1988-03-04

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out to the House that this is an Opposition Day and what is called an allotted day. The Opposition has seen fit to make its motion a votable motion under Standing Order 82(9). In fact, the motion very clearly reflects the Government's position on NATO. Our Government has always been in full support of the role NATO plays in our individual security and defence. We have consistently reaffirmed our commitment to continued Canadian participation in and active support for NATO. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) is returning today from NATO meetings in Brussels where he in turn reaffirmed this Government's and this country's support for this important organization.
We regret that the Opposition, whether purposely or inadvertently, has trivialized our country's position on this important organization by placing it on the Order Paper as a votable motion. The fact remains that this is a matter of confidence in accordance with our rules and traditions. Therefore, the Government has no choice but to vote against the motion.
I would also point out to the House that there have been nine Opposition Days since September 30, 1986, which have been designated votable. In each case the Government voted against the motion. The only exception was the matter of South Moresby where it was not a votable motion at the start and we came to an accommodation.
There are two aspects to this matter, and I will not take too much longer. There is the debate which the motion frames, and that is the subject of NATO and our country's support for it. Then there is the vote, which is a matter of confidence. The motion, as I suggested, is a clear reflection of the Government's policy but, I repeat, under the rules and traditions of this House the Government will be voting against
the motion because it is a matter of confidence under Standing Order 82(9).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 suppose 1 could begin by in effect raising a point of order about the Hon. Member's point of order because he has made what amounts to a speech on the substance of the motion. I will not pursue that point but I will say that I do take grave exception to the comments of the Deputy Government House Leader in which he said that the Official Opposition is trivializing-that was his word-the important matter of Canada's role in and relations with NATO. How can a debate in the high court of Parliament, this House of Commons, on a subject be taken as trivialization of an issue? How can asking the House of Commons to pronounce itself by a vote be taken to be trivialization of an issue?
The fact of the matter is that it is because we consider the subject matter of the motion to be a profoundly important one for this House and this country that we have presented it for debate. It is because we consider it not only important but most relevant because of the NATO ministerial conference, which has just concluded, that we presented this motion.
I suggest that the Government has its perceptions and priorities completely upside down in raising a point of order in an attempt to challenge the importance of our motion in the way it did through the words of the Deputy Government House Leader.
I suppose the other point of the Deputy Government House Leader's point of order is that he wants to lay the groundwork for voting against the motion. He says, and I think these were his words, that the rules and traditions of this House make it necessary for the Government to vote against the motion because it is a matter of confidence. First, let me deal with the matter of the traditions of this House.
I say there are ample precedents dating as far back as 1951 for a Government to accept a motion like this by voting in favour of it. There are other precedents in 1952 and 1963 which support the view of the Official Opposition that if the Government agrees with the motion, as the Deputy Government House Leader claims it does, then it can vote for the motion without the matter of confidence being in play in any shape or form.
I want to tell this House that the speakers for the Official Opposition on this motion had intended to make clear, as I do now, that we will not consider this motion to be a matter of confidence such that the continuance in office of the Government will be placed in jeopardy through voting for it. That is

March 4, 1988
Supply
the position we intended to make very clear and which I make clear now.
It is strange that the Deputy Government House Leader raises this point when the unanimous report of the McGrath Committee, for which the Government always takes credit, said that the Government should, more and more frequently, declare its willingness to accept motions like this on the basis that they do not amount to matters of confidence.
All the Government would have had to do would have been to have stood up on a point of order or in its principal response and say that it does not consider this a matter of confidence, and that would have been the end of the matter. The Deputy Government House Leader may suggest that there is something in the rules which makes this a matter of confidence. I say that that is not the case at all. I challenge the Deputy Government House Leader to show me, this House, and the country where the rules say that this is specifically a matter of confidence.
I regret, and I think the people of the country will regret, the position taken by the Deputy Government House Leader in his point of order, first, for trying to say that raising an issue in the high court of Parliament is a way of trivializing the issue. Those are strange words from a Party which claims that it is enhancing and wants to enhance the role of Parliament.
Second, we must regret that the Deputy Government House Leader is not making use of the clear traditions of this Parliament and the recommendations of the McGrath Committee to say that this is not a motion which puts the confidence in the Government in play, but rather that it is willing to support it because it is a sound idea for the country, an idea which the Deputy Government House Leader himself says reflects the policy of the Government.
I do not want to say more than that this is not a valid point of order. Above all, it should be a matter of regret that the Government is taking this position when it does not have to and could stand firm in support of a stronger role for Parliament and also for the policy it claims to support.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the point made by the Deputy House Leader in that if the Liberal Party were serious in its initiative this morning there is no reason why it could not have included, as part of the motion, wording indicating that this motion was not a non-confidence motion.


Mr. Gauthier:: We didn't, that's the point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just to make it very clear, if the Liberal Party had been serious in its efforts today, wording indicating that there was no question of confidence or non-confidence could have been included in the text of the motion itself. Therefore, I tend to agree that there seems to be some element of playing loose and free with the rules of the House on this issue this morning.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reinforce the points made by my House Leader, which I thought were very convincing and, indeed, to the point. I hear laughter from over there. Evidently those people do not know or do not remember what was adopted by this House and what the purpose of the reform of the rules of the House was.
If you do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I will read from page 106 of the report itself where it says that it is not for the Speaker to decide what is confidence. Section 41 reads:
Your Committee notes that the Standing Orders, as presently worded, declare to be "no-confidence" those votable motions which are moved by the Opposition on allotted days. We repeat that a question of confidence should be expressed in precise terms in the motion, and not be prescribed as such by the Standing Orders.
Previous speakers have indicated that the determination of what is, or is not, a question of confidence is not a matter for interpretation by the Chair. We agree that this expression ought not to be used in the Standing Orders to predetermine the nature of a motion.
Section 42 is very relevant. It reads:
Your Committee therefore recommends that all references to confidence be removed from the Standing Orders-
*-and they have, in fact, been removed-
-recognizing, however, the right of any Member presenting a motion to frame the motion itself in confidence terms.
That answers my friend, the socialist, over here. We did not frame our motion in confidence terms. We framed it because we believe it is important for the country to know where the Government, the Opposition, and the socialists stand on the issue. It is a political debate. That is what this House is all about and we think that the point of order on this question is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to the interventions and will, of course, as always, consider them because it is appropriate to do so. However, under the circumstances, I think that the point of order, as the Minister of State has put it, is not one, under the circumstances and looking at the terms of the motion for today, upon which the Chair ought to comment at all. In fact, I doubt very much whether the Chair has any authority under the rules to make any comment. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke)
moves:
That this House recognizes the pivotal role that NATO continues to play in mutual security and defence and in furthering progress in arms control and disarmament and, therefore, reaffirms its commitment to continued Canadian
March 4, 1988
[Stage Direction]
participation in and active support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a primary instrument of Canadian defence policy.
Ele said: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments made by my Elouse Leader and the Whip. It is rather interesting that with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on his way home from NATO meetings in Brussels, having used a great deal of rhetoric there to reinforce the Government's image, a Minister of the Crown is standing up here in the House saying that the motion which you have just read is a trivial matter of discussion in the House of Commons. That surely does not state very clearly that the Government is in total sympathy with NATO. We know that the Government says it is, but if it is against having a day's debate in this House on NATO, what in the world is this Parliament all about?
Such a debate as this is not held in Parliament only for the sake of a debate on NATO. Thousands and thousands of Canadians and people from other countries have been slaughtered in battles because there were no serious attempts to prevent. NATO is an alliance for peace. Some people call it a warmongering organization, but that is absolutely false.
NATO is an intergovernmental organization wherein Governments have a chance to talk among themselves and to have discussions with major opponents in the world. It is essentially, above all, a defensive alliance. In peacetime, national forces receive orders only from their own authorities. The military task of NATO in peacetime is to draw up joint defence plans to provide for the best possible use of NATO forces without delay in the event of war. This military preparedness is aimed, above all, at preventing war.
I want to emphasize that those people who have died for Canada over the years would be proud to know that a debate like this is taking place today because it would have been very good for them indeed if the war in which they participated had been prevented by constructive measures. That is why this Parliament must discuss these important matters as time goes on. The Liberal Party not only continues to support NATO but in fact played a major role in the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
We know that the Soviet Union did not disarm willingly following World War II, making the cold war too cold to tolerate. Therefore, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed.
The growth of the Russian Navy following the Cuban crisis brought a dimension other than ground and air forces into perspective internationally. Without NATO's firm resolve in the late 1970s and early 1980s to upgrade its aging weaponry in Europe, chances are that a treaty to reduce intermediate nuclear weapons may not have been signed in Washington last December. If common sense prevails, this treaty will be approved and others will follow for the benefit of all mankind.
The New Democratic Party has been opposed to Canada's membership in NATO, but since we have been a NATO
Supply
member since its beginning, under the Louis St. Laurent Government, in which the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was Secretary of State for External Affairs and with whose assistance that alliance for peace was originated, Canada can claim to be a member of a NATO team that is truly working toward peace in the world and, at the same time, a member of a defence team of NATO countries working toward peace and security for Canadians and all mankind.
I remind Canadians that it was the Government of Louis St. Laurent under the leadership of Lester Pearson, Secretary of State for External Affairs, that Canada gave its consent and indeed promoted the formation of the NATO alliance.
The aims of NATO today are the reduction of nuclear and conventional arms. The continued cohesiveness of the NATO alliance is extremely important. Deterrence is necessary. The Soviet nuclear and conventional power is strong, and European free countries cannot deal with it alone. As the nuclear threat is reduced, so must the conventional arms threat be reduced. Certain elements of the Armed Forces in the Warsaw Pact outnumber NATO forces by three to one. Therefore, we cannot remove the nuclear protection while leaving the European continent at the mercy of an overdose of conventional power.
Europeans have vivid memories and know that the balance of power is the key to world peace in any generation. It was true yesterday, it is valid today, and will be valid tomorrow. That is why this debate is taking place in the House today and why my House Leader emphasized that it is a sad day for Parliament when a Minister of the Crown stands up to say that this is a trivial debate.
After the Government released its White Paper on defence, the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Crown have travelled throughout Canada and the world praising the Government for its efforts on behalf of NATO and defence in Canada. Yet the Conservative White Paper on defence released on June 5, 1987, is one of the biggest political ploys ever perpetrated on Canadians. It gives the impression that the Tory Government will do more for defence than has ever been done before when, in fact, it promises less growth than the Canadian forces have seen in years.
The defence White Paper is to be sold to Canadians like a new product line, with fancy wrapping accompanied by familiar Tory rhetoric. "Honour the commitment" was a great slogan of the Tories during the last election campaign and is still used to make sure that the Tory rhetoric on Canadian defence is driven home. Indeed, it seems that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) is honing his skills as a supersalesman. I will give him credit for being a super-salesman, who can make a 50-cent piece look like a dollar. He has planned his salesmanship job of the White Paper so well that even the experts tend to believe him.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
The Minister of National Defence has used two major ploys to make his White Paper look like big news. He has highlighted his intention to purchase 10 or 12 nuclear-powered submarines and has lumped 15 years of defence budgets together, totalling $183 billion, which is a 2 per cent real increase in spending per year.
This has been done to create a positive impression about the Tory commitment to defence. Some people are already confused because they believe the Government is spending $183 billion on submarines.
Let us carefully examine some of these statements and compare them with what the Conservative Government has promised and actually done for defence since taking office. First, during the last election campaign, the Conservatives promised a 6 per cent annual real growth in defence spending. They have been trying to evade that promise ever since, and during their first three years in office only once exceeded over one per cent in real growth. As a matter of fact, in the 1985-86 fiscal year the Government did not even meet the rate of inflation, which resulted in a 0.7 per cent loss in the real growth of purchasing power of the Department of National Defence.
When campaigning in New Brunswick in August, 1984, the Prime Minister stated that a Conservative Government would increase the regular personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces to 90,000 within three years. His three years were up last September and the numbers in the Armed Forces according to the Defence Department's own White Paper stood at 84,600. No promise has been kept or even seriously addressed.
When the Prime Minister was overseas he stated to the troops at Lahr, West Germany:
Since our Government took office in 1984 we have increased the Armed Forces strength to 86,000, with a target of 90,000 by the next century.
However, during the last election campaign he said in New Brunswick that there will be 90,000 in the Armed Forces by September, 1987. It is that kind of rhetoric and inaccuracy to which I am referring.
He went on to say in West Germany on March 1:
We have also made a commitment to increase defence spending significantly each year for the next 15 years, while most other government programs are being contained or reduced in real terms.
In the coming fiscal year alone, we will spend $11.2 billion on defence, an increase of more than 6 per cent over this year.
The Prime Minister forgot to deduct the 4 per cent inflation rate from that. We know from the Estimates that were tabled in the House last week that the real increase in defence this year is 2.1 per cent. Why did he not tell those 2,000 troops the facts instead of putting them in such unrealistic terms?
Let us seriously look at some of the statements the Government has been making. Let us talk, first, about equipment. When the Conservatives came to office they tried to claim all previous Liberal initiatives for purchases of equipment as if those purchases were their own. Erik Nielsen even froze many
March 4, 1988
ongoing activities while he was completing his so-called government program review. Later the Conservative Government re-announced these initiatives as if they were Tory initiatives, but they had been announced by the previous Liberal Government.
Since coming to office the Conservatives have more or less left unaltered the basic plan regarding equipment modernization and new acquisitions put in place by the Liberal Government after 1975, and vigorously pursued in the early 1980s. This plan included projects all initiated by the Liberal Government. With respect to the navy, there was the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program, three batches of six totalling 18 new ships. The decision to move ahead with this program was made by the Liberal Government in 1983.
The Minister of National Defence in his White Paper cut back from 18 ships to 12 ships to help pay for the nuclear-powered submarines. The Tribal Class update modernization project involves upgrading and maintenance work on our four newest ships. That decision was made in 1983 under a Liberal Government.
With respect to the destroyer life extension project, a background information document on the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program, published by the Liberal Government in June of 1983, states:
The Destroyer Life Extension Program has already begun and encompasses 54 separate projects designed to ensure that 16 steam driven destroyers maintain an acceptable level of operability and combat capability until the arrival of new frigate replacements.
The Sea King helicopter replacement program and submarine replacement program were under discussion as early as the 1980s. With respect to the air force, the C-18 fighter aircraft, a contract to purchase 138 planes was signed in 1980. Delivery started at two planes per month in 1982 under a Liberal Government. The last delivery will take place in late 1988. I would like to read an excerpt from the Toronto Star which talks about the Prime Minister:
His 20 minute speech was preceded by two hours of colourful photo opportunities for television cameras, during which Mulroney watched infantry troops perform military manoeuvres with blank ammunition.
He later posed with a CF-18 fighter plane and a Leopard tank.
Can you not see, Mr. Speaker, in the next election campaign the Prime Minister of Canada, with the television cameras rolling, standing beside a CF-18 aircraft, the contract for which was signed and delivery begun under a Liberal Government? Again the Tory Government is trying to take credit for the whole operation.
The 18 long-range patrol aircraft, the CF-140 Aurora, were acquired in the late 1970s and are at the leading edge of surveillance technology. They have been instrumental in sovereignty missions in the North and along our coasts. They are considered to be the best anti-submarine warfare aircraft in the world. They were purchased by a Liberal Government.
March 4, 1988
[Stage Direction]
A space based satellite surveillance project was authorized in the early 1980s. The North Warning System modernization program, about which the Government is making so much fuss, was to replace the DEW Line. Negotiations with the United States were authorized by the previous Liberal Government in 1983 and were 90 per cent completed before the Conservatives even took office.
Again I refer to the Prime Minister not only posing with a C-18 aircraft, but he is also posing with a Leopard tank. The Leopard tanks were purchased by a Liberal Government in 1976.
In 1980-81 there was 4 per cent real growth in defence under a Liberal Government. There was 7.5 per cent real growth in defence in 1981-82 under a Liberal Government. There was 6 per cent real growth in defence in 1982-83, 9.2 per cent real growth in 1983-84, and 8.9 per cent real growth in 1984-85. Under the Conservative Government, by comparison, in 1985-86, its first Budget, there was a 0.7 per cent loss in defence purchasing power which did not even cover inflation, a 2.75 per cent increase in 1986-87, and its projected growth in 1987-88 is around 1 per cent or a little better.
The Government is making all kinds of promises with respect to the reserves. The fact is that it has neglected the reserves. I would like to quote from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press on January 23, 1988 which quotes the Minister of Defence as stating:
We intend to see these citizens-soldiers, sailors and aviators-receive the recognition they deserve and we will give them a priority they have not had for several decades.
The article continues:
Evidence of this new priority was received by reserve units in Winnipeg this week. They have been told that in the coming year they will have to get by with 12.5 per cent less training time than they had this year.
Other units have had their training time cut in half. This is the real emphasis the Tory Government is putting on the reserves. The increase in the reserve budget this year was about 3.5 per cent. The inflation rate is running at 4 per cent. The inflation cost is not even being met. That is why there is not enough money and the training time for the reserves must be reduced, and this is after giving them all these promises.
The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) rose in the House one day when he was the Associate Minister of National Defence and stated that the Budgets of the Hon. Marc Lalonde back in 1983-84 projected a decline in defence spending. I have the Estimates before me and they say, about the commitment of the Liberal Government in the Budget of the Hon. Marc Lalonde in 1984, that if that Government had remained in office it would have been spending as much in defence last year as the Conservatives are this year, and last year it was $800 million below the projections in the Hon. Marc Lalonde's Budget.
Let us get rid of this rhetoric that the Liberals have done nothing for defence and that the Tories are doing everything. The Tories since taking office have been trying to take credit
Supply
for all our programs as they come on stream. The Prime Minister goes to a military base and has his picture taken with the troops beside the equipment which was purchased under a Liberal Government, and Canadians will see this in the next election campaign. They will see that tape rolling.
I simply want to say in conclusion that the Liberal Party supports NATO. We support security and support all efforts for peace and disarmament which NATO is all about. Instead of using the rhetoric that it is doing things which it is not in fact doing, the Government should get on with it and do what the Liberals did in the late 1970s and early 1980s and increase its budget for defence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking later on today in this debate, but I thought I should comment because after listening to my friend who just sat down I am totally confused. I do not think he has read his own motion, to begin with. In the first place, a motion of this kind really should be put forward by an external affairs critic, because it is major external policy, not a former defence critic. However, that is not the important thing. The important thing is that the Member has in his motion a pivotal clause dealing with arms control and disarmament and all he has talked about throughout his entire 20 minute speech is the inadequacy of the Government in not promoting arms, in not buying more tanks, more ships, more planes, and not pursuing a more aggressive policy in acquiring greater assets for defence.
1 find this totally inconsistent with the motion as well as with the mood and the tone of the international regimen at this time, even between the two superpowers in efforts to bring some sanity back into militarism or arms control and to try to get across some limitations and reductions in both nuclear and conventional weapons in order to bring down the intensity that has existed in the world for so many years. Here we have a former defence critic of the Liberal Party saying that Canada is not doing enough to acquire more arms, more guns, more tanks, more planes and so on.
I fail to see any logic at all in the Hon. Member's speech. I say that with due respect. It is patently obvious that the Hon. Member did not study his own motion.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) is upset. We all know where his Party stands with regard to NATO. He totally overlooked the fact that I very clearly said, and I will repeat it again for his benefit, that the balance of power in the world is the key to world peace. That is what NATO is all about.
I also stated, something which the Hon. Member obviously did not hear, that there are areas in conventional arms in which the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact bloc outnumbers the NATO forces by three to one. How can the Hon. Member

March 4, 1988
Supply
stand here today and say that it is not important for NATO countries such as Canada to continue to modernize our forces the way we have been doing over a number of years or that we continue to train first-class people in the Armed Forces today? That is part of the balance of power in the world. That is part of the balance of power that will maintain world peace.
I also stated, something which the Hon. Member obviously did not catch, that if it had not been for the determination and cohesiveness of the NATO alliance in the late 1970s and the early 1980s when it wanted to upgrade its missiles in Europe we would not have had the recent signing of the agreement in Washington to downgrade the number of nuclear missiles in the world today. That is the key.
The Hon. Member for Brant can get up and make all the excuses he likes for the New Democratic Party. He may have to make a few more yet, for all we know. But the fact remains that Remembrance Day is not something that we think about on November 11 alone. It is the duty of every Member of Parliament and of every Canadian to think of every day of the year as a remembrance day. It is our duty to try to prevent another war, not to sit back looking weak. Wars begin when one bully gets strong and decides he can take on everyone else. That is why it is important that we have this motion today. The Hon. Member may interpret it as he likes. That is the guts of world peace. That is the purpose of this important discussion in the House of Commons.
I say bravo to anyone who is willing to work toward maintaining a balance of power in the world. By doing that we are in fact supporting world peace and the prevention of another world war, something which none of us want to see. It cannot be done by sitting back looking pansy-eyed and not looking after one's own backyard.
Let me say that my speech was totally related to the subject at large. It cannot be carried out if we do not have the budget commitment. We will not do it if we do not upgrade our Armed Forces. If we are to say today, "Well, it looks as if everyone is getting nice and friendly", we want to promote that. There is no doubt about it. That would be what the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson would have wanted us to do. He was one of the greatest diplomats the country has seen in a long time. He was one of those who worked on the founding of NATO. Surely, he would be in favour of this debate in the House today. He would also be in favour of a Liberal standing up in the House today talking about a balance of power in the world while at the same time being vigilant. That is the message that must get across.
When the Prime Minister gets up to say that he will do more and do great things for the forces, then he should do them. But on the basis of the figures that I put on the record today he should not go around saying that the previous Government did not do anything. If we had not increased the budget dramatically in the early 1980s, this Government would have had peanuts to work with today in the form of a budget. It has not even kept its own commitment. It has not put the 6 per cent in.
Indeed, in its First year in power it put in less than the rate of inflation. It put in very little last year, and there was $800 million less than the projected figure in Marc Lalonde's Liberal Budget of 1984.
To my New Democratic friend I say, with the greatest respect, let us relate to the facts of life. Let us say that these things do relate to NATO and to international affairs. They_do-relate to the future safety of the world.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have just one supplementary question to ask of the Hon. Member. Following along with the Hon. Member's logic, the only question I have to ask is this. If his Government had done so much in the area of defence, then why is it that it allowed the Canadian navy virtually to rust out so that successive Governments, including the present one, and after that the next Government, if we are to retain a navy, will have to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars to bring the navy into the 1980s, let alone the 1990s or the year 2000? That was one of the major points, although I do not agree that we should be spending billions of dollars on nuclear-propelled ships, and neither does my Party.
I think it would logically follow from the Liberals position that they actually should be supporting the nuclear submarine program if they are so gung-ho to bring the navy up to NATO standards. There is an inconsistency there. On the one hand the Liberals allowed the old navy to rust out, while on the other they refused to accept the fact that in military terms, to go along with the major NATO powers, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, one would think that the Hon. Member would be advocating that his Party should support nuclear submarines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has one minute in which to answer the question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member is saying at the same time that he does not support the spending of money on defence-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I did not say that at all.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and at the same time he is asking why the Liberals did not spend more money. I have outlined our budgets here in very clear terms and in clear-cut percentages. The increases are there to see. I outlined the programs that were introduced for the upgrading of the navy and for the Government of the day to bring on program 18 frigates. The present Government has cut that back to 12 to help pay for its nuclear-powered submarines. I simply say to the Hon. Member that I think he is paranoid in the position of his own Party on NATO. I can understand that.
I just want to say again that the Liberals are the ones who put the budget in place today that is really propping up the Government. It did not put the commitment into that budget as it said it would during the last election campaign.
March 4, 1988

I read this morning the speech the Prime Minister made overseas to the troops. It was rather interesting. He too has been naming programs and giving the Government credit for actual equipment and programs that were introduced by a Liberal Government.
In conclusion I say to the Hon. Member for Brant that the Liberal Party is the Party that brought the defence budget to the point it is at today. We will continue to support NATO very strongly. We will continue a program of upgrading our conventional arms.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) on debate.


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the first speaker, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).
I also listened intently to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). I find that I have to agree with some of his first comments.
I read the motion we are looking at today and it talks about the House recognizing "the pivotal role that NATO continues to play in mutual security and defence and in furthering progress in arms control and disarmament and, therefore, reaffirms its commitment to continued Canadian participation in and active support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a primary instrument of Canadian defence policy".
In the House of Commons sometimes we engage in fractious partisan debate which becomes quite unseemly. On other occasions it seems to me that the House of Commons rises above that and talks about some very important principles in this world; it talks about peace, disarmament, and what we should do in a philosophical way for defence and maintaining our sovereignty and security.
After reading this motion I was utterly astounded to realize that the Member who proposed it did not want to talk about the motion at all. He only wanted to do a lambasting of the Government and promoting of what he thought the Liberal Party was supposed to have done many years before, rah-rah, hoorah-hoorah! He has denigrated the significance of this important motion that we have before us today.
Quite frankly, I did not readily come prepared to talk on defence of the Government's spending Estimates and Budget versus what the Liberals thought they were doing over the last number of years. But I am quite prepared to enter a debate like that at almost any time, because I think it is so obvious to all the people in the Armed Forces and to Canadians that finally we have a game plan to do something with defence in this country. I came prepared to discuss and debate what the motion said, which is arms control and disarmament, and NATO playing a pivotal role in our security and playing a role in peace in this country. I am very depressed and upset at the
Supply
rather partisan, ridiculous, and hypocritical approach taken by the Liberals in talking about the topic that they introduced.
When I first came in here there was a question on a point of order on whether or not we should support the motion. Sometimes there are differences even within a Party. We had a procedural problem facing a practical problem. I would like to support the motion, and in fact I would support the motion if somebody talked to the motion.
But I am very happy to vote against the motion after having heard the speech of the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke because he never spoke about the motion at all. I have no intention of supporting what he has put up as a cloud, a camouflage, or a smoke-screen for attacking the Government. If the Hon. Member sincerely meant what he stated in his motion, his speech would have been entirely different. The House is somewhat of a lesser place because he has not been able to do so.
I wish to quote the first and opening paragraph of the treaty of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as adopted on April 4, 1949 in Washington. It states:
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.
They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence for the preservation of peace and security.
They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty:
There are a number of articles listed thereunder.
At the time this alliance was founded, the then Prime Minister, Louis St. Laurent, stated, "This treaty is to be far more than an old-fashioned military alliance. It is based on the common belief of the North Atlantic nations and the values and virtues of our civilization". That, Mr. Speaker, is still the view that Canadians hold and which successive Governments have held, some more strongly than others, since 1949.
The voices that cry out for the withdrawal from NATO on the grounds that Europe is now rich enough to look after itself, and that memberships in alliances inhibit our freedom of action in searching for peace, carry the wrong message about Canada to our allies, friends, and those countries which have a common heritage and a common free democratic society philosophy such as we are ourselves. NATO is much more a political than it is a military alliance. Many people do not realize this, but it was created under the authority of Article 51 of the United Nations whereby NATO was set up, and that opening paragraph which I quoted makes reference to contributing to the maintenance of peace by making clear its determination to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defence. That is a quote from Article 51 of the UN Charter. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is embodied

March 4, 1988
and we are given permission by the UN body to set up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I know this will sound a little like cold war rhetoric, and 1 do not wish it to sound that way, but why did we go into NATO? One historian has stated that you have to understand and believe your history, otherwise you are about to repeat it. For the sake of going through it, let me record that there were a group of forces in the world of countries which did not concur in our free democratic philosophy and the way that we would like to run our society and our country. Of course, that group has been headed by a country referred to as Russia or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Let us look at the record that it has. We could start back in 1939-40. It invaded Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. It moved into the Balkans and into its sphere of influence. It moved into Czechoslovakia and took it over, and it moved into Germany. After that there was a pause, and perhaps everybody in the cold war was standing off and saying that that was the way it was going to be.
But Hungary tried to break away, so Russia ruthlessly came in and crushed it. Then Czechoslovakia had a breath of fresh air, and the Russians and their colleagues came in and ruthlessly crushed them. In more recent years, just to show that perhaps they have not always changed over the 50 years in which they have been using their muscle, they invaded Afghanistan, and now are involved heavily in Ethiopia, Angola, and Cuba. Over 50 years, Russia does not have a great record in which we can have a lot of faith or a reason for laying down our arms and believing that it wants peace.
Let us be honest. In the last two years there has been a breath of fresh air coming from the Russians. Their leader, Mr. Gorbachev, in his discussions about glasnost has given us pause and the thought that perhaps the leopard has changed its spots. Let us take a look at this new opportunity. That does not mean that we should immediately lay down our arms while we look and analyse. For example, Russia throws out certain things which may fool some people. For example, it wishes to have a peace zone in the Arctic. We have to look at the peace zone that it is proposing in the Arctic. It wants a peace zone in the Arctic which will cover the Canadian North, cover the Scandinavian countries, and will take away the nuclear deterrent submarines that the Americans have and make an area of peace in the North Atlantic up through Iceland and between Iceland and England. But let us take a look at Russia's side of the Arctic. If it truly wanted to have a zone of peace in the Arctic and denuclearize the Arctic, then it would have to move out all of its nuclear submarines which are stationed in its Arctic territory, if they are not down in Vladivostok or in the Pacific.
The Russians have a massive nuclear fleet in the Arctic Ocean, and they have not proposed to take it away. The most highly intensive, built-up nuclear and military area in the world is the Kola Peninsula, just up from Murmansk. They
have not suggested that they will take away everything in that area.
May I call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and continue at twelve o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister.
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


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 6, the federal Conservative caucus will meet in Ottawa.
I would like to ask my colleagues and friends in the Quebec caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ottawa to convince the Government that it should make a decision now about the space agency and in accordance with the hopes of the entire population of Greater Montreal, declare Montreal "spatial"; and that it should make this decision, which is a very important one, not just for the sake of the economy of the City of Montreal but for that of the entire province.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case has led to much debate on the abortion issue in Canada. However, far from vesting an unrestricted right to abortion, the decision provides the possibility for changes in the law more favourable to the preservation of foetal life. We, as parliamentarians, must now make grave decisions that will have a life or death impact on our unborn.
Science has confirmed that life begins at conception. A human being's genetic individuality remains unchanged from conception to death. The foetus is but the weakest stage of life. It is also the only time in our lives during which we now have no rights.
All who claim to be civilized and interested in human rights or civil liberties must be concerned with the arguments that allow the taking of life by abortion. What is the morally relevant distinction between the foetus before birth and a child
March 4, 1988

after birth, such that we say one has the right to life and the other does not?
We must therefore ensure that new legislation provides the most basic of rights, the right to life, for our unborn children.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of branch-line abandonment, formally known as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), has announced the 1988 Prairie Rail Line Rehabilitation Program, the farmers of Kelvington, Saskatchewan would like to know whether their rail line is eligible for the $20 million which was allocated but which the Minister has again withheld from this year's program.
Furthermore, 1 question why the Minister has proceeded with such a meagre program for 1988, when the viability of many farming communities is at stake. The Minister is rewriting the commitment to farm communities by refusing to fund the rehabilitation of lines which have already received formal, committed approval from the Government of Canada.
Instead, he has now put out a once in a lifetime trucking proposal, which is not a formal commitment on the part of the Government. It is simply a red herring to get people off the idea of having their lines rehabilitated. Indeed I think the Government has reached the end of the line with this kind of action.



FINANCE


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (Vork-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is high time that interest rates in Canada began to decline and decline on two fronts.
First, with inflation in Canada now stable and with our foreign exchange reserves ballooning, as indicated in today's paper, as speculators take advantage of the relatively high interest rates of the Bank of Canada, the Governor of the bank should be taking the opportunity to curb speculation and to assist business capital spending by lowering the central bank rate.
At the same time, after a record profit year in 1987 on their Canadian operations, Canadian chartered banks today again demonstrated strong profits, with the Bank of Commerce showing an increase of 35 per cent over last year. Consumers, too, should be benefiting from these increasing spreads by having banks lower their loan interest rates.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, 700 language teachers in the Public Service have been without a contract at least since August 1986, and they now must resort to strikes to make the employer respect their rights acquired through collective bargaining.
These language teachers are now working the same number of hours as their counterparts in secondary schools. Like other teachers, they need time to prepare their classes and correct work. However, Treasury Board now wants the teachers to teach their classes without any preparation, for up to 37 hours a week.
Mr. Speaker, the Government should show its good faith and at least respect the teachers' existing rights.
I urge the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankow-ski) to go back to the bargaining table with a more reasonable offer, so as to end a labour conflict that has caused so much inconvenience, which is in fact his fault. If he refuses, Canadians will have to believe the Conservatives have yet to make a genuine commitment to federal bilingualism in Canada.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the four western diversification offices have fielded over 40,000 calls and 2,000 business proposals and have met with 3,000 clients while funding 262 projects so far.
Last month in Edmonton the Minister announced a $9.5 million commitment to Daishowa Canada to help build a $500 million pulp mill which will utilize aspen trees, a never before used resource that abounds in northern Alberta. This mill alone will create 630 direct jobs and 1,200 indirect jobs when completed. In December the Minister committed $7.75 million to develop and construct an $18 million engineering facility in Edmonton.
I believe the soon to be created department of western economic diversification marks the first time a federal government Department has been established with headquarters outside Ottawa.
I urge the opposition to stop delaying the legislation any further and to let this important government initiative go forward quickly.



THE ADMINISTRATION

[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1988

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government claims to be able to manage the economy efficiently. Well, here is a good test.
The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) has just tabled an overview of how well his Government met its reporting responsibilities for Crown corporations.
Last year there were 237 reports and documents which the Government was to table by set dates. In only 55 per cent of cases was the statutory deadline met. In 106 cases the Government blew it. In 20 cases, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, by its own admission the Government failed to make its reports even by the end of 1987. In one case that included a report still overdue from 1986.
So much for the Government's competence.



SUCCESS OF TWELFTH REGIONAL ATOM HOCKEY TOURNAMENT

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, who says women cannot do as much as men? In my riding of La Prairie, and more specifically, in the City of Brossard, a regional Atom Hockey Tournament was held from February 20 to 28. Sixty-four teams from the area took part. As you know, Mr. Speaker, sport is a training ground for young people to learn friendship, discipline, how to participate and also how to compete.
It was a wonderful sight to see these 10-to-12-year-olds give everything they had to win the gold medal, like the Olympic gold medal in Calgary, and always in a spirit of friendship. Who knows, some of them may be future Olympic athletes!
Mr. Speaker, to get back to the women, a women's committee worked more than five months to make Brossard's twelfth tournament a success. Mr. Speaker, it was a success. Everything went off perfectly, even better than expected.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to add except: Three cheers for the women!
[DOT] (mo)



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, work in the B.C. fishing industry has been stopped today to protest the incompetence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). These two Ministers fail to protect the B.C. fishing industry before the GATT panel, which has made a preliminary ruling which could cost B.C. 7,500 fishing industry jobs.
The Progressive Conservatives combined with B.C.'s Social Credit are the lethal combination of gutlessness and sheer incompetence. Following the feeble and failing attempts before the GATT panel, the Tories bumbled again by signing in to the Mulroney-Reagan deal a guarantee to abide by GATT rulings, and then bumbled again by protecting all provincial fisheries regulations except for B.C., and then bumbled again by failing to negotiate forcefully with the U.S. to head off a ruling by GATT later this month.
It is clear now that the B.C. fishing industry deserves the support of working people across the country to counter the incompetence of the Minister of Fisheries who has placed a $750 million B.C. fishing industry at risk. It is time for some political will, an attribute sadly lacking in the Mulroney-Vander Zalm administrations. They have been caught trying to give away Canadian jobs. It is time for all Canadians to say no.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, a constituent has brought to my attention another example of the petty fogging, self-serving, money grubbing personal service charges being imposed by our chartered banks. A year and a half ago he obtained a car loan from the Bank of Nova Scotia and agreed to make a monthly payment at any branch in the amount of $200.30.
A few weeks ago, at a branch of the Scotiabank at O'Connor Drive and St. Clair Avenue, Toronto, he was told that he could not make his payment in cash unless he also paid a $2 service charge to cover the cost of the receipt. My constituent points out that over the five year period of the loan he will have paid $3,164.72 in interest and reasonably believes that that should cover the cost of receipting.
Is it any wonder that the banks are losing credibility with the public? This service charge is contrary to the written agreement that the bank issued this customer when the loan
March 4, 1988

was arranged. It has been arbitrarily imposed, without notice, and for no clear and sufficient reason. It is no wonder that many Canadians believe that the banks are imposing these charges, not to pay for services rendered but to make up revenue losses incurred by the banks' own management mistakes. Overcharging the public is the basic reason for the profits they are claiming.



TRADE CMHC LOWERING OF STANDARDS-PLYWOOD TARIFFS

Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to alert Canadians on yet another possible free trade cave-in by this Conservative Government.
A section of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement calls for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to decide by March 15, 1988-which is next week-whether it will accept U.S. CD grade plywood for use in housing financed by CMHC. The agreement also calls for the complete phase-out of the plywood tariffs over the next 10 years. But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that U.S. Congressmen demand that in order to phase out the tariff on plywood over the next 10 years, Canada must lower its standards to that of the United States.
At the present time, CMHC requires that plywood used in housing financed by CMHC to be grade CC, a higher grade than used by the U.S., which is CD grade. I can assure you that not one Canadian would want to see us lower our standard in order to please the U.S.
I urge the Minister responsible for housing to resist caving in under this obvious and unfair threat.



FREE TRADE


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Mining Association in a letter to me dated January 18, 1988 wishes to reiterate its support for the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. The OMA represents some 40 producing mines located across Ontario. Canada-wide, the non-fuel minerals industry employed directly some 108,000 people in 1986 and exported about $10.6 billion worth of minerals to the U.S. markets. The letter concludes:
We believe that a move to freer trade is to the benefit of our industry in
Ontario and Canada.
In northern Ontario the mining industry has been built upon the ideals of free trade. The increased security of market access provided by the agreement in combination with increased profitability due to tariff elimination will generate
Oral Questions
new investment. New investment means more jobs and more secure jobs for the people of northern Ontario who already form 73 per cent of the province's mining industry jobs.
The Canada-U.S. trade agreement is a good one for northern Ontario, for Canadians and for the mining industry.



CHURCHILL FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE

Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from Manicouagan offered to take a hand in settling the long-standing dispute between Newfoundland and Quebec over Churchill Falls. Again, on April 19, 1985, the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons:
-I am working on draft terms of reference whereby the federal Government might properly involve itself in co-operation with the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Quebec-
In June, 1986, the Prime Minister said:
The federal Government will consider how it might properly involve itself-
On August 28, 1986, Premier Peckford said he, the Prime Minister, said to me:
-I'll be talking to Mr. Bourassa soon.
From 1984 to 1988 the Prime Minister has promised to do something about an important project in a province which will be running out of hydroelectricity by 1990. I call on him now to stop the rhetoric and actually do something to bring about this important hydroelectric project, which is not only important for my province, but for the whole country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the legal fees of the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Jean Sirois, who was paid $400,000 for two cases that he worked on which have shocked the wits out of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Justice said, concerning the Javelin case in particular, that Mr. Sirois had been paid for "services rendered", an answer quite different from that of the Government officials who could not even justify why Mr. Sirois was hired or even what work he did.

Oral Questions
Given that in the Javelin case Mr. Sirois was appointed immediately prior to the case going to trial; given that the trial lasted 66 days and he was paid $195,000, a grand total of $3,000 a day, can the Deputy Prime Minister stand up in this House today and justify that kind of billing? Isn't this a bit much, even for a friend of the Prime Minister?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Javelin file, as I indicated, is a file which the Government has had ongoing for about two decades.
A trial took place but that decision is being appealed, and Mr. Sirois was one of the co-counsel. Mr. Sirois is with a 22 person law firm with offices in Quebec City and Montreal. He performed legal services for the Government in respect to that file. I understand most of the work has now been completed in terms of the appeal, but as long as that case remains outstanding the Government will require legal counsel to represent its interests.


Don Boudria: That answer, of course, has nothing to do with the question I asked, Mr. Speaker.


DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RESIGNATION OF JEAN SIROIS
Don Boudria: My
supplementary is directed to the Minister of Communications and is further to yesterday's report on Radio-Canada that the Minister would recommend against renewing Mr. Jean Sirois's mandate next April as President of Telefilm. Could the Minister explain to the House why, if Mr. Sirois is considered to be incompetent as of April 15, he is still competent today? In other words, why not ask for Mr. Sirois' resignation today? Why wait until spring? Let him resign now!


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sirois was appointed chairman of Telefilm Canada in the spring of 1986 to complete the term of Mr. Ed Prevost who was the chairman until that time. The time expires in April this year.
Our first priority will be to see that there is a new executive director, a new chief executive officer in place. I expect that announcement will be made shortly.
I would also say, given the difficulties Telefilm has experienced in recent months and the fact that new management procedures and cash flow procedures have been put in place, it would be advisable to ensure that there is a new management team as well. In that light, all appointments to Telefilm will be reviewed.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister will agree that we need answers and we need them now. We need to know why
March 4, 1988
the Prime Minister's friend, Progressive Conservative organizer, organizer for the Minister of Communications when she ran for the leadership, and general Tory bagman received that kind of money. We need to know why $195,000 was necessary-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member has a question and I am sure he wants to put it.


Don Boudria: Will the Deputy Prime Minister table in this House today a detailed list of all fees paid to Mr. Jean Sirois, not only as a Director of Telefilm, not only his expense account, but the legal fees and any other gifts and assorted moneys the Conservatives gave to this friend of the Prime Minister? Will he do that today?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that information is already in the Public Accounts of Canada.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Do you know what those are, Boudria?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a red and white book and the Hon. Member may want to interest himself in that.
We have a specialist here in running high accounts. The Hon. Member, when he was in the provincial legislature, was a top traveller, top spender, spending $89,000. He is a spender.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The offer made yesterday to the Lubicon Indian Band is based on the band's population as of 1940. Of course, that population is much larger today. In fact, the land offered is only one-third of that claimed by the band. Yesterday's offer was described by the Minister as an interim offer, and Chief Ominayak said that no interim reserve is acceptable unless a process is clearly established to reach a final settlement.
What assurances did Canada seek and obtain from the Province of Alberta that when negotiations have been successfully completed and additional land is to be given to the Lubicon Indian Band, that the province will in fact transfer that land? Will they do that or will it still be necessary for Canada to take the province to court in order to acquire that additional land?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, what has to be realized is that this is an important step in the resolution of
March 4, 1988

this important issue concerning the Lubicon Indian Band land claim. The setting up of this reserve and transfer of land by the province is an indication of the willingness of both Canada and Alberta to deal with the issue. What is important is that this transfer of land will be made without prejudice to the position of the parties involved. It does not affect the right of the band to seek additional reserve lands through negotiations or court action.
All we can say is that we are hopeful, this important step having been taken, we will be able to resolve the whole issue through negotiations.


B. Keith Penner: I listened carefully to the answer and it lacked clarity. I gather somewhere in there is a yes, Alberta is prepared to give up additional land when a final negotiation process has been completed.


USE OF HON. E. DAVIE FULTON AS MEDIATOR
B. Keith Penner: My supplementary question deals with the negotiation process. Is the Government of Canada now prepared to use the Hon. E. Davie Fulton as a mediator, as requested by the band and as the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development recommended to the House?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the willingness of the Province of Alberta to transfer this amount of land for the reserve is an indication of the position of the province which also wants this resolved. The question of what number of further acres or square miles could result will come out of the negotiating process.
With respect to the latter part of his question concerning the mediator, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has on many occasions indicated the position of Canada in that regard. We have indicated to the band and all parties involved many times that we were ready to use the conclusions of Mr. Fulton's report as a basis for negotiations. Because Mr. Fulton already made certain findings and has indicated his position, we do not feel that he can act as a mediator. It would be tantamount to having one of the parties choose not only the jury but the judge and the parties at the same table. We will not go in that direction.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Government called in the Israeli Ambassador to indicate Canada's deep concern about the imposition of a ban on the press in the occupied territory. Was
Oral Questions
the Ambassador also told that shooting the messenger will only kill the momentum that the international press has provided, and that the only real prospect of a solution resides in effective negotiations as could, for example, occur in an international peace conference on the Middle East?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as has been reported in the media, on my instructions a senior official of the Department of External Affairs yesterday had discussions with the Israeli Ambassador to Canada. We reviewed Canada's concerns about events in the West Bank. We certainly did make the point that what is needed now is not to stop the media but to stop the beatings.


U.S. PROPOSAL-CANADA'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we would like to get a little clearer indication of what precisely is the Canadian position with respect to negotiations in the Middle East.
Is it Canada's position that it supports the American proposal as advocated by Secretary of State Shultz, or do we have our own unique position, or do we have any objection or any concerns about the proposal that we would like to set on the record now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are very encouraged by the initiative taken by U.S. Secretary of State Shultz, both because it holds the prospect of some movement and because he is, as the House knows, very well and widely regarded, both individually and officially, in that region.
Secretary Shultz took the opportunity during a meeting of NATO foreign Ministers two days ago to brief his allies as to what was developing in that region and what he hoped to accomplish. As the House will know, I was unable to make that trip and Canada was represented at that meeting by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. Mr. Shultz is returning to the region with the support and encouragement of Canada, and if there are steps we can take that will make his activities more effective, certainly we will take them.
We are not planning at this stage some independent venture because we think it is important that there be encouragement to take seriously the very serious and important initiative undertaken by the American Secretary of State.


PALESTINIAN REPRESENTATION AT NEGOTIATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, you would be aware of certain actions taken by the United States vis-a-vis the United Nations which have caused considerable concern. You will be aware also that Mr. Shultz has been unable to meet with Palestinian representatives. This raises a question to which an answer from the Government is extremely important.

March 4, 1988
Oral Questions
Does the Government not agree that there cannot be any possible prospect for successful negotiations unless we agree that the Palestinians must be represented by those whom the Palestinians in the occupied territory consider to be their legitimate representatives?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course the Palestinians must be represented. There can be no question about that. Of course there must be a willingness on the part of the two sides directly involved in this conflict. Those two sides are, on the one hand, the Government of Israel and, on the other hand, the Palestinians.
What is being sought now is a practical means by which those groups can be brought together and some practical steps which they can take together to end the situation which is deeply rooted and is now expressing itself in violence and activities, which I think are condemned and regretted by the vast majority of opinion in Canada and throughout most of the free world.
If the Hon. Member is asking me to make a commitment now, either to some kind of independent freelance activity by Canada or to the particular form of an international conference which might preclude other things occurring, I will not make that commitment at this stage. There is a very important process underway which holds a slightly better prospect of success than recent activities have yielded. We want to encourage that process to move toward success.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Recently here in the House, everyone applauded the Minister's announcement that he would change the rules to give a widower, whose wife died leaving him with a very young baby, a chance to receive unemployment insurance benefits. This case has been dragging on for several weeks, and now the Minister claims there are problems with the Charter and that there may be a problem about introducing amendments. Why did the Minister make this promise in the House, on television, before all Canadians, if he is not ready to table a Bill today?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my decision was the only one that could be made. However, when drafting a Bill, I think there are a number of points that must be considered, and if the Hon. Member would like further details, I suggest she consult with her Party's critic. I discussed the matter with him yesterday.


EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MATERNITY BENEFITS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed it with my colleague and I have discussed it with the Minister. Last week he told me that it was going to be brought into the House this week. This is Friday and we are still waiting.
Why will the Minister not accept the recommendation of my colleague and the all-Party committee which said that we should look at changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act so that other cases such as those of at least two women who are unable to collect benefits because their babies were born prematurely and they did not get out of the hospital until after the 17-week period had expired?
Why did the Minister not take our advice and reopen the unemployment insurance regulations so that we could consider all of these important issues instead of making a promise on which he is now not prepared to deliver?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about the UI Act which is another question. I said that we would move on Mr. Mclnnis' case. Yesterday the Member distorted the truth on the radio. I told her yesterday morning that we were in the process of dealing with that case.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, do it.


Benoît Bouchard: She said that my colleague told her that the file was dead. That is absolutely untrue.
The Member is trying to deal with all issues in the House. If she would deal with her own issues it would be much better for everyone.


HUMAN RIGHTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Minister knows, Canada has many treaties with the aboriginal first nations of this country. The Minister knows that the plight of many aboriginal peoples in Canada is tragic, as is that of the Lubicon Band. He also knows that many indigenous peoples around the world are under extreme pressures.
For these reasons I would like to know whether the Minister will support the proposed evaluation by a subcommittee of the United Nations Human Rights Commission of the legal status of treaties between aboriginal groups in Canada and aboriginal groups and other governments around the world.
March 4, 1988


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the controversy in Geneva, more precisely, the controversy in this Chamber about the discussions in Geneva, has inadvertently been a little misunderstood. Canada is trying in Geneva to ensure that the legitimate questions relating to agreements affecting indigenous people apply to all the indigenous people of the world, not only those indigenous people who happen to have a treaty relation with the government of their country.
In other words, Canada is seeking a broader mandate for the UN Commission, not a narrow one. The mandate which is being proposed, which was raised by my good friend, the Member for Cochrane-Superior, when I was unfortunately absent earlier in the week, is a mandate which would not only confine that study to countries like Canada where there are treaty arrangements, but would also have the effect of confining it to only some of the relations between aboriginal and other Canadians in this country. We are looking for, working for, and arguing for a broader mandate for the United Nations.


RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES RIGHTS-CANADIAN REVIEW
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would dearly love to believe the sincerity with which the Minister has delivered his response, but the facts are quite different. That which he and his officials are arguing in Geneva is quite different. I have the documents here. The Minister knows that his own officials are arguing that there are not any treaties of Canada between Canada and the first nations of this country.
Very specifically, why will the Minister and his Government not stand up at the international level and defend what is in Canada's Constitution under Section 35 which states that the treaty rights of aboriginal people of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed?
Why does the Government not argue in Geneva to the ILO on Convention 107; why does the government not argue in relation to the UN subcommittee that there are treaties in Canada and that they do need to be reviewed because aboriginal people in Canada are being treated damn badly by the Minister and his Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Two quick things, Mr. Speaker. I suppose that when you do not have a case you argue it more strongly, as the Hon. Member has just done.


James Ross Fulton: I have one. You put it before Geneva, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: Second, the Member said that he would dearly love to accept my sincerity. He knows the rules of the House. He is obliged to accept my sincerity as I am obliged to accept his, and I do that.
In the United Nations and elsewhere we are seeking to ensure that the activities which are undertaken by that
Oral Questions
commission apply to the range of relations between aboriginal people and their Governments-not limited in Canada, not limited to Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns his insensitive and irresponsible letter regarding three Sikh organizations in Canada.
I would like to remind the Minister of a statement he made in December, 1985. He stated, "I have no quarrel with those in Canada who hold different views than those of the Government of India".
If that is the case, and if the Minister was sincere when he made that statement two years ago, why has he blackballed three Sikh organizations in Canada? Why has he tarnished every member of those organizations, and why has he tarnished the entire Sikh community in Canada? Will he now take the opportunity and apologize to those people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my position is very clear. I stated it again yesterday in the House. I tabled the correspondence. My position is understood and supported by reasonable people, including the Liberal Premier of Ontario.
My remarks were very specific as to three organizations which have aims, with which I think the Hon. Member would not want to be associated, and to the fact that some of the Members of those organizations are involved in or counsel activities of violence, with which the Hon. Member would not want to be associated and to which he would not want to lend the authority that comes to him, not necessarily in his personal capacity, but in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. We have some duties in this House and the Hon. Member should understand that.


ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF SIKHS IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN CANADA
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the implications of the Minister's comments and the Minister's letter are very serious. He is accusing members of those organizations of involving themselves in violent, criminal activity in Canada.
If he has evidence to that effect, that the people which belong to these organizations are involved in criminal activity in Canada, why does he not do the responsible thing and charge these people, prosecute them, rather than tarnishing the entire Sikh community in Canada?

March 4, 1988
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, an elemental rule of the House is that if Members want to put serious questions they should not misquote the people to whom they are referring. The Hon. Member has just misquoted me. He said that I made some kind of blanket representation regarding all the members of those organizations. I trust that he can read. Let him read the letter.
The letter says that some of the members of those organizations have been involved in or have counselled violence. That is the case.
I think it would be most unfortunate if a Member of Parliament of this House, for momentary celebrity or for partisan reasons, associated himself or herself with activities which encouraged or appeared to condone acts of violence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAXATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that he and his Government promised the people of Canada that he would simplify the tax system and simplify the tax returns that people are expected to fill out. I am holding a 1962 tax return which is a single sheet of 8-1/2 by 11 paper. This year's tax return which I am holding is pages, pages and pages long.
When does the Minister plan to keep his promise to Canadians to actually simplify the tax return?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should check the tax rates on that single sheet of paper. He will see that the tax rates will be quite a bit lower this year than they were then as well.
There is no question that the world in which we live has become more complex and that is one of the reasons why previous governments have increased the size of the tax return. We have not increased the size of the tax return.
I would also make the point that a very large percentage of Canadians do not fill out the tax return to which the Hon. Member has just referred. They have a form that is four pages long. Half of the first page is taken up by personal information related to name, address and so on. The third page may not refer to the people using the tax return; so we can be moved to excess in the way we describe the complexity of the tax system. If he checks the short form, I think he will find that it is a simple form of tax return to fill out.


TAX GUIDE-SIMPLIFICATION OF 1988 RETURN
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this year's total personal tax package contains a 42-page tax guide with schedules, a 22-page information leaflet, 32 pages of additional forms, 10 pages of information circulars, as well as 34 interpretation bulletins. I also have a draft tax return for 1988 which Canadians will presumably fill out a year from now. When one adds the pages, it is actually greater than this year's form.
The Minister made a promise to the people of Canada that he would simplify the tax system and simplify the tax forms that Canadians would fill out. The tax return for next year will be more lengthy than this year's, which is eight pages compared to a single sheet in 1962. When will he keep the promise that he and his Government made to the people of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think this question might be more appropriately put to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, because it is under his good work that the tax guide has been much more understandable. Tax tips and tax suggestions are made so that when people are filling out their tax returns and referring to the tax guide they can have direct guidance as to how they can work their way through the tax system itself.
We have made a number of changes, since we came to office, which have reduced the complexity of the tax system and have helped small businesses. The change related to-I do not think the Hon. Member wants to listen to the answer.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is longer than the guide.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He has asked a question that is of concern to Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We now know who wrote the guide, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member does not want to listen to the answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It also concerns the letter he sent regarding meetings with Canadian Sikhs. Will the Minister confirm that it was never his intention to suggest that MPs restrict their meetings with individual Sikh constituents who wish to express their views to their MP's, even if those constituents are supporters of or members of any of the organizations named in his letter, such as the World Sikh Organization?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I tried to indicate yesterday that I was

March 4, 1988

not issuing edicts to Members of Parliament. I have neither the authority nor the inclination to do that.
Naturally, Members of Parliament in this country are free to meet any Canadians and have a particular obligation-


An Hon. Member:: What about premiers?


Mr. Clark (Yeilowhead):: -and premiers are free to meet anyone. Obviously, members of provincial or federal legislatures have a particular obligation to meet with their constituents.
I am seeking to avoid situations in which the authority of elected Parties or offices seems to condone acts of violence or seems to contribute to the purposes that I named of the organizations that I named yesterday.


UNFAIR ASSOCIATION OF SIKH GROUPS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will perhaps know that members of the World Sikh Organization and the Sikh Federation of Edmonton are offended that he lumped them with the Babbar Khalsa and Youth Federation. Is the Minister prepared to agree that it was perhaps unfair to lump the World Sikh Organization with the other two groups?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the letter was carefully written and was written after very careful consideration. It was written after the incidents had increased of members of provincial governments, members of the legislature or, indeed, members of municipal governments being drawn inadvertently into associations, into activities which might carry implications that I believe no member of a municipal, provincial or federal body would want to have drawn.


EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY-POLICY REVIEW
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last week, when P.E.I. electrical consumers received their bills in the mail, they also received a notice from Mr. John Reynolds, President and Chief Executive Officer of Maritime Electric, informing them that the federal Government is presently considering changes to the regulatory process under which Canadian utilities export electricity to the United States.
Is it indeed the case that the National Energy Policy is being reviewed to the detriment of some user provinces?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give the assurance that the National Energy Policy is not being reviewed to the detriment of any province. I will take up the particulars of the case he raises with the Minister.


PRICE OF EXPORTED ELECTRICAL ENERGY
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the second price test provision in the National Energy Policy. It does not allow electrical utilities from other provinces to export into the United States at a cost lower than that to some provinces who need the electricity.
Will the Minister give an unequivocal guarantee that as a result of whatever changes are made, Quebec Hydro, for example, will not be able to export electricity to the United States at a cost lower than that charged the Province of P.E.I. for that utility?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been a recent court ruling on that issue and I refer the Member to it.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A Nova Scotia mother has written to us saying:
Having a premature baby is an emotional draining experience and now I am
told I could lose my maternity leave (because my baby requires a long period
of hospitalization).
What will the Minister do to change the unfair time restriction for unemployment insurance maternity benefits which is penalizing such mothers of premature infants from coast to coast?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good question but it was already raised. I think the Hon. Member for Vancouver East knows that her colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano, raised exactly the same question last week about a mother in Vancouver who faces exactly-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Then why don't you do something?


Benoît Bouchard: Please, can you listen, the real lady on the other side? I just want to repeat what I said. I said it was raised last week. I answered the question. We are working on that issue at the present time. The Hon. Member will understand that this is a very complex issue, when we review the Unemployment Insurance Act, because there are many different approaches we could take. We have to consider the

March 4, 1988
Oral Questions
Charter of Rights in many areas. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that I am looking at the case very closely; I am not closing the door to a change in terms of the premature babies. But, once again, it is a complex problem and it cannot be solved in one week.


EXTENSION OF MATERNITY BENEFITS-USE OF MINISTERIAL DISCRETION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, there are many women affected in many communities across this country and we are going to continue raising this question. What we want is an answer. As this mother says, maternity leave is a cherished and necessary time and these mothers must have provisions for unemployment insurance into which they have paid. Will the Minister in this case, and cases like it, use his ministerial discretion-


Sheila Maureen Copps: No false promises either.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -to extend the benefit period in such cases? This was recommended by the Special Committee on Child Care, by the Conservative Members. Will he extend this through his ministerial discretion until such time as he can change the Act? Let us not be wishy-washy about this.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what 1 said before.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I don't want to hear what you said before.


Benoît Bouchard: The Hon. Member's colleague, the Conservative Member for Capilano, asked exactly the same question last week.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I know. Let's have an answer.


Benoît Bouchard: But the Conservative Party would like to take the time, and we need a little bit more than one week-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: These mothers cannot wait.


Benoît Bouchard: I know that the New Democrats can give the answer five minutes after the question, but we know what kind of answer they give and what kind of results they have, too.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. We both know that a labour dispute between language teachers in the ED Group and Treasury Board has been going on for several months. The Government wants to increase the teachers' workload, while the teachers maintain that, in
addition to the actual time spent in class, they have course preparation to do, and they want the time to do that. There are 762 unionized teachers working for the Government, of whom 63 per cent are women. It is also a fact that the Government is letting people get the impression that this service might be privatized.
Could the Minister inform the House today that he or his Department is prepared to go back to the bargaining table, to hammer out an agreement that would be acceptable to both parties and put an end to a situation that has been going on for three or four years?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on January 21 the majority conciliation board report was brought down, which the Government accepted and was prepared to sign an agreement on that basis, and we still are. If members of the union want to return to the bargaining table to consider that proposal, of course, we would be prepared to accept that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I take it that is an invitation by the President of the Treasury Board to return himself to the table. They cannot go by themselves.


POSSIBLE PRIVATIZATION OF LANGUAGE TEACHING POSITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Has the
Government decided to privatize those services? We were given indications in 1985 by the previous Minister, which I will read from the committee transcript:


Mr.   de Cotret@: Would it be more effective in certain cases-and I am
stating this very clearly-to turn training over to specialized private firms,
universities, or groups other than the Public Service?
We are looking at it.
Has the Government finished looking at it and can it give us its undertaking that indeed the privatization of those language teaching positions is not in the intentions of the Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice and report back to the Hon. Member. I know this reference was made by my predecessor. I am not sure whether it in fact constitutes any part of the negotiating process, but I will be happy to report back to the Member early next week.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, and I have given him notice of it. This morning, without making a
March 4, 1988

deliberate attempt to do so, I was allowed access to the sterile department lounges of two major Canadian airports without receiving proper security clearance. Departing from a Schedule 4 airport, my carry-on baggage was neither X-rayed nor searched, even though Government regulations require this.
Is the Minister of Transport finally prepared to take action to bring the security clearance procedures at Canadian airports up to the standards about which he likes to brag?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, no security system, of course, is perfect, and it may be that those who were on duty this morning thought that the Hon. Member looked particularly innocent.


Some Hon. Members:: They were wrong?


John Carnell Crosbie: In fact, I do believe that he is harmless.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I noticed in the regulations, a copy of which the hon. gentleman was kind enough to send me, that you have to be identified by the air carrier as being a potential threat to the security of civil aviation; presumably, the Hon. Member was not so identified. But he has sent me a report on what happened this morning and I will have it looked into because any possible breach of the screening regulations is serious. I thank him for bringing this to my attention.


COMMITTEE REPORT CALLING FOR CHANGES TO AIRPORT SECURITY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in this House, and directly to the Minister, I have raised specific matters with regard to airport security. The House of Commons Committee on Transport has tabled an all-Party unanimous report calling for major changes to airport security procedures in this country. When will the Minister be prepared to take action not just on the specifics I have raised but on the general system that is available in Canada to protect air passengers from security breaches?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly attempting to improve our security procedures. We have spent many additional millions of dollars in doing this. We brought in a new system with respect to employees who work at airports, which has encountered tremendous opposition, particularly from certain of the Public Service unions. I would hope the hon. gentleman might use his persuasive powers with those unions to get them to co-operate with the screening procedures we are trying to put into effect in connection with sterile areas. In the meantime, we have the report of the standing committee and I am having the whole matter reviewed. We will have to make a response to the recommendations, and we will in due course.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to co-operate with the Chair. I recognize the Hon. Member for Grand Falls- White Bay-Labrador for a single question.


RAILWAYS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Rumours are rife now that the Newfoundland railway will be closed down and a major highway package is being negotiated in the amount of $800 million. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? And will he give an undertaking that in that package he will include the completion of the trans-Labrador highway from the Prime Minister's riding in Baie Comeau, through Goose Bay and on down to the Straits of Belle Isle? Can he give that undertaking?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and his Party are very familiar with the closing down of railways since in 1968 they closed down railway passenger service in Newfoundland. So I can understand his particular interest in the railway situation.
There is no agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland with respect to any closing of the Newfoundland railway service. It continues to be operated by Canadian National; it costs Canadian National some $35 million or $40 million per year to do that.
With respect to the trans-Labrador highway, I believe there has been something in the order of $13.7 million spent on the highway by the Government of Canada to date. To finish the highway from Labrador City to Churchill Falls requires $24 million and from Goose to Red Bay, which is 340 kilometres, some $200 million. This money is not easily come by. However, I will continue to do my best to see that moneys are spent to try to move on with that highway.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River a single question.


TAXATION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance who wrote me this morning concerning the northern residents tax deduction, admitting that there are problems with the criteria as some

March 4, 1988
Privilege-Ms. Copps
non-qualifying communities are directly adjacent to communities that do qualify. He stated that his officials have no satisfactory solution to this problem of communities that are adjacent to other communities that qualify. I have suggested that all Tier 3 riding communities should qualify.
My question to the Minister is simply this. If the bureaucrats have failed to come up with a solution, when will the Government live up to its responsibilities by coming up with a political solution to this problem which divides community against community and which essentially gives an enormous premium to people who are willing to move out to a rural area?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the bottom line of all this. We have made some significant advances in putting on a more permanent basis a type of tax benefit which helps people who live in northern and isolated communities. That is the fundamental approach that we have been following.
We recognize that there is difficulty once one gets down below a finite barrier, such as the 60th parallel. It becomes more difficult to draw the lines between which communities are in the northern benefits system and which communities are not in it. We have reached a resolution that satisfies most residents who are affected, but there are difficulties in drawing borders. It is for that reason that we have called for the establishment of a commission to review instances that the Hon. Member has raised in the House. That commission will be set up soon to hear those-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East will ask the last question in Question Period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It goes without saying that all three Parties in the House will agree that using violence against violence in the West Bank and Gaza is totally unacceptable.
Given Canada's respect around the world for human rights and as a peace-keeping nation, why could the Government not take the initiative with like-minded nations, particularly those in northern and central Europe, to begin a process of confidence building with Israel and informal Palestinian leaders aimed specifically at alleviating the human suffering?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, the Hon. Member was a member of an all-Party committee that has just come back from the Middle East and whose visits there were very helpful to us in the formulation of Canadian policy. I want to express
the Government's appreciation for the work that was done in an all-Party fashion by that all-Party committee.
Naturally, we will do whatever we can to contribute to those kinds of developments. The Hon. Member will know that one of the things that we have been doing for some time, and we have doubled the program, is to operate mission-administered funds in the West Bank which allows Canadians to deliver aid directly to Palestinian and other communities in that region.
I answered earlier with regard to the mission being undertaken by Secretary Shultz. We think at least at this stage that the most effective thing we can do is in the context of that mission. I look forward to having the opportunity personally to meet with members of the committee to get the benefit of their advice as to what other things we might do.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is rising on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from an article which appeared in this morning's The Ottawa Citizen the headline of which reads, "MPs' report clears Masse, raps Gorman".
There is a time-honoured tradition in the House and, indeed, it was reiterated by all members of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, that reports that have not been tabled in the House or that have not been published should not be divulged for public information. Quite clearly someone on the committee chose to report selectively on the situation. Frankly, they have not even chosen to report the facts. In fact, they have reported a false statement, a false story and a false conclusion as elucidated in the headline of this particular article.
You realize, Mr. Speaker, that this puts us in a very difficult position. After having read the article in the paper the first thing that I received when I came to the office this morning was a telephone call from the media asking me what was my reaction to the report which had been made public about which we had made an agreement that we were not to speak until the report is actually tabled in the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Someone asks why I am speaking. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the position, as has my Party-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is raising a matter which, quite frankly, the Chair thinks is extremely serious. Unfortunately, the principle involved here had to be faced by the Chair many months ago. The Hon. Member involved in that case did not only do the


An Hon. Member:: Why are you speaking?

March 4, 1988

honourable thing but the appropriate thing and expressed his regret. This is a very serious matter. I would ask Hon. Members to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, you realize that the publication of this report puts all other members of the committee in an untenable position in that on the one hand we are asked to comment on the report which has not been tabled while on the other hand our silence could be interpreted as agreeing with the alleged contents of the report which in fact are false.
I seek some direction from the Chair. In the breach of this particular convention the decision that was made and the commitment that was made by all members to keep their own counsel on the report until it was tabled has in fact now been thrown to the wind as a result of this report. I seek some guidance as to what that does to all of the other members who bound themselves by that same convention.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of this committee I too was very surprised and annoyed to see reports in the paper this morning. I wish to indicate to my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that there was an all-Party agreement. I am also very annoyed to see such reports prior to the tabling of the report on Tuesday.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, being a member of the committee and having participated in it, all of us, at least those to whom I have talked who are members of the committee, were shocked to see the article. It is important to point out a couple of matters.
The first is that the article identifies sources; it does not identify an MP. Nor does it identify that source as being an MP. I suggest that what we might now be facing in this case is a source outside the actual committee membership since the article does have some inaccuracies in it. I think that puts quite a different light on the situation with which we are faced here.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I too have raised this type of issue as a chairman of a committee. All Members of the House should be disturbed when the results of in camera meetings are leaked, when there is no prior agreement.
At one point in its proceedings a week and a half ago the committee did have an in camera meeting and agreement was reached that we would talk to the press. That was handled very well and satisfactorily by all members of the committee. In this case the understanding was that the meeting was in camera and that we would wait until the report was delivered to the House.
In her presentation, the Hon. Member raises the dilemma that we cannot talk about the report at this time. But to label
Privilege-Ms. Copps
the article as false is in effect to talk about the report from a perspective that the Hon. Member obviously has.
1 would caution the House that the Chairman has advised that the report will be delivered on Tuesday. The House's view of the report, its implications, and its contents should await our judgment until we see the report. Certainly, it would be unfortunate to leave that single thought out here without confirmation or denial. It is probably a statement that is broader than, upon reflection, the Hon. Member may wish to have it go.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the substantive part of the question, may I comment that there are precedents established by the House in similar circumstances. I do take the remarks of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) as a very serious matter. Indeed, we have to find out if there was a leak outside the regular circle of Members of Parliament and the clerks. If there is a leak it must be plugged as soon as possible. It is untenable for Members of Parliament to be asked to comment on something that has not as yet been made public.
If you judge that there is a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I take it that the appropriate motion required would be moved by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for raising this matter, and I thank other Hon. Members for their interventions. I think it is obvious to all Members in the Chamber, and I hope to members of the public who are watching, that the matter raised by the Member for Hamilton East simply comes down to the following.
The allegation is that, in one way or another what was thought to be by Hon. Members a confidential meeting, what went on in that meeting, and what was thought to be a written report which has not yet been presented to the House but will be in a couple of days, at least some part of that has in some way been given by somebody to the press.
This place ultimately operates on trust. I can say to members of the public who are watching and listening that most of the time there is that type of trust among all Hon. Members here that makes this place function. It is very important to stress that fact.
The Hon. Member has raised what may well be a breach of that trust, or it may be a breach of some other trust. In any event, I am going to adjourn any adjudication on this matter for a day or two until the report is tabled. I will then be able to measure the report in the press against the report as it is in fact brought before the House. I will then come back to the House and address this matter.
As I have stated, and as is clearly expressed here by all Hon. Members, this place must operate on trust. Without it, it cannot function. I say to the public that most of the time, in

March 4, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata
fact the vast majority of the time, it does operate on trust. This is indeed a serious matter, and I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East for raising it.



John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. During Question Period today I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) questions regarding a letter he wrote to a number of Premiers in Canada regarding three Sikh organizations. He specified those organizations in the letter he wrote, a copy of which I have dated December 7, 1987 to Premier Peterson of Ontario.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) also asked questions with regard to this particular matter. When the Opposition has asked questions with regard to the letter, the Minister has accused the Opposition of partisanship. Yet when two members of his caucus, one from Edmonton and the other from Toronto, asked questions he did not level the same insensitive accusation at those Members.
In effect, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has black-balled three organizations that operate legitimately-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked serious questions, and questions which all Hon. Members would consider seriously. The Hon. Member now raises a point of privilege on the basis of an allegation that the Right Hon. Secretary of State somehow dealt in a different manner with questions asked, which are also very serious and direct questions, by the government side as opposed to the opposition side.
I have to say to the Hon. Member that he may or may not be completely correct, but it is not a question of privilege. I will of course hear the Hon. Member if he wishes to make another remark.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the implications of the letter, as I indicated during Question Period, are rather serious. They not only affect the privileges of Members of Parliament, but also the very legitimate organizations in Canada. In effect, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is saying to all Premiers, all members of provincial government, and all Members of Parliament that they are not to associate with organizations that happen to have different views-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand, and I think Hon. Members and the Right Hon. Secretary of State understand the point made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). That is a matter of political argument and debate. I have to say to the Hon. Member that it is not appropriate to pursue it by rising on a question of privilege. I also have to indicate to the Hon. Member that it is not a question of privilege. I do not think there is any need to pursue the matter further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 132(4) of the Financial Administration Act, and pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) of the House, I am pleased hereby to table, on behalf of the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (Mrs. McDougall), the summaries, in both official languages, of the 1988-92 Corporate Plan and 1988 Capital Budget of the Canada Development Investment Corporation and of the 1988-89 Corporate Plan and 1988 Capital Budget of Teleglobe Canada.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8) I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to 39 petitions bearing the following numbers: 3323747 to 332-3753 inclusive, 332-3762 to 332-3779 inclusive, 332-3782, 332-3787 to 332-3794 inclusive, 332-3799 and 3323801 to 332-3804 inclusive.



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 106. They are on the same topic, so I will not elaborate on both of them other than to say that they are from petitioners in various parts of British Columbia.
They contend that the present Government has no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe that the trade deal negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty, since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership in Canada and to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest
March 4, 1988

of Canadians. It also makes it difficult to equalize opportunities among the regions of the country.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada an opportunity either to accept or to reject the trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House. It has been signed by constituents from my riding of Hamilton West as well as from the neighbouring riding of Hamilton-Wentworth.
The petitioners, who are all members of the congregation of Westdale United Church in the City of Hamilton, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to set up a committee to reexamine our export policy in connection with the weapons industry and to halt further expansion in this area until such a review has taken place.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a number of petitions from various parts of British Columbia-the Lower Mainland, Surrey, New Westminster, Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, et cetera. They are very concerned that there is a very high incident of crimes including murder, robbery, and sexual assaults committed with knives. This is on the increase in all major cities across Canada.
They call upon Parliament to amend the federal Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places, the only exemptions to be knives used for legitimate work or carried for religious reasons.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present which is on a different subject. It is from a number of people resident in Ontario who oppose the U.S.-Canada trade deal because it denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was its major objective. It also threatens the loss of hundreds of jobs and affects our future sovereignty.
They call upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling five petitions signed by residents of Presqu'Ile, Dorion, Valleyfield, Pierrefonds, Montreal, Saint-Lambert, Saint-Romuald, Alma and Dolbeau.
The 165 signatures are in addition to others I tabled previously, which add up to a total of 32,533.
Petitions
The undersigned realize that since 1974, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations allow self-inflating bags to be installed to protect drivers of private cars, and that this device would reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to make compulsory the installation of self-inflating bags on the front seat and of adjustable shoulder seat-belts for passengers on the back seat.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which has been signed by residents of Gull Lake, Saskatchewan and has been certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 106, as attested by the Clerk of Petitions. It deals with the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
It makes a number of the points made in earlier presentations of petitions. It also stresses that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
For that reason they call upon the Parliament of Canada to dissolve and to have this question put to a general election.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present a petition signed by almost 100 Canadian citizens who are concerned about the free trade agreement which has been negotiated between the present Government and the United States.
The petitioners claim that the Government does not have the mandate to pursue the deal and that the negotiated agreement will hurt our sovereignty. As well, they are concerned about our autonomy in the energy sector. They believe that it would deny Canada the ability to devise our own economic future. They are also concerned that the agreement would have a negative effect on job growth in Canada.
They ask that Parliament be dissolved so that the Government could go to the people on this agreement.
I so move or I so introduce.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I second the motion of my hon. colleague.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Slightly out of order.


James Douglas Manly: I have a duly certified petition from a number of Canadian citizens regarding the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.
They point out that it threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities among the regions.

March 4, 1988
Order Paper Questions
It points out that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to devise its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve so as to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, 1 noticed your smile, which I am sure is an expression of unsuppressed pleasure on your part at my presence in the House and at the contents of the petition I am about to table. It comes from a number of Canadian citizens and has been duly certified as fulfilling the requirements.
The petitioners express concern about the future impact on the Canadian destiny of the Mulroney-Reagan deal, particularly as it concerns our ability to control our economic future.
They ask Parliament for an election to be held so that the Government will have a mandate to pursue this agreement and Canadians will have an opportunity to express themselves on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe those are all the petitions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we will see on Monday night whether they vote for the dissolution of Parliament.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.