1988-09-28

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, if the rumours we are hearing are true, the Thirty-third Parliament will be dissolved in a matter of days. Twenty-seven women out of a total of 282 Members were elected to the House of Commons.
I rise today to pay tribute to three of my colleagues who will be leaving this House shortly. 1 speak of Madam Therese Killens, the Hon. Pat Carney, and Miss Pauline Jewett. All three have played a very important role in leading the women of this country into public life. Their insight and intelligence have helped in the formulation of policy and legislation, and the fair and lucid critique of legislation once formulated. [Translation]
Therese Killens was dedicated to the cause of the disabled and the homeless. She did not make a lot of noise, but we remember her for her effectiveness and for what she accomplished in the area of pensions for women working in the home. [English]
Pauline Jewett will be remembered for her work in both judicial committees and constitutional committees. At a time when women managed to mobilize their forces to entrench the basic right to equality in the Constitution, it was noteworthy that women such as Pauline Jewett provided courage, strength, and inspiration.
Pat Carney, who was at the forefront of one of the most important debates facing the country, should also be lauded for her ability to hold her own and be fair, for her ability to voice her opinion and to be heard, as well as for her ability to listen.
To all of these women I wish good luck in their future endeavours. As a recent arrival in politics, 1 also extend my many thanks.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the protection of its citizens is a valued right in any country. In this regard concern is being expressed by Canadians and an international human rights organization about the plight of a Canadian citizen, a resident of Etobicoke North. I refer to Balkar Singh in detention in India since November 2, 1987.
The renowned international organization, Amnesty International, in a report last month urged the Indian Government to release him or charge him, and bring him to trial under normal judicial procedures, with all customary legal safeguards.
While recognizing the efforts of the Government to obtain consular access to the detainee to ensure adequate medical treatment and cessation of torture, I would like Members to join with me in urging the Indian Government to bring Balkar Singh to trial at the earliest opportunity, and urge the Government of Canada to continue in its worthy efforts to bring the matter to an early resolve.


THE LATE GEORGE GRANT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost one of its best patriots and best philosophers in the death of George Grant.
The man who wrote Lament for a Nation in 1965, lamenting the capitulation of Canadian identity and values to American pressure, is now to be lamented for himself by many Canadians who saw and heard in George Grant and his writings someone who understood what Canada had been about, and what we could be if we resist rather than give in to the temptation of continentalism, the American technological ethos, and the poverty of spirit that lies at the root of advanced liberal capitalism.
George Grant was one who understood the modern mind, who could discern and explore the moral fault lines and crevices of what the modern mind takes for granted as objective reality, but which is really no more than a collectively held uncritical belief.

September 28, 1988
In his books, Technology and Empire, English-Speaking Justice and Technology and Justice, he has given us a warning, too often unheeded, about the new tyranny that we court by turning our backs on the best of our philosophical and political traditions.
If the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement goes through, George Grant will have been spared from the final assault on the Canada he loved. If it does not, perhaps there is yet time to recover and play reveille for a country saved and a philosopher vindicated.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mint enjoys a proud reputation as one of the foremost producers of high quality precious metal coins in the entire world. Maple Leaf gold coins are sought out by coin collectors, investors, and those looking for a secure store of value.
Canada is a major producer of platinum, so it is only natural that we should also get into the platinum coin business.
Last Thursday's special striking ceremony initiating the production of platinum Maple Leaf coins, marks, I am sure, the start of what will be another highly successful venture by the Royal Canadian Mint.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) our future Prime Minister after the election, announced with pride the platform of the Liberal Party with respect to the environment, quality of life and professional ethics. What 1 find particularly heartening is that the future Liberal Government will correct the injustice to the elderly and families on middle and low incomes perpetrated by the Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I was proud to join the Leader of the Liberal Party in announcing the forty objectives of our Liberal vision. The people will have to choose between a sleazy, dishonest Conservative Government and an honest Liberal Government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the other night I was surprised and disappointed to hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) state that Canada's ability to protect its environment is somehow threatened by the free trade agreement. That is a bunch of nonsense.
For the Leader of the Opposition's benefit, let me refer to the agreement:
Import and export control measures can be justified when it is "necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (such as measures to protect the environment or endangered species)".
Instead of trying to scare people, why doesn't he start listening to B.C. Liberal Senator George Van Roggen, former Liberal cabinet Minister Gerald Reagan, the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, the Liberal Premier of Quebec, and countless other Liberals who agree that this agreement is good for Canada? Otherwise I think it is going to be very bad for the Liberal Party.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mrs. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last June the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Unemployment Insurance Act was unfair to natural parents because it denied them the benefits for child care enjoyed by adoptive parents.
This decision makes a clear distinction between maternity benefits, which are received by women for health reasons, and parental benefits, which are paid to adoptive parents for the child's care and emotional development.

The Conservative Government has until September 30 to appeal this decision, if it wishes to take such a retrograde step. New Democrats hope that instead the Government will listen to groups such as the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and the National Association of Women and the Law, and accept the ruling by implementing parental leave for Canadian parents without jeopardizing maternity leave benefits.
September 28, 1988

This move will finally ensure that Canada provides child care benefits already available in other industrialized countries.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, so the Liberals are starting to unveil their election promises and their Leader says that they would not proceed with sales tax reform. They would instead tinker with the present 12 per cent manufacturers' sales tax, perpetuating its unfairness, continuing to disadvantage our domestic manufacturers.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) should check with the members of his Party who sit on the Finance Committee with me and have shown considerable interest in substantial sales tax reform. But splits on Party policy are not new to the Liberal Party.
Of course, what else could we expect from the Liberal Leader, who, when he was Minister of Finance in the 1970s, was the "Father of the Deficit", raising expenditures nearly 30 per cent per year without increasing revenues, starting the inflationary spiral which led to the recession earlier this decade.
Once again the Liberals have shown that they are the Party of the past, with policies to hurt exporters, to kill jobs. Old ways, old times-Canadians will not be fooled. They want, they demand better.


EDUCATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, education ought to be a priority for all Governments. We on this side of the House place a high regard on the educational institutions in our country. We also have an understanding of the financial sacrifices that students must make while studying at a post-secondary institution.
It was with some dismay that I learned that the Government taxes graduate scholarships. Recently I received a letter from a graduate student in Sudbury, Ontario, who had received a $9,000 scholarship for her studies in 1987-88. When she completed her tax return she found that she had to pay $2,000 in taxes. Mr. Speaker, this is unjust. The Government should encourage academic excellence in our youth. This can only benefit the country as a whole. To turn around and tax the
very moneys students are using to upgrade themselves is absolutely ridiculous.
Under this Government we have seen the most substantial tax increases in Canadian history. The problem is that the wrong people are the ones targeted to pay taxes. Why tax a student bursary, and not the 60,000 profitable companies that each year pay no taxes, or the 5,220 taxpayers who made over $50,000 last year and paid no tax, or the 40 people who made over $250,000 last year and paid no tax?
It is time for the Government of Canada to take students into consideration. It is time for the Government to call an election so the people of Canada can have a choice to make in the next election.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a Member of Parliament who has contributed more to Canada than would be expected of any individual. I refer to the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain, the Hon. Alvin Hamilton. This man has devoted his life to serving his country, not only in the Armed Forces, but for 30 years in Parliament, and during this time also raising a fine family.
Under his leadership as Minister of Agriculture we developed grain and other markets with the Eastern Bloc countries which were unheard of before. 1 would say that he should be called the "Father of Free Trade". Alvin's initiative as Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources to build the famous "Roads to Resources" has opened up the northern area more than any other program and has made the North and South one.
These examples are but two of the many programs and policies that have made the Hon. Alvin Hamilton famous for his forward thinking. He got the job done. This Parliament will be the loser when he leaves this place.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to reports from the West Bank and Gaza Strip indicating that the Israeli Army is now using plastic bullets without restraint against Palestinians protesting their continuing oppression under occupation.

September 28, 1988
Oral Questions
The replacement of rubber bullets by plastic ones last month has been accompanied by a marked increase in the number of people wounded, up from 19 in July to 130 in the first 25 days of September in the Gaza Strip alone. Three people have been killed in spite of dubious Israeli claims that the bullets are nonlethal.
While those casualty statistics are considered appalling by representatives of the United Nations, they are not considered so by Israeli Defence Minister Yitshah Rabin. On the contrary, to him they indicate that his troops are doing a good job, even while admitting that the level of unrest in the occupied territories has not been diminished by this escalation of Israeli firepower.
Representatives of the United Nations have protested this deliberate and futile escalation. I call upon the Government of Canada to do the same.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
recognized the importance of these questions being answered and we intend to have an inquiry on this issue.
The fact that the Member refers to statements made by Mr. Pound and the former Minister and other people, and there are many statements in the papers today, also indicates to me and the Government the importance of conducting ourselves in a manner which will enable us to reach the truth and not do it in a disorganized way which would lead to nothing more than speculation. That is extremely important if we are going to get to the bottom of this. Yes, the Government will of course be part of an inquiry. We will discuss it with the parties concerned before a decision is made. We will take time to discuss it with them.
I think Canadians are sympathetic to the case of Ben Johnson, as all of us are. Ben Johnson being a Canadian, with the difficulty of maybe a mistake on his part, I think we are all sympathetic to his cause. Elowever, I think the Hon. Member will want to recognize that the rules that apply to all other athletes, including the weight lifters who never reached Seoul, including all the athletes who never reached the Olympics because their times were not good enough, the rules that apply to them also apply to Ben Johnson. My duty is to apply those rules and that is what we intend to do.
['Perhaps if you want the NDP to answer the question you may not get the answer you like, Mr. Speaker.\nCommittee Reports\nObviously, the company will want to assess this particular incident in terms of its safety standards as well.\nI can assure the Hon. Member that one of the advantages of the new changes to the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is that they can involve themselves in the investigation of these kinds of incidents, and have a thorough and objective analysis and report on a subject of this nature. I am sure that the Hon. Member, as well other Hon. Members, would want to be as assured that this process would indeed take place.']
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sport. As the Minister knows, the Ben Johnson incident has raised sincere concern and many questions among millions of Canadians. I believe that it is the duty of the Opposition to raise those questions in the national Parliament, and for the Government to seek answers to those questions.
First, with specific reference to the Ben Johnson case, we now have statements made by the former Minister for Sport stating that he does not believe that Ben Johnson knew he was taking steroids, and a statement made by Richard Pound, the Executive Vice-President of the IOC, that Ben Johnson would not have administered these drugs to himself.
In view of these and many other unanswered questions, would the Minister make a clear commitment today to have a full inquiry into this matter in order to determine who is responsible, and in the meanwhile not categorically and finally condemn anyone?
[DOT] (M20)
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to see a change in tone in the approach to this issue and that the Hon. Member recognizes the fact there are some sincere questions to be answered. Yesterday the Government


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his answer.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR THOROUGH INQUIRY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, there is also a broader question concerning the use of drugs in general by Canadian athletes.
Following recent discussions on radio and television, Canadians were shocked by the suggestions of more widespread drug use by Canadian athletes. In addition, statements were made to the effect that most athletes are not health professionals and that they must be helped by a professional in buying and using these drugs.
Under these circumstances, is the Government prepared to conduct a more thorough investigation in order to determine the extent of this drug use by Canadian athletes and the involvement of professionals? Is the Minister prepared to conduct a more thorough investigation of this matter?
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, when this Ben Johnson affair was announced around 6 or 7 p.m. local time in Canada, I had already had the opportunity to discuss it with the President of the Canadian Track and Field Federation, Jean-Guy Ouellette. We agreed that there would at the very least be an investigation into the Ben Johnson affair.
September 28, 1988

We will sit down with those concerned, while allegations are pouring in from everywhere; we will sit down with the people concerned and see whether a broader, more extensive investigation of the whole sports community is warranted.
What 1 can say today with complete assurance is that there will no doubt be an investigation into the Ben Johnson affair, as I said yesterday. It will cover the people in his entourage and we will try to get to the bottom of this matter. We are prepared to do so as soon as we have the opportunity to discuss it at least with the main parties concerned, to give them the chance to tell us what form they think this investigation should take.


PROPOSED DOPE TESTING PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Gerrard Mach of the Canadian Track and Field Association said his association has been pressing for an improved drug testing program for Canadian athletes. He expected this program to be in place by April 1, 1988. That system would have included dope testing on one day's notice. However, according to Mr. Mach the program was not implemented on time.
Why was action not taken to implement this suggested program in good time for the Olympics? Would the Minister give an explanation for the delay in this program?
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, in his first question my hon. friend referred to sincere questions and sincere answers. I think this is the time for some sincere answers.
To be very frank in this regard, Canada plays a world leadership role in the area of anti-doping. The first world conference on anti-doping was held here in Ottawa in June. The result of that conference was an anti-doping charter. If my hon. friend takes the time, and I am sure he will, to read that anti-doping charter which Canada is trying to have implemented all over the world, he will find a proposal for random testing without prior notice. That is this Government's position and the position we are trying to have implemented all over the world so that not only our own athletes are under strict guidelines, but all other athletes around the world are also under the same rules.
In the case of track and field, we are negotiating, and we were negotiating before the Seoul Olympics, a protocol of agreement to implement such a policy, and we are going as fast as we can to implement it. We are at the beginning of a process that started before the Ben Johnson incident, and we are not at the end of it.
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PORT EXPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry

Prescott-Russell): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the Prime Minister's faulty trade deal with the United States.
At the same time the President of the United States was signing the Prime Minister's trade deal today the National Pork Producers' Council in the U.S. announced that it would be seeking countervailing duties against not only Canadian hogs-on which it has had success in the past-but Canadian pork products.
Given that the Prime Minister promised Canadians that no trade deal would be passed unless it gave Canada guaranteed access to the U.S. market, doesn't it prove that the Prime Minister's trade deal simply doesn't work? Doesn't it prove that we gave away the store and got nothing in return, and shouldn't we call an election now?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, that shows the peculiar logic of the Opposition. All that this question indicates is the need for us to have the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement implemented in this House so we have a better defence against actions that might be taken in the United States under American law for countervail purposes.
The National Pork Producers' Council stated that it is planning to file a petition. It has a right to do that, and Canadian firms in Canada have a right to file petitions here in Canada. If it does file a petition-we are going to get together with our own pork industry anyway-we will be assisting that industry with a very vigorous defence to any allegations made.
I want to point out to the House that we have four investigations currently being conducted by National Revenue here in Canada on imports from the United States with respect to apples, cherries, coat hangers, and steel grinding balls. They are all anti-dumping cases, Mr. Speaker, but we don't hear the U.S. population complaining that here in Canada we are still enforcing our trade laws.
For Heaven's sake, stop being childish and get serious about the U.S.-Canada issue.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, speaking of reverse logic, we have just had a great example. The Minister just said producers have a right to file a petition. They had the right before. Therefore, what have we gained in the trade deal? [Translation]


COUNTERVAILING TARIFFS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister. With the new U.S. omnibus bill, American producers will have the right to ask that countervail be used against Canadian pork producers, a privilege they did not have before the signing of the free trade agreement between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States.

September 28, 1988
Oral Questions
Will the Minister finally admit that his trade agreement is a total failure, that we have gained nothing and that we have given away the store?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is really piteous to watch the hon. gentleman floundering with respect to the question that he has asked here today. How could this action of the U.S. pork producers have anything to do with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement-


Don Boudria: That is the point.


John Carnell Crosbie: -which is not yet in effect although it is approved by all elected Members of both the United States and Canada? The hon. gentleman's Party has seen that the unelected Senate has stopped the legislation in its tracks here in Canada.
The benefit of the legislation will be seen after the next election when it is passed by this House and the Senate and it enables us to become part of the binational procedure that will be in effect to decide these disputes in the future. The answer is that we will be far better protected after January 1 next year, but the hon. gentleman won't be here to join with us in that.


OLYMPIC GAMES-DISQUALIFICATION OF CANADIAN ATHLETES-STEROID TESTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too have a question for the Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport and it concerns the Ben Johnson case. As the Minister knows, there are a lot of unanswered questions which 1 think warrant an immediate investigation.
Yesterday in the House the Minister said that Ben Johnson was tested in Zurich about a month ago, after the competition there, and the tests were negative for steroids. He had been tested some seven other times and all the tests were negative. On the other hand, the IOC said a couple of days ago that there was evidence of long-term steroid use.
There seems to be a contradiction here. I wonder if the Minister can tell the House today why there is a contradiction of that sort. Can he explain the discrepancy of, on the one hand, the IOC saying that there is long-term use of steroids, while on the other hand he has always tested negative?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the results of the tests and the fact that Ben Johnson has been tested approximately, to my best knowledge, eight times in the last 21 months. Furthermore, in
that 21-month period he had been out of training for a four or five-month period because of an injury.
I am not an expert in this area and neither is the Hon. Member, as far as I know, or other Members of this House. I do not know whether there is a contradiction or not. Some of the explanations that I have both read and heard seem to indicate there is no contradiction, in fact, between testing negative at the Zurich meet and testing positive at another point in time. Not being an expert in that area 1 will not seek in any way, shape, or form to replace that expertise.
Suffice it to say that Dr. Dugal, a member of one of the committees of the IOC Medical Commission, a Canadian who was part of the group there who received the test and evaluated it, made some comments today in le Journal de Montreal, and he seems to be very unequivocal about the results of the test and what they mean.


VALIDITY OF TESTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do remind the Minister that he has at his disposal experts in the field with a lot of training and experience, and that the IOC said that there was evidence of long-term steroid use. Meanwhile, Ben Johnson had been tested negatively eight times in the last 21 months. I wonder if the Minister can explain that discrepancy.
At the same time I wonder if the Minister can explain to the House why, as a matter of policy, Canadian athletes are not tested before they leave the country to go to international meets?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, to make things quite clear, it is not for me to explain the content of the technical expertise on the results of the sample. Suffice it to say that we have representatives in Seoul, including the President of the Canadian Olympic Association, and that the Canadian Government accepts the validity of the test.
By the way, it is my understanding that up until now both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Francis also accepted the validity of the test. I do not know what more I can say as far as the test is concerned. We will perhaps have to wait until an inquiry gives us more precise information in that regard.
As far as the system in Canada works, once that determination has been made our rules are quite clear, as the rules were under the previous Government in 1983. Once that determination is made, a suspension or a sanction is imposed. In the case of the use of steroids, our rules are quite clear. With the firsttime use of steroids there is then a life suspension pending, of course, the usual appeals that we hope will happen, and we will await anxiously to see the results.
September 28, 1988


PUBLIC INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Minister could perhaps comment briefly in the House on the public inquiry that will be conducted by the Government of Canada. Will Mr. Johnson's entourage be questioned in the course of this inquiry? I am referring here to people like his manager, his doctor and his coach.

Can he also say whether or not they would be looking at the whole question of due process for an athlete so that there is some kind of proper appeal if an athlete is accused? Will he be looking at those kinds of questions in the inquiry?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that we will have an inquiry and we will take the time to sit down with those who are concerned to make sure that we have some understanding of the terms and where we want to go with this inquiry. I hope that through this process we will offer an opportunity for Ben Johnson to speak and to be heard because Canadians want to hear what he has to say. It is important that he have that opportunity.
In the meantime, may I remind Hon. Members of exactly how the system works. In the case of Mr. Johnson, a test is taken. The IOC makes its determination, and it has made a decision to suspend him for the rest of the Games. That decision is without appeal. Obviously the Games will finish.
The IAAF, the international body for track and field, then enters in and suspends him for a period of two years. The Canadian Track and Field Association follows suit. That is the third instance. Automatically, the rules we have had since 1985-86 provide that the Canadian Government takes notice of that decision and then imposes its sanction.
After that has been done, of course the international federation provides for a 30-day appeal period. That is going on now and an opportunity is provided to the athlete to appeal that decision. If he is successful in his appeal, then the suspension will be withdrawn, as it should be. If he is not successful or if he chooses not to enter into the appeal, then after a period of two years the athlete will have an opportunity to appeal directly to the Canadian Government Minister to have his suspension lifted and then to be reintegrated.
That is the process that we have been following, the process that applies to each and every athlete in Canada.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another question today for the Minister of Public Works. This morning, we read in The Globe and Mail that the Minister's
Oral Questions
statements are a mass of contradictions. His colleague, the Minister of National Defence, who was acting for the Minister last Thursday and Friday, informed the House that there had been an investigation by the RCMP. Friday, he said there was a second one. However, the Minister of Public Works, on whose behalf the Minister of National Defence was answering in the House, later informed the House that he was not aware of this at all. One day the Minister of Public Works tells us that he transmitted a letter on Thursday and the next day, it's Friday. Mr. Speaker, we have a really confused bunch across the way!
I want to ask the Minister of Public Works whether, as a man of honour and integrity, he would agree to submit his own case and that of his political staff to an investigation, either by the Privy Council or the Deputy Prime Minister or a committee of the House. One thing is certain: he is not at all sure about his facts. I think that if the Minister of Public Works, as a man of honour and integrity, wants to save his reputation, he should either immediately submit to an investigation or tender his resignation. Is he prepared to make a gesture to clear his own name?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday when I was away from Ottawa, apparently a package of material was given to the RCMP. They looked at it and found nothing there which compelled their further attention. Apparently, further information was given to them within a day or two, and they are now proceeding to an inquiry about that matter. That inquiry is still going on. We will await the results of the inquiry before commenting further.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just proved my point. He is already completely confused about what happened last Thursday and Friday. He tells us that Thursday, a package of material was examined by the RCMP. It wasn't like that at all. The Minister of National Defence told us the exact opposite. Thursday, the investigation had already been completed, and the Minister of National Defence said that a second investigation had been ordered that night.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works doesn't know what happened in his own Department and what his own staff was doing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works has also sinned by omission. In his press release last Saturday, he said: To my knowledge, the actions of Mr. J.C. Gosselin, who was a member of my staff... ", and so forth. Mr. Speaker, why didn't the Minister of Public Works mention the actions of his present chief of staff, Mr. Ron Lefebvre, who was also involved several times in this matter? Why did the Minister justify what was done by Mr. J.C. Gosselin but forget about Ron Lefebvre?

September 28, 1988
Oral Questions


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I heard all of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stewart Donald McInnes: But in any event, I got a letter. It was a complaint by an employee of Public Works. He wanted a comment from me. I asked to have the letter investigated, and until the RCMP have concluded their inquiry 1 will withhold further comment.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Canadian Home Builders' Association has said that the Conservatives' proposed sales tax to be implemented if the Government is re-elected will add approximately $10,000 to the selling price of a newly constructed home. If we use today's Royal LePage figures, for an average home in Halifax that means a rise from $93,000 to $101,000, a rise in Montreal from $102,000 to $111,000, a rise in Toronto from $225,000 to $245,000, and a rise in Vancouver from $160,000 to $174,000. Given that this is going to mean that home ownership for the average Canadian family will be too expensive, why is the Government prepared to take away the dream of home ownership from thousands of average Canadians and their families by implementing such a tax?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Fear mongering.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I don't think it's so funny.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to help the Hon. Member with some statements in the past months he has obviously missed. First, he knows that neither the base nor the rate for the new federal sales tax has been decided. Therefore, his complaint is very premature.
Second, the Minister of Finance spoke directly to the Canadians to whom the Member made reference this morning. This is what the Minister of Finance said in Regina on December 6. "He said that when the new system is clear, and there are a great many details to be settled, we will assess
whether it might pose a barrier to affordable housing. If it does, we will take action to address the problem either by assisting individuals and families directly or by modifying the operation of the tax in this important area. We will do so in the spirit of reasonable consultation I described a few moments ago.
That is the answer to the Hon. Member's question. This Government has been working hard in housing and this is fully consistent with that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I don't know why the Government just doesn't exempt housing.


REQUEST THAT HOUSE PURCHASES BE EXEMPT FROM TAX
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Last year in my province Premier Bill Vander Zalm put on a property purchase tax, which meant a $1,600 increase for houses in the Lower Mainland, and his pal here in Ottawa, the Government led by the present Prime Minister, is going to put on a tax which will mean an increase of $10,000 on houses. I want to ask the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Don't be silly!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: These are the figures from the Government's own tax papers. Given that interest rates are up, given that housing prices are up according to today's figures, given that the Government is spending like a drunken sailor right now and will need taxation after the election, will the Government now say it will exempt home purchases from this proposed new sales tax and finally give a break to average Canadians and their families who need it to purchase houses?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that the Hon. Member should do some mathematics. First of all, there is federal sales tax and provincial sales tax being levied on building materials today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not like this.


Thomas Hockin: Those, of course, will be removed and factored into our new multi-stage sales tax. Together with that, this Government has reduced the deficit from over 8 per cent of GDP to a little over 4 per cent in four years.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You have taxed the average family more.


Thomas Hockin: That is putting an economic context in place so that the average Canadian can not only earn a living but buy a home as well.
September 28, 1988


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in 1985 this Government announced it would cut back on training and recruitment programs for the Public Service and get rid of thousands of jobs in the Public Service through attrition. This the Government has done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: It has led to understaffing at air traffic control centres, for example, right from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Gander, Newfoundland.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the Government this week is sending letters right throughout the United States offering Canadian air traffic controller jobs to Americans who were fired from their jobs in 1981. Why go to so much trouble to issue ministerial permits and orders to circumvent the Immigration Act and the Public Service hiring laws, and the security laws, just to hire Americans who have not worked since 1981, when so many Canadians are willing to train for these Public Service jobs?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, and President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that indeed there is a short-term shortage of controllers. Some 40 or so are being hired on an interim basis.


Don Boudria: From where? From the United States.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Outside the country. That is what I am informed. I think in large part this is due to the successful results of regulatory reform which has provided more transportation to more communities and, therefore, more people travelling, particularly in the Toronto area, and that is where the shortage is critical.


OFFER OF JOBS TO AMERICANS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago some Newfoundland applicants were refused even an opportunity to apply for air traffic control training positions because the notification of their interview time had come late in the mail due to the decrease, the downgrading of our mail service. Now, coincidentally when the head of Canada Post, Donald Lander, this week was given a huge salary increase, the Americans are taking Canadian jobs.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify giving the Americans free room and board, free relocation, all expenses paid, when the mobility grants for Canadians were halted by this Government? How can he justify an on-the-job training allowance for the Americans of over $1,000 a week, $5,000 a month, which is not available to Canadians? Why this handout to the Americans and a backhand to Canadians?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, simply put, I think the Hon. Member should be congratulating the Government, because the air traffic into Toronto has exceeded all expectations. In fact the Toronto air traffic control centre is now handling over 600,000 flights a year. That traffic was not forecast to occur until 1991. This is largely in part due to the success of regulatory reform, and the tremendous acceptance of it and the tremendous impact it has had on service to more Canadians-


Mr. Gauthier:: You were warned.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and more Canadians travelling by air.


Mr. Tobin:: You were warned, and you know it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It concerns the radar base sale in Moisie, Quebec. Yesterday in the House, in reply to a question I asked the Minister, he told me there was not even a hint of impropriety in the letter Mr. Hylands wrote to him in early August, a letter which he refuses to table in this House and which reads in part:
Jean-Claude Gosselin became involved in this disposal. I acceded to Mr. Gosselin's request for a meeting with a Mr. Cote, a P.C. organizer who was lobbying for Lefebvre's tender-
Mr. Thibault, the choice of the local municipalities, increased his total offer to an amount superior to the amended Lefebvre offer. This situation resulted in Mr. Gosselin's request that I meet with Mr. Cote on behalf of Mr. Lefebvre's interest-
Will the Minister not agree that these statements constitute not only a hint of impropriety but an impropriety itself, and the letter should have been turned over to the RCMP then and there?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, 1 have never used the "hint" with respect to this particular issue. We are not aware of a Conservative organizer by the the name of Cote. An official, one of my departmental assistants received a phone call requesting that he arrange an interview with Mr. Hylands. It is the kind of request I have had from virtually every single person in this House. It is one of the obligations we accept when we are Members of Parliament, to ensure that anybody has the opportunity to make proper representation to any of the public servants. That was done and it was done in the normal course of events.
This letter indicated that nothing was untoward. There was no complaint in the letter. It was from an aggrieved individual who was taken off the file. And my position has been made very clear on this.

September 28, 1988
Oral Questions


REFERRAL OF LETTER TO RCMP
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In light of the fact that the Minister is staying on this old saw that Mr. Hyland's letter was a personal grievance, if this is the case, if this letter was a personal grievance letter because he was taken off the case, why did the Minister turn this letter over to the RCMP which was doing an investigation into the land sale at Moisie? Has the RCMP suddenly become the shop steward?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, when allegations were made outside of the letter, it was brought to my attention that the RCMP had been given suggestions about undue influence or something of that nature. I immediately suggested it would be appropriate for the RCMP to have everything in my possession. That was the course we followed.


AGRICULTURE
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister knows, several weeks ago the federal Government and the Province of Ontario entered into an agreement to provide $100 million in assistance to Ontario's grape and wine industry. The negotiations are now under way with the province and the representatives of the industry. However, grape growers are anxious to be provided with the details of the distribution package. Will the Minister provide the House with an update as to how the negotiations are going and as to when an announcement will be made in this important area?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in this very important subject. Of course we are continuing to discuss this $100 million initiative with the province, with the industry, and particularly with the growers. I believe he is aware that there are various aspects to this program, including the acreage reduction, price support, marketing, and surplus removal.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why was this program necessary in the first place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The program was necessary because of a GATT ruling of which Members opposite are so much in favour. I challenge the Member to read the press release which was signed by Ontario and the Government of Canada.
In the meantime I want to assure the Hon. Member that the Government is assisting in the purchase of surplus grapes. Approximately 12,000 tonnes have already been purchased. This will continue. I am optimistic that the details of the program will be worked out very soon.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to return to the admission he made a few moments ago about the deplorable conditions at Toronto International Airport and the excuses he made for that which we in the Opposition do not accept. We insist that urgent steps be taken to try to remedy the problem for the travelling public.
Without excusing those conditions, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government is aware that there is an underused federal airport in Hamilton? Why have no efforts been made by the Government to increase the traffic there, including the possibility of using that airport as an alternative to sitting on the tarmac in Ottawa, for example, waiting for at least two and sometimes three hours before one can take off and fly to the Toronto area?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed addressing the very serious problems. That is why additional air traffic controllers are being brought in on an interim basis. The fact is that this Government has done a lot to improve the conditions at the Hamilton Airport. As a matter of fact there was a serious dispute with regard to the removal of some trees which had the effect of limiting the use of the Hamilton Airport. This was done. Of course we are encouraging the utilization of Hamilton in every way, shape and form.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT HAMILTON AIRPORT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is a former Minister of Transport. Would he undertake to visit Hamilton Airport to meet with the citizens' groups that are concerned with the underutilization of that airport? Will he take steps and make a commitment to increase the traffic at that airport?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have probably visited the Hamilton Airport more times than the Hon. Member even though he lives in the area. As a matter of fact I participated in the opening of the new airport terminal building.
September 28, 1988


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. I want to remind the Minister that his Department took part in the tendering of a cleaning contract for Canada Post. The president of the company which was a higher bidder and was awarded the contract said that after all the bids were in officials of Canada Post said they still wanted his company to do the job even though it was the second highest of the four bidders. He said: "They asked me to negotiate the bid". He said that he lowered his bid by about 10 per cent to make it slightly lower than Federated's and then was awarded the contract.
Does the Minister not agree that this has all the appearances of undermining the integrity of the bidding process? Is the Minister prepared to put a stop to this? Will he investigate it? What will he do to preserve the integrity of the bidding process so that people with the lowest bid can get fair treatment and get the contract?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, our Department handles thousands of contracts a year. I have not been given notice of this question and I do not know to what contract the Hon. Member refers. As a matter of general principle, Crown corporations are not subject to quite the guidelines that are imposed on Departments of Government. Canada Post has the final say on who they want to hire. All we do is administer the procedure.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is really a great surprise to know that this Minister is not concerned about this situation. Why is he prepared to allow a situation where the tendering process is stopped, while the person who made the highest bid, or nearly, receives the contract and the one who made the lowest bid is ignored? Why is he prepared to let this situation continue without taking any action?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, if this matter is of the importance that the Hon. Member gives it, 1 thought he would have given notice to me so that we might have it investigated.


Cyril Keeper: Do you not read The Globe and Mail?


Stewart Donald McInnes: It is not required reading, Mr. Speaker, no.
There are a lot of considerations in the awarding of contracts. There are three or four considerations and price is one of them. There are many others. If the Hon. Member gives me an indication of the file to which he refers, I will be glad to investigate it.
Oral Questions


SOCIAL JUSTICE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and relates to the statements made by the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Getty, who said that the Province of Quebec got everything that the Premier of Quebec asked for. Moreover, Mr. Getty used the bilingualism policy to justify his statements by saying, "Bilingualism should not be rammed down our throats."
Since the Deputy Prime Minister comes from Alberta, could he talk with the Premier of that province to remind him that Quebec has not had its fair share, that Quebec got none of the frigate contracts, that this resulted in the closing of two shipyards, that despite many promises, Quebec has not got the space agency and that it has only received $560 million for regional development, while the West got more than a billion dollars and the Atlantic provinces.. . Could he ask the Premier of Alberta to stop spreading falsehoods, when Quebec has not got its fair share, economically?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the press this morning that the Premier has modified his statement. I think that should be noted. I have not had a chance to speak to him about it, but I think it is worth noting that he also indicated that the present Government reflects western needs better than any other federal Government. 1 think that is really an understatement. [Translation]


REQUEST THAT DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER FORCE ALBERTA PREMIER TO REVISE STATEMENTS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is serious and I would hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will speak to the Premier of Alberta. The attitude of the Premier of Alberta tends to arouse all Westerners against Quebec because they believe that Quebec gets everything. Quebec has got nothing from the Conservative Government. It is just verbal pollution and rhetoric from the Prime Minister that makes people think that Quebec has got everything. Would the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to ask the Premier of Alberta and to tell him that in the field of research, science and technology, Quebec gets crumbs, while the other provinces get most of the contracts and that in Montreal alone, Quebec is still waiting for its money to develop the old port, while all the other municipalities got theirs? Could he ask Premier Getty to keep his statements to himself?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I just quoted what the Premier said about this Government in terms of its support for the West. I think all Hon. Members would agree, if they were just to be a little bit objective, that this Government has been fair for the East, for the West, for Central Canada, for the North-

September 28, 1988
Oral Questions Mr. Nystrom: Big business.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and for the average Canadian because we have provided jobs like no other Government has in the history of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister, or whomever might be answering for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It has to do with cases that I am sure all Members of Parliament are aware of and have had brought to their attention, but which have arisen particularly of late in Winnipeg. I refer to the question of unemployment insurance benefits for women who cannot work because they have to take time out to care for their terminally-ill children.
A number of cases have come up in this regard and people have been denied benefits. Has the Government had an opportunity to consider this matter? It has had a profile recently. Is the Government prepared to say today that the regulations will be changed so that mothers or parents who are put in this very difficult situation will not be penalized by the current regulations?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration not being in the House at this time I will be happy to take the question as notice and relay it to them.
There are already some cases that are under judicial review and some decisions have been rendered. I know that the Department is looking at some of those cases now. Perhaps that is the case with regard to the subject that the Hon. Member is bringing up today.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is not a case of anything that is before any judicial process. This is a matter of policy that the Government has the freedom to adopt. This is not something new. This issue has been around. I am sure that there are Members of Parliament in the Minister's own caucus who have run into these kinds of situations.
Frankly, I am a bit surprised that the Government is not more forthcoming at this point. What could possibly be wrong
with the Government getting up and announcing an intention to change the regulations so that parents who are put in this very difficult situation are not penalized in the way they are now? It has to do with the whole question of parental leave.
In that respect I ask the Minister whether or not the Government is prepared to say today that it is not going to appeal the decision with respect to Shalom Shacter. These are issues that the Government needs to come clean on now before the election so that Canadians can know whether the Government is prepared to act compassionately in this regard.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take the Member's statements as representations, of course. I am sure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will respond as rapidly as she can.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, but in her absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
My question concerns the TV5 network and the "Franco-phonie" outside Quebec which has yet to receive this signal. We know that TV5 is the brain child of the Francophonie Summit and is supported by five francophone entities: Canada and Quebec, France, Belgium, Switzerland and francophone Africa.
This week, from what was said by the Minister of Communications, I understood that action will be taken and a decision made with respect to this network. We know that at the present time, Francophones outside Quebec cannot receive the signal, except for a few small groups.
Has the Government finally decided to give francophones across Canada access to this important network and thus achieve a long-awaited goal?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I think he realizes this is a crucial matter and that we are very aware of the need for a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I am informed that discussions are under way at the present time which should lead to positive results. I am also informed, Mr. Speaker, that if there is no positive outcome of these discussions, the Government would certainly consider some kind of solution.
September 28, 1988


ACCESS TO TVS PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister will remember the problems we had a few years ago with the broadcasting of the Olympic Games in Calgary. It took a year and a half for the Government to take action on this matter. We don't want to wait a year and a half, to be told that the TV5 network is not available.
Could the Minister tell Canadians today that the $1.8 million invested in this project will not be wasted, that TV5 will soon be available, if not tomorrow, at least soon, in other words, next week, so that we in the Canadian Diaspora will have access to an international francophone network?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that again, there is at least one point on which the Hon. Member and the Government are agreed: Our investment should provide the expected return. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that a solution will be found and implemented in less than a year and a half.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic. This will be the last question.
* *
*


AIR SAFETY
Dave Nickerson: My question is addressed to whomever is answering for the Minister of Transport.
Last week, a Canadian Airlines International Boeing 737 left Yellowknife on a routine flight to Cambridge Bay, but somehow ended up at Churchill, Manitoba, 1,000 miles and 90 degrees off course. In the process it violated the airspace of many major routes.
I would like to know how did this happen, and what will happen in future to prevent a recurrence of this dangerous type of incident.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is a matter that would be referred to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Indeed, I would assume that it would be a matter that would be-


Ms. McDonald:: It's the new continental policy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Perhaps if you want the NDP to answer the question you may not get the answer you like, Mr. Speaker.
Committee Reports
Obviously, the company will want to assess this particular incident in terms of its safety standards as well.
I can assure the Hon. Member that one of the advantages of the new changes to the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is that they can involve themselves in the investigation of these kinds of incidents, and have a thorough and objective analysis and report on a subject of this nature. I am sure that the Hon. Member, as well other Hon. Members, would want to be as assured that this process would indeed take place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition No. 332-5405.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Eighteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(a), your Committee recommends that the following items be designated as "votable items": Motion No. 216, in the name of the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling); Bill C-266, in the name of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse); and Motion No. 186, in the name of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).

I note that pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b) this eighteenth report is deemed to have been adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

September 28, 1988
Petitions


PETITIONS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions from residents of Delta, Surrey, particularly Crescent Beach, and Tsawwassen, British Columbia.
The petitioners state that when the South Moresby Park Agreement was signed the federal Government committed itself to spending $20 million or more to explore for minerals and hydrocarbons in this First National Marine Park. They point out, however, that exploring for hydrocarbons in these waters is dangerous.
The West Coast of British Columbia is Canada's most earthquake-prone region, and the Queen Charlotte area has an even higher earthquake activity than the San Andreas Fault.
Therefore, the petitioners do not want any more hydrocarbon exploration activities to take place in their coastal waters, be they initiated by the public or private sector, nor do they want government to pay for any such activities.
As in duty bound, the petitioners pray.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition to present from people in Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Tsawwassen, and other points along the lower mainland of British Columbia. They are petitioning the House and asking that all exploration activities agreed to in the South Moresby Park Agreement be discontinued and that the Government not pay for any such activities, a commitment of $20 million having been made in the South Moresby Park Agreement.
They also point out that the earthquake danger is higher than the San Andreas Fault in California, that the sea in that area is among the roughest and most unpredictable in the world, and that it could be a potential ecological disaster to open up a hole into an oil well in that area.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have several different petitions to present, all of them approved according to the rules, Standing Order 106.
One of them is from citizens of several places in Ontario who are very concerned that Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees. They are afraid that most refugees who reach our borders will be turned away without having the merits of their case heard, because there is no sufficient appeal except on points of law, because the safe third country notion has no foundation in law, no definition, and because the standing committee of Parliament produced three years ago a far better, fairer and quicker system for dealing with refugee claims within Canada.
Therefore, they request that Parliament ensure that the Government withdraw Bill C-55, substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants, and that there be universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of residents of Canada who are concerned that the South Moresby Park Agreement, which was signed in June, means that the federal Government is committing itself to spending $20 million or more to explore for minerals and hydrocarbons in what it is calling the First National Marine Park.
They point out that mining or drilling will render the whole concept of park creation meaningless. They also point out that the West Coast is Canada's most earthquake-prone zone and that the Hecate Strait is among the roughest and most unpredictable seas in the world.
Therefore, they request that Parliament understand that they do not want any more hydrocarbon exploration to take place in the coastal waters, and that they do not want the Government to be paying for it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions from a number of residents of the City of Toronto who are concerned with the promise that the Government made nearly three years ago that Canadian permanent residents should have the same right as Canadian citizens to sponsor parents of any age.
They are asking the Government to have that promise fulfilled now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Toronto who point out that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal threatens the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty, has no mandate from the Canadian people, would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social, and cultural programs that we need, and would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, the undersigned ask Parliament to ensure that the national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate results in a national general election before any agreement is finalized.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present to this House a number of petitions coming from residents of southeast New Brunswick, more particularly from the communities of Albert, West
September 28, 1988

River, Hopewell Cape, Riverside, Pennfield, and many other communities in Albert County.
These petitioners feel that they are not being treated fairly in that the Government has changed the admissibility period for UIC from 10 weeks to 16 weeks. In their case, the Government is not taking any action to change the regulations so that the admissibility period is brought back to 10 weeks, and this action was taken by this Government in other parts of Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, and in Port Moody, British Columbia, who say that on July 12, 1988, when the South Moresby Park Agreement was signed, the federal Government committed itself to spending $20 million or more to explore for hydrocarbons in the South Moresby marine park.
Whereas the Queen Charlotte region has higher earthquake activity than the San Andreas Fault in California, whereas Hecate Strait has the roughest, most unpredictable sea in the world, the undersigned do not want any more hydrocarbon exploration activities to take place in their coastal waters, nor do they want this Government to pay for such activities.
I may say, having visited all those areas, that I agree with the petitioners and that 1 am proud to present these petitions.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 289.


Mr. Boudria: Since September 17, 1984, has any government department, agency or Crown corporation made payments of any kind to Mr. Jean Sirois of Quebec and, if so, in each case, what was (a) the name of the (i) department, agency or Crown corporation (ii) Minister responsible at the time for the payment (b) the (i) amount (ii) purpose of the payment?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: The following government institutions have made payments to Mr. Jean Sirois:
Employment and Immigration Canada, (a) (ii) The Hon. Flora MacDonald (b) (i) $1,590. (ii) To act as a legal representative of the Crown with regard to lawsuits against unemployment insurance claimants filed by the Investigation and Control Directorate.
Motions for Papers
National Film Board of Canada. (From September 25, 1985 to October 1986)
(a)	(ii) The Hon. Benoit Bouchard
(b)	(i)	$ 475.00 (ii) Honoraria and fees
1,013.13 Travel and hospitality expenses
(a)	(ii) The Hon. Marcel Masse
(b) (i)	$12,125.00 (ii) Honoraria and fees
19,341.80	Travel and hospitality expenses
1,658.92	Telephones, photocopies and courier
(a)	(ii) The Hon. Flora MacDonald
(b) (i)	$7,350.00 (ii) Honoraria and fees
2,598.08	Travel and hospitality expenses
124.31	Telephones, photocopies and courier
Telefilm Canada
(a) (ii) The Hon. Flora MacDonald
(b) (i)	$53,500.00	(ii)	Honorarium for 1986/87 (1986.07.17 to 1987.03.31)$70,000.00	(ii)	Honorarium for 1987/88 (1987.04.01 to 1988.01.31)$42,727.62	(ii)	Travel and hospitality expenses (1986.07.17 to 1987.03.31)$48,938.38	(ii)	Travel and hospitality expenses (1987.04.01 to 1988.01.31)
Other departments, agencies and Crown corporations have made no payments to Mr. Jean Sirois.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

September 28, 1988
Broadcasting Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.