what is he waiting for to use them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only advise the House that if there are any new initiatives that will be recommended by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, they will be brought forth to Cabinet for consideration, and I am sure they will be announced in the usual manner.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Jack Wendele Shields: Ladies and gentlemen, Shirley Carr! Give him a hand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: I see, Mr. Speaker, the days of recess have not diminished the lofty intellectual witticisms of the governing Party.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
John Edward Broadbent: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that for many weeks the Minister responsible for the trade deal with the
August 10, 1988

United States has denied there was anything to the concerns Canadians had expressed about the possibility of water being included in the agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


John Edward Broadbent: After many weeks of pressure coming from this side of the House and from the people of Canada, the Government reluctantly agreed to change the wording of the Canadian Bill during the committee stage. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that many Canadian experts-as recently as yesterday another group of them-have said this approach is totally inadequate to protect our water resources.
Since the Minister for International Trade has said that water is not included, and since he has quoted Trade Representative Yeutter of the United States publicly as saying it is not included, will the Government of Canada-since it has ruled out a change to the agreement itself-at least go to the Americans this week and seek agreement to get letters attached as appendices to the agreement making clear in the view of both Governments that water is not included, and so give legal force to our deeply expressed concern to keep water out of the agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position that has been stated by the Minister for International Trade is indeed the position of the Government. It is still the position of the Government.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: God help us!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We believe very much that this is another example of hysteria and falsehoods which have been perpetrated. But in order to clarify the issue-and that is merely what has been done in this particular area-and for the benefit of the Leader of the New Democratic Party who may not be aware the amendment is simply for clarification, it reads as follows:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the agreement, except Article 401 of the agreement, applies to water. In this section water means natural surface and ground water in liquid, gaseous or solid state but does not include water packaged as a beverage or in tanks.
This has consistently been the position of the Government. It does not provide for any wide-scale diversion of water.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It's only an amendment to this Bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It does provide for the export of water in bottles as a beverage. Why would the Hon. Member be opposed to that?


REQUEST FOR UNITED STATES COMMITMENT IN WRITING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to turn the argument of the Deputy Prime Minister around. If the Deputy Prime Minister has said that water is not included, and if Mr. Yeutter in the United States has said water is not included, and since experts who know something, if I can put it
Oral Questions
this way, in greater detail than either the Deputy Prime Minister or myself about the law involved-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why beat a dead horse, then?


John Edward Broadbent: -and since they have said the amendment is insufficient, why does the Government refuse to go to the United States and ask them to put in writing what they verbally expressed? Why does the Government not do that?


John Horton McDermid: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the Leader of the New Democratic Party that the United States will be putting that in writing on December 15 when we exchange letters-


John Edward Broadbent: In the agreement?


John Horton McDermid: -and we have put in our Bill implementing the free trade agreement that water is not included. They have to approve in a letter to Canada saying: "We have implemented the free trade agreement". In there it says that water is not part of it. When we exchange letters, they will agree with our implementation and we say it is not part of it. So letters will be exchanged on December 15. Water is out of the agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary knows that the answer he has just given is not at all equivalent to the letters I am requesting, which should be attached-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: He knows that, if his howling back-benchers do not. He knows that what he has just talked about is entirely different from letters of clear understanding, of common interpretation, coming from our Government and the executive branch of the U.S. Government to be attached to the agreement. They are very different processes, indeed.


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the
Parliamentary Secretary or, more correctly, the Deputy Prime Minister, since the Government has said no to our proposal to protect regional development programs, and has said no to proposals to protect Canadian culture, and has said no to protecting Canadian water, and since the people of Canada have said clearly that they are saying yes to an election before we proceed, will the Government do the right thing and have an election now on this deal?


Some Hon. Members:: Go, go, go!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Don't be afraid of the people, Don.


John Horton McDermid: We should just walk away from the negotiations; that's Broadbent's solution.

August 10, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Leader of the New Democratic Party-


John Edward Broadbent: You do it every day. It's okay.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hate to disappoint him. I know he would love to see inherent in this legislation something to the effect that there would be a large scale diversion of water. Well, there just isn't, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member should start accepting somebody's word.
He says we have said no to regional development. There could not be another instrument or device that would be more helpful to overcoming regional economic disparities than the free trade agreement which has been negotiated with the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: Every economist says that's hogwash, and you know it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let the Leader of the New Democratic Party go out West to western Canada and speak to the people-


John Edward Broadbent: I will. We will be there this week, and in Edmonton, fellow, right in Edmonton.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -rather than to his own partisan friends.


John Edward Broadbent: We'll see you in Edmonton!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Call an election and we will go to the people!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party through you, Mr. Speaker, to go out to Atlantic Canada and speak to the people-


John Edward Broadbent: I did last week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and not to his own partisan supporters, and he will find the real truth, because this is the most important initiative ever undertaken to overcome regional economic disparities.


John Edward Broadbent: Go to the people now.


EXCHANGE OF LETTERS WITH UNITED STATES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Even though he is not wearing Gucci shoes, he is certainly dancing around on this issue, particularly when it comes to the question of water.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We would like a clarification of the statement that was just made by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said we will be getting a confirmed agreement in letter form from the United States on December 15. Specifically, will we
be requesting from the United States Government a confirmation in a letter that the agreement, not the legislation, but the agreement itself, Articles 105, 408 and the tariff schedule, will not apply to the transfer of water of any kind between Canada and the United States? Can we get the commitment that you will ask for that letter, and we will send a letter in return?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if we followed that principle, the letter would be so long that the Hon. Member would not have time to read it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's ridiculous!


John Horton McDermid: I can tell the Hon. Member that the exchange of letters is very clear. It says that Canada, the letter from the United States to Canada, has implemented the free trade agreement. Implementing the free trade agreement is Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement. In that Act it says that large-scale water exports to the United States are not part of the agreement. They never were. They never were. And the Americans have said that many, many times as well. When that exchange of letters takes place, it will confirm that we have implemented the free trade agreement, and in implementing it Bill C-130 says water is not part of it. That is all that is required. Can the Hon. Member not understand that?


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is now backing off from his earlier statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Finlay MacDonald: You didn't understand it.


Mr. Dick:: He doesn't want to.


Lloyd Axworthy: Go back to your submarine, fellow.
The Parliamentary Secretary will know that in testimony before the committee, the ambassador for trade, Mr. Ritchie, clearly said that the trade agreement will give the right to the United States to challenge Canadian water resources in front of the trade commission. He said that is part of the agreement and that agreement will take precedence. The legislation will not affect that right.
I return to my earlier question. Why is the Government afraid to ask the United States for explicit exemption from water by way of an exchange of letters or an amendment to the agreement, or are we simply getting from the Government, as we have had for the last two and a half years, a total and complete smokescreen about the real impact of the trade agreement upon Canadians?
August 10, 1988


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member sure talks tough when he is in front of the TV cameras, but I noticed that he did not show up fdf the final vote in the committee on Bill C-130. He just disappeared-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I was there longer than you were, McDermid. I sat longer than you did.


An Hon. Member:: Good old Tory sleaze.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
American politicians yesterday spoke of a trade war if Canadians reject the free trade agreement. Is the Minister prepared to accept such threats, or will he protest? Because this is a decision for us Canadians to make without threats.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first, the statement that was made by Congressman John LaFalce was not a threat. It was not meant to be a threat in any way that I could see. There is probably no greater friend to Canada in the Congress than Congressman John LaFalce. That should be understood.
Second, he has supported free trade negotiations from the beginning because he saw and understood the protectionist problems in the United States and felt that this agreement was necessary. He knows those concerns are still there. He knows those problems still exist. He thinks the free trade agreement goes a very long way to solving a lot of the problems we have had between our two countries. That is why he is supporting it.
He is concerned that if this free trade agreement is not passed, these problems will come again to haunt us and they will be very difficult to solve. That is what he was talking about. It was not meant as a threat in any way, and the Hon. Member knows that full well.


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that massive vote in the United States was an endorsa-tion of just how well their negotiators had done against us.
Oral Questions
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he tell the Americans that this is Canada's decision to make? Will the Government finally call the election that it should have called long ago, to take this legislation to the people, instead of forgetting that it does not have a mandate to take this country into the United States?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that we just spent almost four weeks in committee hearing Canadians in all walks of life. I might say that his union friends walked out of the hearings and would not give testimony because they were afraid of the tough questions they would get. Shirley Carr, Bob White and the rest of them just watched how their times were set, and walked out and would not be heard-these so-called ordinary Canadians.
As far as an election is concerned, the Hon. Member will have his opportunity to debate this on the hustings. I can tell you that this side of the House is really looking forward to it. Be ready.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON NIAGARA PENINSULA INDUSTRIES
Allan Ernest Pietz: Mr. Speaker, given that grapes and tender fruit are grown on 8 per cent of the land area of regional Niagara, and that major industries in the automotive, paper, chemical, steel, stainless steel, rubber, carbon, and farm machinery production sectors are major employers in the cities of Welland, St. Catharines, and Thorold, with a high dependency on the United States market for the sale of their products, what will be the effect on the workers in these industries if the free trade deal is not passed?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely right that there are a number of industries in the Niagara Peninsula that will have a very positive effect from the trade agreement and could have a negative effect if it does not go through.
Grant Wilson, past chairman of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association, told the committee studying Bill C-130 that if we had not signed the free trade agreement the Auto Pact was in deep trouble and auto parts manufacturers were in trouble as well.
The Hon. Member knows full well that in his riding and many other ridings in the Niagara Peninsula it could be disastrous if the free trade agreement does not go through. He did not mention the area of ship repair. There is a 50 per cent tariff on ship repairs now, and Port Weller can look forward to that tariff being removed and having its fair share of work at Port Weller.

August 10, 1988
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister is aware that Quebec has been getting the short end of the stick as far as regional economic development is concerned. Calls were made today to his Department's regional offices, and it seems that as far as regional economic expansion is concerned, no programs are available for Quebec developers. The agreement signed on June 9 has not taken effect, the IRDP expired on June 30, and as far as federal regional industrial expansion programs are concerned, there is nothing on the horizon. I therefore want to ask the Minister how he can be responsible for his Department without having anything available for Quebec entrepreneurs at this point?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Government to which the Hon. Member belonged, the present Government has done more for regional development in Quebec in the past few years than ever before. Recently, we announced a program worth nearly one billion dollars, in fact more than that, to support regional development, and not a program managed by Ottawa but by the regions themselves.
Mr. Speaker, many requests are still coming in under existing programs and being analyzed for suitability under the new programs, and the final documentation is already at the printers. The money is there. Regional development will take place in the regions or outlying areas-something you never did! For years, you left the regions to fend for themselves.


REQUEST THAT QUEBEC PROMOTERS RECEIVE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister doesn't know what he is talking about. I wish he would take the time to call his Department's regional offices. They will tell him there are no programs available and no forms, because the Minister is not making decisions as usual. Consequently, I would like to ask the Minister whether Quebec developers will be treated the same way as developers in the rest of this country. Could the Minister give me the assurance that the program he referred to will be available as soon as possible, and not in a month of Sundays? As you know, construction has to be done before winter starts. Will the Minister wake up and start running his Department the way it should be run?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, contracts are being awarded every single day of the week. We are getting applications every single day of the week. New programs are announced as soon as the forms are available. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that
as far as regional development is concerned, Quebec is much better off with this new program that it was with any of the programs set up by the previous government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question also concerns the trade deal. United States government spokespeople and U.S. grain trade officials, as well as some Canadians, have been trying for years to undermine the effectiveness of our Canadian Wheat Board. Will the appropriate Minister tell the House why the Government removed the Wheat Board's power over licensing of imports? Was it at the insistence of the United States, or was it done simply because the Conservatives want to return to the grain exchange system of selling?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly the Hon. Member does not know anything of what he speaks. He is a former member of the Advisory Board to the Canadian Wheat Board and should know better than that.
First, nothing in the free trade agreement diminishes the power of the Canadian Wheat Board to sell. In fact, it is the opposite. Both the Canadian Wheat Board lawyers and Canadian Grain Commission lawyers were involved in the drafting process to see that the proper legal authority was there for them to maintain their selling system. The over-all agreement keeps intact our varietal distinction system that lets the Canadian Grain Commission have such a good reputation.
The end use certificates and those kinds of arrangements that are made are actually under the umbrella of the Canadian Wheat Board Act that will be administered by the Canadian Grain Commission to see that our system stays intact.
The Hon. Member should know that and stop raising matters which are absolutely phoney and which have nothing at all to do with the free trade agreement.


PUBLICATION OF WHEAT SALE PRICES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, perhaps some other time the Minister could tell us why these powers were given to the Department which has imports and exports under its jurisdiction rather than to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Considering the immense pressure from the U.S. Government and U.S. grain interests which are putting pressure on the Canadian Government to have Canada comply with their
August 10, 1988

request to make wheat board sales prices on each shipment of grain available in public-something which the U.S. grain trade does not have to do, yet we have traders in the U.S. and U.S. government officials insisting that this is a requirement for their purposes-will the Minister tell us how Canada is responding to the U.S. on this request since we have not heard a public statement to this date?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, again, what the Hon. Member is referring to is a statement of administrative action by the U.S. Government which talks about how it sees this agreement being implemented. Nothing in either the free trade agreement or the implementing legislation has anything to do but enhance the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and see it does a good job. How we sell our grain is entirely a Canadian affair, and it remains as such under the free trade agreement.
The Canadian Wheat Board, which I assume the Hon. Member supports, is one of the best selling agencies that we have as a country to sell our grain. What is wrong with giving the Canadian Wheat Board better rules and better certainty of access so it can do a better job of selling on our behalf? That is exactly what the free trade agreement does. It gives the Canadian Wheat Board a better chance to sell on a fair and a predictable basis in the United States, which is good for Canadian farmers, good for the Hon. Member who is a farmer, and good for his neighbours.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the changes to the qualifying period for unemployment insurance in southern New Brunswick. The Minister is certainly aware of the problem. The New Brunswick Labour Minister visited Ottawa to talk about it with the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I have already asked several questions on this subject.
Can the Minister tell the House what has been done to correct the situation and solve this problem? Will the Government distinguish rural areas from urban areas?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the Hon. Member. I do not have an answer to that question at the present time. I will take it up with the Minister and see that either she or I get back to him as soon as possible.
Oral Questions


SITUATION IN NEW BRUNSWICK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I have on hand a document from the Privy Council Office dated July 21, 1988 and published in the Canada Gazette. The Government allowed a distinction to be made between the rural area of Gatineau and the urban area of Hull. According to the document, the reason for this is the much higher unemployment rate in the rural area than in the urban one. But, Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the same problem in southern New Brunswick. I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether New Brunswickers can expect to receive the same treatment from this Government and whether changes will be made and apply to the people of New Brunswick right away.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I most certainly will take the Hon. Member's question and representation as notice and see that he is responded to very shortly.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. During the last many months federal language teachers have been on rotating strikes, have been through a sit-in, have had emotional demonstrations on Parliament Hill, and have strongly lobbied the Government to resolve their contract disputes. Can the Minister confirm that a resolution has been reached through the mediation of the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board?


Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that we have reached terms of settlement with the education group of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which of course includes the language teachers. I think at this time it would be appropriate to thank both negotiating teams, and Mr. Deans who, of course, serves as the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. He negotiated for eight straight days to resolve this longstanding dispute.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He's a triple dipper, he should be staying up all night.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: They have agreed to send the key issue of hours of work to binding arbitration. All other issues have been

August 10, 1988
Oral Questions
settled. I hope that this will lead to an improved climate for labour-management negotiations in terms of the rest of the contracts.
I am sorry that members of the Opposition consider that this fine achievement is a laughing matter.


IMPORTATION AND SALE OF IRRADIATED PRODUCE FROM THAILAND-CIDA AID-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. CIDA has promised to help Thailand sell irradiated fruit and shrimp to Canada, although it is illegal in this country to import and sell such products. Why is Canada using its international aid program to sell nuclear technology and use the people of Thailand and Canada as guinea pigs?


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight, because the Canadian Government certainly has no intention of opening our borders to shrimp or any other products, other than those presently admitted under Canada's irradiation standards. I may also remind the Hon. Member that Canada did not pressure Thailand so it could export its technology. In fact, it was Thailand that asked CIDA about our technology in this respect. Canada has been acting in accordance with the regulations that exist in this country, and we intend to maintain our regulations on irradiation.


IRRADIATED FOOD-EXPORT OF TECHNOLOGY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the Government not recognize that the Canadian people do not want their food irradiated and that they feel it is immoral to be exporting this technology to the developing world? Why does the Minister allow his Department, and why does the Government allow CIDA to become tools of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, rather than fulfilling their own mandates?


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Hon. Member does not seem to understand the process involved in irradiating food. I may remind him that the WHO and the FAO, to name only a few agencies, have said they were in favour of irradiated food because according to them it made the food safer to eat. The Canadian Government has
very strict standards in this respect. We are following international standards, and we will continue to do so because some very reliable agencies have said no risk was involved.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence or the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Many Canadians, especially those who support the Canadian Armed Forces, were shocked by revelations of cruelty and unjustified punishment inflicted on crewmen serving on a submarine, the HMCS Onandaga.
I know the Minister must share the concern so I ask this question. First, has the Ministry investigated the incidents involving Petty Officer Farler leading to his court martial? Second, will the Minister assure the public that the Minister and naval authorities will not tolerate cruel and unjustified actions in the Canadian Forces in any circumstances, thereby preserving the high standards of the Canadian military?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I have been very concerned about the reports and the information which I received regarding this incident. I can say that the incident is still appealable at this time and thus there are certain restrictions on what a person can say.
I would like to assure the Hon. Member that it is the intention of the Canadian Forces, the Minister of National Defence, myself, and this Government to maintain the very high standards that Canada has had from the Canadian Armed Forces, standards that we have been extremely proud of over the years, standards that have taken us to being the leading country in peacekeeping operations around the world, with the high regard and respect that other people and countries have for the Canadian Forces. We are going to maintain those high standards.


HERBICIDES
[Stage Direction]
2,4-D-REQUEST THAT MINISTER BAN USE ON FEDERAL LAND
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, if I could have his attention for a moment.
August 10, 1988

Statistics just released by the Department of National Health and Welfare show a steady increase in the occurrence of a form of lymphatic cancer linked to the common weedkiller 2,4-D, and also show that the frequency of this type of cancer and the number of deaths it causes have doubled, claiming 1,500 lives in 1986, at a time when most other types of cancer have been declining.
Will the Minister of Agriculture, as a first step, ban the use on federal land, in municipalities, and around the home of the herbicide 2,4-D?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated it very much if the Hon. Member had extended the courtesy of giving me notice of this particular question.
I wish the House and the Hon. Member to know that we are as interested in health and public safety as any Member of the House or any person across the country.
We have a process which we go through to approve pesticides and chemicals of this type. The Hon. Member should know that all the aspects of health and public safety are examined to their fullest.
I will take special interest in the Hon. Member's question, and I would be very happy to supply him with additional information as soon as possible.


REQUEST THAT USE BE PHASED OUT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister realizes that any delay would be at the expense of public health. Therefore, I ask him specifically if he will show leadership and initiate an action plan to phase out the use of 2,4-D herbicide from the market-place.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, again relying on memory, and sometimes memory does not always serve one accurately, I am of the opinion that, at the moment, we do have an ongoing monitoring plan for that specific chemical.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beaches will have the last question.


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. As the Minister probably knows, a recent Gallup poll has indicated that nearly 50 per cent of Canadians do not believe that young people can buy a home any more, and nearly 60 per cent of those people who live in Ontario do not believe that young people can attain the dream of buying a home either.
Petitions
Given the total absence of assistance from this Government to those young people, and the fact that the Government axed the only program that was available to assist young people to buy their first home, what plans does the Government have to replace that system it cancelled with some other type of program to assist young people to buy housing in Ontario, and in the rest of Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to tell the Hon. Member that business investment is running at 20 per cent above the previous year. That is part of the answer to employing people and giving them income opportunities in order that they can afford a home.
The economy now is at its strongest phase in the last eight years. There is a program in place for the whole economy to moderate interest rates. All of this works to allow people the opportunity to earn income and thereby buy a home.


SITUATION IN TORONTO
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. As the Minister knows, in Toronto it now takes an average income of some $60,000 a year even to get into the housing market.
The question I asked the Minister was whether or not he would replace the program that the Government cancelled several years ago. Does the Minister really believe that Canadians want the Government to spend billions of dollars on nuclear submarines yet it cannot afford to extend some assistance to those young families to get into the housing market?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a historical memory that is a bit weak. Those programs were put in place to compensate for a weak economy, and to fill a hole that seemed to be developing in a weak economy.
We now have a strong economy. We have strong incomes. We have strong employment. That is the answer to the housing crisis.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 34 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4856 to 3324859 inclusive, 332-4883, 332-4907, 332-4924 to 332-4926 inclusive, 332-4931 to 332-4933 inclusive, 332-5143 to 332-

August 10, 1988
Tabling of Documents
5147 inclusive, 332-5158 to 332-5171 inclusive, 332-5225, 332-5242 and 332-5286.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, last week I published the report on energy confluence.
Today, as I promised, I wish to table bilingual copies of the report in the House.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I represent the Okanagan, the prime apple producing area of Canada. I see the Member present from Annapolis Valley- Hants whose attire I envy but which does not meet the criteria of the dress code. I would like to point this out to the House and ask for a ruling.
the committee who attended conscientiously and represented their constituencies both physical and ideological well and truly. I thank them all.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.



NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare which deals with the study of food and drug labelling. It also gives recommendations on the proposed changes to Canadian drug labelling regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



QUEBEC COURTS AMENDMENT ACT


Hon. Jake Epp (for the (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-145, an Act to amend various Acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the Quebec Provincial Court, Court of the Sessions of the Peace and Youth Court as the Court of Quebec.
'V;


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member referred to is clearly not dressed according to the customs and traditions of the House and, until he is, he will not be recognized.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, since the advent of legislative committees I have reported many Bills to you; none, however, with as much pride as the one 1 present this afternoon.
Before I do so, I want to thank publicly the many people who worked so hard on the long hot summer days and hotter evenings. The clerk, Santosh Sirpaul, and researcher Bruce Carson were with me at the table throughout. Thomas Hall, Charles Robert, and literally dozens of others such as translators, recorders, and messengers provided the unseen and unheard but oh so necessary support to us; the many witnesses from the private sector who expressed their viewpoint, and from the public sector the small army headed by Ambassador Ritchie, all co-operated to convenience the committee's rapidly changing schedule; and lastly, my colleagues, the members of


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-313, an Act respecting senior citizens.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
August 10, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of principle for me. I do not think we should ever vote on first reading, therefore I was present but I did not vote.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, just to summarize the intent of this Bill, its purpose is to establish a senior citizens commission to study and identify the needs of senior citizens in Canada. The commission would also make recommendations to the Governor in Council with respect to the needs of senior citizens.
(Division No. 501)


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. [Translation]


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I abstained because this is not a real vote. It is just a tactic to delay presentation of the day-care bill. To me this is shocking, and that is why I decided not to vote.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a speech because it is not according to the rules.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: I have been saying for 24 years that it is a question of principle for me that we should not vote for permission to introduce a Bill. John Diefenbaker taught me that we should not vote for first reading, that we should allow people to discuss freely what they want.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I think my privileges as a Member of Parliament are being abused here this afternoon, as are the privileges of all Canadians. We are supposed to be debating child care-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-314, an Act to amend the National Housing Act (leases for low-rental housing projects).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, once more I abstained because I protest this waste of time of the House. We are trying to introduce the second reading of a Bill on child care. It is much more important than these tactics by the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as you well know, CMHC is exempt from provincial rent review and, more often than not, the rent increases exceed provincial rent increase limits set by the various provinces. Therefore, two-year leases with no increase in this period are required to protect the low and middle income renters from being savaged by CMHC.
August 10, 1988


Mr. Lewis:: Out of order.	[DOT] (i7so)
Petitions
Pietz	Waddell
Riis	Young-41
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tupper
++NAYS
Members


Nelson Andrew Riis: As opposed to advancing the cause of child care-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that there is a disposition in the House, in view of the circumstances, to call it six o'clock.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to repeat that I did not vote for the reason I-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: I said it is a question of principle. I have not approved, personally, in my 25 years, of voting for a Bill on first reading and I am not going to start today. Before you do call it six o'clock, I would like, with the permission of the House, to table a petition. I have to be absent tomorrow to be at a function with the two other Parties and I would like to table a very important petition. I am in the hands of the House.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, we have just wasted three hours of the time of the House on these spurious Bills moved by the NDP in order to delay debate on the child care program. I hope the citizens of Canada will realize what happened today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) have unanimous consent to present his petition?
	{Division No. 504)
 YEAS Members	
Althouse	Desjardins	GuilbaultAngus	Epp	(DrumnBlackburn	(Thunder Bay-	Gustafson(Brant)	Nipigon)	HallidayBlackburn	Epp	Harris(Jonqutere)	(Provencher)	HeapCaldwell	Ferland	HopkinsChampagne	Foster	Jacques(Champlain)	Fraleigh	KaplanClinch	Fulton	KeeperCopps	Gray	KilgourDarling de Jong	(Windsor West)	King Leblanc


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House very warmly for allowing me to table this today.


PETITIONS
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker,
15,000	residents of the north-central part of Saint-Denis in the

August 10, 1988
Petitions
Ahuntsic area now have to go to an auxiliary office to pick up their parcels and registered mail. A very high proportion of the population consists of elderly people, and that is why today, Mr. Speaker, these people defend their right to receive adequate postal services near the place where they live, and why they want their area to be reconnected to Youville postal station located at 300 Cremazie East in Montreal, where post office staff and letter carriers provide an excellent service. This petition was handed to me by Ms. Martine Blanc, municipal councillor of Octave Cremazie and by municipal councillor Michel Benoit.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of
constituents of Scarborough and residents of Toronto concerning the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough. The petitioners state that it is a unique and precious natural area and that protecting endangered wildlife in wilderness areas is in the national interest. They join with the Scarborough City Council, the Federal Minister of the Environment, the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations to have this area made a Canadian heritage land or provincial park.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order adopted on Monday, June 27, 1988, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, August 11, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers