1988-07-27

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, from newspaper reports it would appear that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has finally understood that Canadian water is threatened by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal.
We learned today that an amendment to the trade deal will likely be made by the Government so as to exclude Canadian water from the trade Bill and prevent exports and diversions. This would be a welcome development. Yet, to be effective, the Minister should take the advice of Mel Clark, a former GATT negotiator for Canada, and Don Gamble of the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Sciences, and amend the trade agreement itself.
Unfortunately, the Minister said he will not amend the agreement. In light of that decision, the Prime Minister could save us all a lot of time and energy by calling an election and letting Canadians decide whether or not the Government should sell our water down the river.


PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, today in Kansas City, Missouri, Sandra Brown of the city of Stoney Creek in Lincoln riding will be elected international President of the Professional Secretaries International Association. The association
represents 40,000 professionals from 65 countries around the world. It has been 21 years since a Canadian held this position.
Sandra's contribution and involvement in the association for the last 16 years will serve her well in her upcoming leadership role. Her election is an example of the ever increasing involvement of Canadians in shaping policies in global organizations. Lincoln is proud of Sandra and wishes her well.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, British Columbians were shocked and outraged yesterday to learn that former Social Credit Attorney General, Brian Smith, had hired four private detectives to infiltrate and spy on Concerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion. Over $12,000 of public funds were spent on this sleazy operation which involved, among other things, secretly taping conversations and stealing membership lists.
The operation was co-ordinated through the Vancouver law offices of Farris, Vaughan, Wills and Murphy and, in particular, by Smith's legal henchman, Jack Giles. Brian Smith says he reported regularly to the office of Premier Bill Vander Zalm through principal secretary David Poole.
It is absolutely disgusting that government power should be abused in this way to spy on a respected group of citizens seeking to establish a free-standing clinic offering abortion and other reproductive health services in British Columbia. The current Attorney General should immediately turn over all records collected in this immoral operation.
I call upon Conservative Members of Parliament to join with me and my colleagues, and the vast majority of British Columbians, in saying to the discredited, collapsing, unethical Vander Zalm Government, in the name of God, go!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, there is a cash flow problem facing those prairie

July 27, 1988
farmers in drought areas who will have little or no crop this year. The per bushel price guarantee under crop insurance is well below market. At the same time higher prices will likely preclude another Canada Special Grains Program. Therefore, some assistance is needed to bridge the shortfall.
I urge the Federal-Provincial Drought Committee to strongly consider utilizing crop insurance as the vehicle to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of any possible drought assistance to grain and oilseed producers.


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 1988, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) released "Draft Legislation-Retirement Savings". You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) recently said we can have either a fair or a simple tax system, not both. Indeed, the legislation on retirement savings is not simple.
The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto has stated that the Department of Finance is adding complexity and confusion. One feature of the new system will be that anyone who is covered by a pension plan, who is also able to contribute to an RRSP, will have to rely on Revenue Canada for information about how much can be deducted each year for an RRSP contribution. This is because the new system is so complex that only actuaries will be able to quantify the annual entitlement.
We await the tabling of the Bill, which may now be delayed until after an election. Meanwhile we have pension plan administrators and pension contributors around the country readying themselves for the implementation of nightmarish new rules that may not even be passed into law in the foreseeable future.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has just given the Farm Credit Corporation $400 million in assistance that will help restore its finances; this makes clear that he supports this organization. Furthermore, the Minister announced that additional funds would be invested in the FCC over the next three years.
Last December, the Prime Minister gave $100 million to wipe out the FCC's losses, in addition to the other funds given
so that it could fully participate in the farm debt review process.
Over the last four years, the Government has taken measures worth nearly $10 billion for the food and agriculture sector.
This shows once again that the Conservative Government cares about Canadian agriculture. These achievements in agriculture are unequaled and are intended to ensure that farmers have all the tools they need to prosper.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Diversification Program has been announced and reannounced on an almost daily basis by Conservatives in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia as a fund wholly and solely for western Canada, but it is our tax dollars provided to projects which will diversify our western economy.
We learn this month that to Conservatives "western" means Ontario and "diversification" means moving industry from the West to Ontario. This Conservative Government in Ottawa has chosen to give $750,000 from the Western Diversification Fund to Cobra Enterprises Limited which moved from Vancouver to Markham, Ontario, two months ago. This company makes anti-theft alarms for automobiles. Too bad there is not a similar alarm attached to the Western Diversification Fund.
The next time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) crows about the Western Diversification Fund, those of us who live in the West will remember Cobra. We might even drive by the empty Cobra headquarters in Vancouver and remember that with the Conservatives at the till the Western Diversification Fund is to help steal western jobs and businesses to the east.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT OF SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to read the July-August issue of Small Business. The magazine features free trade. Its editorials illustrate that Canada's business community overwhelmingly gives the green light to the free trade agreement.
July 27, 1988

The magazine shows that the vast majority of small businesses agree on one thing-Canada will benefit from free trade. They are not afraid to compete in the largest market in the world.
This issue of Small Business should be placed on the summer reading list of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
I know that the Hon. Member from Canada's best example of free trade, Oshawa, will also be interested in what ordinary businessmen have to say.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON GRAPE GROWERS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin). We have heard the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). I would like to throw them a challenge.
Will the Conservatives sink to a new low as they have done with the free trade deal? These Members in the Niagara Peninsula and in the Okanagan Valley are so afraid of competition from opposition in the election that they have actually written a clause into the grape deal which states that no Member of Parliament can actually take advantage of the deal.
What that is saying is that members of the agricultural community who have a legitimate battle to fight, who have grapes that they will have to bury over the next few weeks as they are ripening on the vines, with no market, do not have the right to run for Parliament because they will not be able to participate in the Government's pay-out on the free trade deal to the grape farmers.
That is a fact. The Government knows that it is a fact. The reason it has put it into place is because areas such as the Niagara Peninsula and the Okanagan Valley will reject the Conservatives totally.
I would like to give the grape farmers a chance to have their say. I would like to give the grape farmers a chance to run. Go to it!


THE FRANCHISE
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, last week, like many other Canadians, I read in The Toronto Star that Mr. Justice Bowlby of the Ontario Supreme Court struck down as
unconstitutional Section 16 of the Ontario Elections Act which disqualified federal and provincial inmates, taking away their right to vote, and feels that these men and women should have the right to vote. Like many other Canadians, I am appalled by this thought. I believe, as many other Canadians do, that when prisoners enter prison they lose their right to vote and other rights as normal citizens.
I call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to call upon his provincial counterparts to encourage the provincial Attorneys General to have the Crown appeal this decision.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Parti Quebe?ois is quoted in today's press as advocating tax discrimination against companies that obtain federal funds to provide services in English in Quebec.
He also expressed concern that non-profit groups which run shelters for battered women and day care centres, which are forced to operate on very limited budgets, might be tempted to hire bilingual staff in order to increase their revenues. "That's frightening", he says, "to subject people to such temptations."
We understand and appreciate the desire to establish French as the language of public life in Quebec. But hundreds of thousands of Anglophone Quebecers would appreciate services in their own language. And, if they become the only bilingual people in Quebec, surely it would not be unfair for the federal Government to assist in their employment and the resulting service in both French and English.
Canadian history reveals so many instances of the refusal of English-speaking majorities to respect the rights of linguistic minorities, especially the French-speaking communities outside Quebec. I look forward to the day when the people of Quebec, secure in the vigour of their French, will be ready to accept the use of English in their province as well.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF SENATE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the unelected Senate wants an election on free trade. In 1949, did the unelected Senate demand elections on Canada's entry into NATO? In 1959, did the unelected Senate demand elections on the NORAD agreement? In 1982, did the Senate demand

July 27, 1988
elections on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Did it demand elections on the patriation of the Canadian Constitution? Do the unelected Senators promise to resign if the people say no to the Senate and yes to free trade in the election?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, more than two years ago, the Conservative Government abolished the early retirement program that existed to help workers 55 and over in the textile, footwear and clothing industries and even in outlying regions.
Unfortunately, for two years, this Government has been unable to reach an agreement with the provincial governments to give older workers who are in difficulty as a result of the free trade agreement and who lose their jobs an early retirement program so that people of 50 and older could have a decent income.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will ask the Minister of Labour to end these negotiations and to restore the former program that existed under the Liberals, which helped older workers have decent incomes.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the offer by Dofasco Inc. on July 18 to buy Algoma Steel Corporation Ltd. has raised some grave concerns on the part of Wawa residents about its impact on the iron ore mine there.
Both Dofasco President, Paul Phoenix, and Algoma President, Peter Nixon, have stated that Algoma Steel Corporation will continue to operate independently as a wholly owned subsidiary and have assured Wawa residents that the Dofasco offer does not change anything with regard to the future of the Algoma Ore Division operation in Wawa.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the latest undemocratic anti-women tactics of the Socred Government of B.C. smell of totalitarianism. They are an affront to those who are struggling to provide options for women who seek medical abortions.
The government tactics of infiltrating the concerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion, in order to steal mailing lists and spy on plans for an abortion clinic, are a denial of civil rights and the constitutional right of assembly.
Since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Morgentaler case, abortion clinics are now legal. In Quebec and Ontario they provide safer, more cost effective, more accessible abortion services, with counselling.
Costs of abortion should be covered under the Canada Health Act. The Vander Zalm Government was proven wrong when it refused medical coverage for hospital abortions. It continues to ignore the Supreme Court decision by allowing unconstitutional therapeutic abortion committees. Now we learn that the government will stoop to any tactics to carry out the Premier's personal anti-women, anti-choice agenda. It should resign and go to the people for judgment.


THE ANTARCTIC
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in order to provide for the orderly exploitation of Antarctic hydrocarbon and mineral resources, the "Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities" was negotiated last June under the auspices of the United Nations.
Canadian oil, gas, and mining companies are world leaders in polar operations.
Under the Convention it is up to the state party thereto to represent the commercial applicant for the purposes of acquiring exploration and production rights.
Therefore, the Government of Canada should expeditiously put in place a mechanism so that Canadian companies can get in on the ground floor with respect to these new Antarctic opportunities.
July 27, 1988


TRIBUTE TO PAGE STAFF
Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members would want me to take a moment to thank our 42 parliamentary Pages.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I can say to the Pages that I was going to read a bit of a statement, but I think that the House has expressed itself very well indeed.
I do want to say to all of the Pages that we are very impressed with your service this year, even though I understand that your skill at either hockey or softball is not that of the assembled Members of Parliament!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you very much for everything you have done. Bonne Chance!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Minister for International Trade does not want to confuse himself with the facts by reading essential documents. I wonder if he has had an opportunity yet to read the final version of the U.S. Bill implementing the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, particularly those sections which I think that most Canadians will find outrageous and will find out that they have been substantially misled by the Government in all its guarantees and assurances.
There is now provision within that legislation to authorize the President to begin negotiating new measures dealing with investment in energy and culture, to eliminate all the clauses that have been grandfathered in the agreement, to begin to develop brand new regimes that would eliminate all the assurances that we have received.
Considering that that is now the U.S. agenda, does the Canadian Government agree to the negotiation of new measures in energy and culture? Is that part of the deal, that we have agreed to further give away and further sell out these crucial parts of the Canadian integrity?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the premises of the hon. gentleman's question are
Oral Questions
entirely incorrect. In the U.S. legislation, in the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanies it, it is said in several areas that the Congress would like the President to discuss with or negotiate with Canada certain other matters. Of course, it takes two people to negotiate.
We intend to be negotiating with the United States at the GATT negotiations. We intend to be negotiating with 96 other countries in the GATT round of negotiations. We are not going to negotiate or refuse to discuss with the United States matters that it might want to discuss, and we have matters that we want to discuss with it.
The hon. gentleman's statements about what is in the U.S. legislation otherwise are completely erroneous. If he is such a great reader and such an astute reader, would he refer to one specific item that I can then deal with, and not these wild, unfounded scurrilous, nonsensical pieces of nonsense that he gets on with?
He dealt with his own colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie this morning. No wonder he is irritable, because there now appear to be two trade critics in the Liberal Party.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to help the Hon. Minister with his remedial reading program, because I know that he needs all the help that he can get.
Section 304(B) states that the President is authorized to begin negotiations "to the extension of the principles of the Agreement to energy and cultural industries, to the extent such industries are not currently covered by the Agreement". That is written in black and white in the U.S. legislation, and the Minister may want to take the time to read it.
By saying in the House that it is now in agreement to conduct negotiations, why is the Government agreeing to a further elimination of protection for our cultural industries, further elimination of protection for our energy industries? Are we now agreed that we are now in a new bilateral negotiation giving away more that we gave away the last time?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman better get somebody to give him a slide show. He does not understand what he reads.
This states that Congress would like the President to negotiate. Naturally they want the President to negotiate because the President did not get very much from Canada in the free trade agreement that is now before Parliament, so they want to continue negotiating, and we intend to continue negotiating. So does the Liberal Party, because the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie said today: "The Liberals will tell Canadians we won't negotiate one deal with the U.S. but several deals with other countries. We won't put all our eggs in one basket".

July 27, 1988
Oral Questions
The Liberals are not going to negotiate just with the United States, but with all countries. Then we discover later on today in another statement the hon. gentleman says that a Liberal Government would not seek unilateral free trade agreements.


EAST COAST FISHING INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Just to correct the Minister again, the legislation specifically reads "The President is authorized"-"not we would like"-he is authorized to enter into these negotiations.
Further, we had received assurances in this House that the whole question of the protection of the East Coast fishery would be established. Yet under this agreement, Section 305, the United States Government clearly takes on the power to undertake retaliatory action against any effort by Canada to apply control on unprocessed fish.


Some Hon. Members:: Read it properly.


Lloyd Axworthy: Canada will no longer be able to provide for the processing of fish without retaliation from the United States. Do you call that free trade, Mr. Minister? You have just given away the whole East Coast fishing industry. Why are you allowing that to happen?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, luckily some Canadians are looking on so they can see the kind of spectacle we see every day in this House. The Hon. Member is raising unfounded fear. We protected the East Coast fishing industry, and in the U.S. legislation-


Lloyd Axworthy: You better read the document.


John Carnell Crosbie: They can outshout me, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: You can't read.


Lloyd Axworthy: Bring your colouring book next time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman didn't refer to any specific language in any clause to back up his point about the East Coast fishery. He completely ignored the fact that one section that did affect Canada in the proposed legislation has been completely removed, and that is the section having to do with lobsters and the size of lobsters. That has been taken out and removed from the final version of the U.S. legislation. The hon. gentleman does not mention that. He gets up and tries to mislead the House and the Canadian people about a clause to which he doesn't refer. It is a scurrilous performance, but it is his usual performance.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GUARANTEES-NEED FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The
main objective of the talks with the United States was to give Canadian products secure access to American markets. We on this side of the House have said that the talks between Canada and the United States and the agreement that was before the House failed to meet this objective.
Mr. Speaker, President Reagan announced when he tabled his bill-that is what it says in the documents that accompanied the bill-that U.S. anti-dumping laws would continue to apply and that the Americans would continue to enforce other U.S. protectionist laws with respect to Canadian products. Unless the Prime Minister doesn't believe what President Reagan says, unless what comes out of the White House . . . this is no reporter, this is not some third-rate flunky, this is the President of the United States who has clearly set forth in a document the facts that I just mentioned ... I want to ask the Prime Minister this: What is the purpose, what are the reasons for implementing an agreement that doesn't even guarantee the basic conditions for these negotiations? So why not call an election so that Canadians can pass judgement on the stories the Prime Minister has told us?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Montreal says that the Government failed to obtain access to the coveted U.S. market, and that is his complaint. However, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, the Hon. Robert Bourassa, says the exact opposite, namely that Canada and Quebec, as a result of the free trade agreement, have secured an historic and unique access for Quebec's and Canada's products, and that is one of the reasons why Mr. Bourassa and practically all businessmen and economic and social partners in Quebec are in favour of the free trade agreement.


CREDIBILITY OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT AND OF CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada can tell us his version of the story, but there is no agreement if the Americans disagree, and the President of the United States says so clearly in the document he tabled in the U.S. Congress.
And another thing: we were promised secure access, and we do not have it. We were told that elements of our cultural policy were not in the agreement, and they are, according to statements by the U.S. President. We were told that the Auto Pact was not on the table, but the Americans, through their President, tell us that it is. And furthermore, farmers are now ... Mr. Speaker we have been . . . The U.S. President. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 27, 1988


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the statement in Articles 706 and 703 of the documents tabled by the U.S. President, it says that the Reagan administration tried to eliminate all restrictions on exports of U.S. products to Canada, including chickens, eggs and egg products, all of which are subject to Canadian marketing boards, and which the Prime Minister himself said were not affected by the agreement. So who is telling the truth, the U.S President or the Prime Minister of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's headline in La Presse said that:
Business community launches violent attacks on Turner
We read the following:
"The business community is flabbergasted by the decision of the Leader of
the Opposition, Mr. John Turner, to invoke the power of the Liberal majority
in the Senate to block the passage of the free trade agreement.
"I am thunderstruck", exclaimed Mr. Claude Garcia, President of the
Montreal Chamber of Commerce."
Quebecers and the Government of Quebec have taken a position that is completely different from the views expressed by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, and I hope ...


Some Hon. Members:: Explain!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is not my job to explain statements ... it it is not up to me to explain decisions made by a non-Canadian. But I wish someone would explain the contradictory statements made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg this morning!


WATER RESOURCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for International Trade. For some weeks we on this side of the House have been warning the Minister that water is in fact included in the agreement which the Government has negotiated with the United States. The Minister denied this for many days and has now suddenly acknowledged that perhaps there is a legitimate concern.
The Minister has now acknowledged that there is at least potentially a problem with water and he is rumoured to be considering changing the wording. Could he tell us whether in his deliberations he is planning to make changes in the Bill which is actually before Parliament, or is thinking of making changes in the wording of the actual agreement negotiated between Canada and the United States?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain the situation again to the Hon. Member. Water in its natural state is not included in the free trade agreement. There is nothing in the free trade
Oral Questions
agreement that compels Canadians, or even induces Canadians, to permit water in its natural form to be exported to the United States. If that were ever done it would be as a result of a decision of the government of the day that that was its policy. This Government has decided that that is not our policy, and that statement was made last November.
There has been a deliberate campaign of misinformation up and down this country by the two opposition Parties and others who wish to try to stop the free trade agreement. Therefore, I have said that if the majority of the committee believes that it might help to clear up the confusion which has been deliberately planted in the minds of the public to consider an amendment in the free trade legislation, that can be considered. There can be no amendment to the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement is set.
Such an amendment in the legislation is not necessary, but in order to lay to rest these unfounded rumours and insinuations I will be pleased to consider it.
I have in my hand a statement made yesterday by Mr. Yeutter, the U.S. trade negotiator. On July 26 on Canada A.M. he was asked about water.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could come back to that in answering another question.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE CHANGED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has moved from denying the necessity for any change to saying that maybe there could be a change in the legislation. We know that he has extensive knowledge from his vast reading of the details of the agreement.
Will he acknowledge that any law we pass in the Parliament of Canada which contradicts the agreement in terms of subject matters pertinent to the agreement is in effect null and void and, therefore, if we really wish to protect water in the agreement itself it is absolutely essential to have a change in the wording of the agreement rather than in legislation introduced in the House of Commons?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to what was stated by the United States trade representative, Mr. Clayton Yeutter, who negotiated the agreement on behalf of the United States. He was asked yesterday, "There's a lot of concern expressed in Canada in the past few weeks about water and how it figures into the trade deal. Does it?". He said, "Well, as far as I'm concerned, it does not. Certainly we had no intent, as we negotiated the arrangements, to in any way involve ourselves in the water issue".

July 27, 1988
Oral Questions
That is the answer of the United States trade representative. Water is not included. We agree with his statement. Both parties to the agreement agree that water is not included.
We know that bottled water is included as a tariff item in the schedule. We know that compressed air is included as a tariff item in the schedule. However, that does not mean that Canada must sell its air to the United States, although some of it, particularly that surrounding the hon. gentleman, might well be sold to the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, quoting Mr. Yeutter on any aspect of the agreement as it pertains to Canada is like a chicken listening to a quote from Colonel Sanders and believing it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Yeutter is so convinced that water is not included, and the deputy chief negotiator for Canada, a former civil servant, has said that water is included, why will the Minister not put this question to Mr. Yeutter? If he is convinced water is not included, why will he not agree to a change in the agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not been here every day and perhaps he did not hear my answer of some days ago. Mr. Frank Stone of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, who was one of our major negotiators at the GATT and is very experienced, said in an article:
The free trade agreement... has nothing at all to do with the diversion or inter-basin transfer of water.
He said:
Water diversions have never been discussed in the GATT and any suggestion that GATT covers water diversions or inter-basin transfers would be hooted down in Geneva by the GATT member countries.
The hon. gentleman should not bother with chicken. He should bother about those who go around the country crying wolf when all they are trying to do is spread alarm and fear.


CHILD CARE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Government has abdicated its responsibility and failed to ensure national standards through the Canada Child Care Bill. Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare told this House that it was impossible to ensure national standards, that even the Canada Health Act did not have national standards but merely objectives.
Well, one of these objectives is accessibility, an objective sorely missing from the Canada Child Care Bill which does not mention children from lower to middle-income families.
Since the Minister chooses to play with words, will he commit himself and his Government to amending the Canada Child Care Bill to include the national objective of accessibility and to ensure a place for every child in this country?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Child Care Act substantially increases the number of subsidized spaces in Canada by
200.000	over a seven-year period. The Hon. Member should recognize and acknowledge that. If she wants to compare it, for example, to health care, it has been a principle between the federal Government and the provinces that everyone should have access to health care.
The other point I think she should understand is that we developed a child care policy, and many Canadians do not agree that the same comparison either exists or that every child below a certain age, say six and under, should have a place or that there should be a formal day care space for it.
I think the Government, given its fiscal capacity and considering its agreements with the provinces, has moved this forward very substantially this year. The number of spaces has increased by 200,000, involving an increased expenditure of $6.4 billion, and the only people I hear who say it is not enough are the NDP and Liberals and those who wanted to see a different child care system, namely, a universal system fully paid for by the taxpayers. That is supported by less than 10 per cent of the public.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE DAY CARE CENTRES IN EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WILL BE SUBSIDIZED
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we definitely do not agree on the statistics, because these
200.000	spaces over a seven-year period mean 28,000 spaces per year, shared among twelve provinces.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that 57 per cent of children between the ages of six and fourteen are without supervision after school. Quebecers is one of the few provinces that allows the use of school premises after school to supervise these children, and the Government of Quebec is concerned about this Bill. Why? Because the Bill tabled on Monday makes no mention at all of children between the ages of six and fourteen, and because they are actually excluded from the legislation, and I quote: Does not include any service relating wholly or substantially to education.
Will the Minister therefore guarantee that school day care will be subsidized in his new Bill?
July 27, 1988


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the issue of child care spaces within educational facilities has been a matter of discussion between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes the very clear and independent position the current and former Governments of Quebec have taken over a long period of time with respect to provincial rights over education.
What I can say to her is that some of the speculation in the French press over the last few days with respect to the percentages Quebec would receive is just that, speculation. The federal Government has very clearly said in its discussions with Quebec that the province will receive the 50 per cent plus factor, but with respect to school based child care, while we can I think negotiate some of the areas, the Child Care Act is not intended to extend sharing to education and health jurisdictions. That falls within Established Programs Financing. I think when we look at it seriously that is where it should be.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. He is the person in the Government who said that cultural industries are exempt from the trade deal.
In the U.S. administration Statement of Action, which I have here, the U.S. says that any use of this exemption "would be regrettable" and the U.S. would take action "discouraging the exercise of and reliance on this clause in the future".
How can the Government say that culture is exempt when this very clear threat to the use of that exemption exists?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Statement of Administrative Action filed in connection with this legislation is a wish list, a sop to individual Congressmen and Senators to get their support for the Bill. That is the way the congressional system works.
We have provisions in the agreement that exclude cultural industries from the free trade agreement except for a clause that protects us in the event there is some action taken by the U.S. It does not foreclose the U.S. from protesting. It does not foreclose the U.S. from trying to export its own goods and services. It does not foreclose the U.S. from expressing wishes. However, we will determine whether or not its wishes are ever acceded to.
There is nothing in the agreement that gives them any right to enforce any particular position with respect to cultural
Oral Questions
industries. They are fully defended under the agreement, and the hon. gentleman's lachrymose reading of a clause or wish from the Statement of Administrative Action does not change that, no matter how much he might want it to be changed. Ele is Chicken Little following Colonel Barney Sanders there.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that the administrative Statement of Action is a precise statement of what the U.S. Government will do, not what it wishes to do-what it will do-with respect to this agreement.


CULTURAL INDUSTRIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: I have a supplementary. Will this Government get in touch with the U.S. administration to protest this American attack on our cultural industries?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement we have first to realize that both sides negotiated hard and got a good deal for their respective countries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: However, in Canada we protected all of the industries we wished to protect, like the cultural industries and the supply-management system. It is a miracle that we have all of these achievements and reached our objectives as we did.
The hon. gentleman says this is what the U.S. will do. The U.S. is free to do what it wishes, to try to put forward its point of view, to make its arguments. However, when it comes to matters within our jurisdiction we will decide. They can express wishes, we will decide. The Opposition believes that a wish from the U.S. is something that someone must carry out, and probably they would if they were in our position. We believe a wish is to be considered, but we will decide the matters that come within our jurisdiction.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the Prime Minister will not answer why the Government has broken its commitment on culture. Maybe he will answer another question.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: All of us were disgusted to read the press reports in the last several days about the gang rape of a militia officer allegedly involving 15 Armed Forces personnel, including a corporal. We understand that the Associate Minister of National Defence has called for an internal investigation.

July 27, 1988
Oral Questions
Given the seriousness of these allegations, and suggestions that this has been known on the Base for more than three years, does the Prime Minister not believe this warrants an independent investigation outside the Armed Forces?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as this allegation was made public the Associate Minister of National Defence ordered a full investigation by the Special Investigations Unit. They would have the authority and ability to lay charges. If there are any grounds to substantiate those charges, they will be laid.
I am as shocked as the Hon. Member that anyone would claim to have information about this for four years and take some four years before making it public. The Special Investigations Unit will pursue this fully. If there is any basis for criminal charges, they will be laid.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we saw the results of the internal investigation into the RCMP incident where an officer of the Musical Ride was forced to leave that unit after she was filmed in a pornographic way by her fellow officers. Does the Prime Minister not feel that these allegations are serious enough that, to clear the air, we need an independent investigation outside the Armed Forces?
We are talking about allegations that a corporal was involved. We are talking about allegations that a whole Base stood silent for more than three years.
Will the Prime Minister clear the air and appoint an independent investigator outside the Armed Forces to put these allegations to rest or to proceed in a more definitive way?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Special Investigations Unit is from outside CFB Petawawa. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Armed Forces would condone or turn the other way-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Three years.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -from actively pursuing a case in which rape, a criminal offence, took place-


Sheila Maureen Copps: They just did.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Hon. Member has any evidence whatsoever suggesting there has been a cover-up by the Canadian Forces of a criminal activity, let her tender that information. Any such activity would be abhorrent to every member of the Canadian Forces and would be a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada. If there is any basis for charges being laid they will indeed be.


FISHERIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since Dixon Entrance from the AB Line south is listed under Canadian law as our sovereign territorial sea and fishing zone, will the Minister assure the House that it is the policy of the Government of Canada to have enforcement officers on site to board immediately and arrest any U.S. vessel fishing without authority and refusing to comply with the Canadian request to leave the area south of 54:40?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was very careful in phrasing his question, so I will be careful in answering it. We intend to take the required actions to enforce our jurisdiction.


ROLE OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we know that the West Coast fishing industry was not protected under the free trade agreement. There is growing concern that there is a hidden agenda to the free trade agreement over water, fish, plywood and other items.
Why, on June 22, 1988, were federal enforcement personnel in British Columbia advised in writing that their enforcement and arrest powers had been delegated away from them and away from the responsible Ministers? In fact, they are ordered not to take any enforcement action until so instructed by the legal operations branch of External Affairs in Ottawa, even when they are at the scene of a flagrant violation of Canadian law.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will determine the answer to that precise question and communicate it to the Hon. Member. However, he is trying to raise a false fear here about the capacity of the Government of Canada, or the willingness of the Government of Canada to enforce our jurisdiction. That is a false fear. Where there is a Canadian jurisdiction, we shall enforce it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF KENYAN MINISTER FOR FINANCE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Professor George Saitoti, M.P., Minister for Finance, Republic of Kenya.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 27, 1988


TAX REFORM
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. It concerns the Government's so-called tax reform. Although there are tax credits available for post-secondary education, parents of 18-year olds who are still in high school or unemployed lose the existing exemption of $1,200 which is not replaced by a tax credit unless the young person is disabled. Will the Minister explain why the Government is making it harder for families with dependent young people?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. She makes the distinction between different classes as they are treated under tax reform.
The parliamentary committee will be looking at this in the next few weeks. We will see whether adjustments are justified.
I remind the Hon. Member that tuition can now be deducted by a parent, not by a student. This is a very important addition to tax reform, helping parents of students across the country.


Aideen Nicholson: You do not pay tuition in high school.


SITUATION OF SINGLE PARENTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, a single parent who formerly claimed the equivalent-to-married deduction for a dependent child over 18, valued at $3,740 by the Department of Finance, can no longer do so. This is an even greater hardship for the single parent who is supporting an unemployed 18 or 19-year old and earning a very modest income. Does the Minister also intend to review that?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, in most categories of income in this country, single parents will do better under tax reform. As a matter of fact, they can be included in the more than eight out of ten Canadians who benefit from tax reform. The Hon. Member raises a specific issue within that, and I hope the committee will look at it carefully.


CHICKENS FED WITH IRRADIATED FEED
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns chickens but it has nothing to do with the earlier exchange between my Leader and the Minister for International Trade.
Oral Questions
It deals with the fact that some 900 chickens have been fed irradiated feed at the University of Manitoba and are about to be sold to Manitoba consumers. Is the Minister aware that these chickens will not be required to be labelled in such a way as to indicate they have been fed with irradiated feed? If so, why is he prepared to allow these chickens to be sold to Manitoba consumers? Why has he allowed AECL and the University of Manitoba to contemplate releasing these chickens into the marketplace without such labelling?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that before any new product that has been irradiated can be sold on the market, certain requirements must be met. Those were made public some time ago by the Government.
I will check into the specific case he mentions. I do not have details on it, but I will do that later this afternoon.


REQUEST THAT REGULATIONS BE AMENDED
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not seem to be aware that both the current labelling regulations and his proposed labelling regulations for irradiated food do not require labelling in the case of animals that have been fed irradiated food. Is he prepared to amend these regulations to ensure that any food that has had any irradiation involved in its life cycle or processing will be clearly labelled to that effect? The Minister does not seem to really understand what is going on in this experiment. It is time he got on top of it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, under the former regulations certain grains could be irradiated. The Hon. Member should know that. Also, certain flour could be irradiated and the Hon. Member should know that as well. As a person with a rural background, I am well aware of the food cycle and what animals are being fed.
As I said in my first answer, I will check this afternoon and report back to him.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Canadian On-line Secure Information and Communications System, or COSIC, is designed to provide a state of the art automation and communication system for Canadian embassies.
In light of the speculation and criticism that have arisen lately both in the press and in the House, will the Minister

July 27, 1988
Oral Questions
explain why the RCMP commercial crime division is investigating this matter, and provide the House with any information that he may have regarding the alleged irregularities in the bidding process for this extremely important contract?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, a couple of months ago one of the bidders in this very complex contract bid process, that is open and up front, raised some concerns. As a result, the Government of Canada initiated two independent but internal studies, both of which proved to show no wrong-doing.
The Hon. Member knows as well that a couple of weeks ago I confirmed that there indeed was an RCMP investigation into this matter. I want to report to the House that the Commissioner of the RCMP concluded in a letter dated July 22 that: "The investigation determined that the complaints received were totally unfounded. No evidence of any wrong-doing surfaced throughout the investigation". As a result, we are going to continue with our evaluation and proceed according to plan.


APARTHEID
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I asked a question about the loophole which has been opened by the Conservative Government in Canada's policy on sports competitors from South Africa. I challenged the Government to stop trying a weak behind the scenes manoeuvre, and to act directly to exclude the two South African athletes who are intending to play in the Player's Tennis Tournament taking place next month in my riding.
Next week the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in Toronto hosting a Commonwealth conference on South Africa. Will he now, in preparation for that meeting, accept the position of the Official Opposition, cut off diplomatic relations with South Africa, and close the Mulroney loophole in the Gleneagles Agreement so that these two athletes cannot perform?


Mr. McDermid:: What a sleazebag!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not to emphasize it too much, it is simply false-if the rules of the House of Commons allowed me, I would use another phrase-it is simply false to suggest this gap was created by this Government. In fact, anyone who wants to compare the actions of the Government in which the Hon. Member was a Minister with the actions of this Government-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You initiated the sports policy in 1985.


Charles Joseph Clark: -with regard to fighting apartheid will know that the Government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has not only led this country but has led the world in fighting apartheid, and we intend to continue to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to the substance of the question there is a gap. We intend to close it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That you opened in 1985.


Charles Joseph Clark: I expect to have it closed before the weekend.


DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am delighted with the Minister's announcement, and I am waiting for further developments. My supplementary for the Minister is this: Could he explain to the House and to the people of this country why Canada continues to give credibility to South Africa, to a racist government, by allowing it to maintain diplomatic relations with Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat in French what I said before, namely that the Liberal Party's position on South Africa, when it was in power, was to accept apartheid. The position of the Progressive Conservative Government was and is to fight energetically against apartheid.
As far as diplomatic relations with South Africa are concerned this is an issue that has been discussed at length here in the House. The Canadian Government's position is clear. The Canadian Government's position is respected by the Blacks in Southern Africa as well as by individuals who are truly concerned about fighting apartheid. It may be that for partisan purposes, the Liberal Party would like to change the position it took as a Government... To us, it is a matter of principle. The Canadian Government is showing strong leadership in the fight against apartheid.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recent research and air monitoring indicate that a very serious ozone pollution problem exists in the summertime and that the possible operation of two of the six generating
July 27, 1988

units in the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant will greatly increase the pollution. In fact, this would be the equivalent of adding 110,000 car emissions daily to the air in the Fraser Valley.
Will the Minister consider the effect on the environment in the valley, especially Chilliwack, when making the decision whether or not to reissue the permit to B.C. Hydro for energy exports using the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East is indeed a good one. He has made good representations to the Government on a number of occasions. I would like to remind him that in 1980, B.C. Hydro applied for export permits to export electricity to the United States. At that time the Government issued the necessary permits through the National Energy Board but would not allow exports to come from the Burrard plant because it lacked pollution controls.
Since that time pollution controls have been put in place and they have been issued the necessary permits and licence from the British Columbia Government. As recently as last month the National Energy Board agreed to increase the exports from B.C. Hydro using the Burrard plant because it had installed these necessary pollution controls. The Minister is now looking at that decision.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns a matter that crosses departmental jurisdiction. On February 5, 1987, the Minister of Finance said in the House that municipal infrastructure is the responsibility of the municipalities and the provinces. Yesterday we had the announcement in Halifax of a much needed municipal sewage treatment facility paid for in part by the federal Government. Given that the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has been calling for a federal-provincial-municipal program like the one the Government developed for Halifax for every city in this country, would the Prime Minister now agree that the time has come to help rebuild our cities?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Finance have made the Government's position clear on this matter. The particular circumstances in Halifax were quite unique, and the Hon. Member knows the uniqueness behind the Halifax example.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, a provincial election.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FUNDING TO ASSIST MUNICIPALITIES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the community I come from is also putting raw sewage into the harbours of the Great Lakes. There are other cities which are doing the same thing. Each city has unique reasons for needing federal help. Is it not now time for the federal Government to accept its responsibility on environmental aspects and provide municipalities with the necessary funds to clean up our water, whether it is what we send out or take in, to ensure our cities are healthy and safe?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that what is being done for the Halifax harbour is a technological prototype of major importance for Canada. We are delighted for what it means as a demonstration project for Canada. We are delighted for what it means for the harbour of Halifax.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Welland on a single question.


LIBERAL POLICY
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition first said he would tear up the free trade agreement. Then he said he would renegotiate it. Then he said there would be no bilateral agreement. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie now says they would negotiate bilateral agreements with many countries. Could the Minister for International Trade clarify for the Canadian public what the Liberal policy on trade really is?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Order Paper!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have ever been asked to perform a miracle in this House. It is impossible to tell what policy they have with respect to free trade because, for example, the Liberal Whip saw some irony in the thought that Mr. Turner, who wanted to rip up the free trade agreement in Washington, is now going to-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


John Edward Broadbent: That's pretty good, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was surprised I got this far.


Mr. Speaker:: It was a good try.

July 27, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Axworthy POINTS OF ORDER


USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), in his normal modest, limited, restricted, moderate way, found himself using a word which is contrary to the rules of debate according to Beau-chesne at page 110, the word is "scurrilous". I know the Minister cannot spell it, nor can he understand it, but he did use it and I would like him to withdraw it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "scurrilous" and say "contemptible".


Lloyd Axworthy: I want to check that one out, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this day I distinctly heard the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) refer to one of my colleagues as a sleazebag while a question was being asked.


John Carnell Crosbie: Which one was it?


Don Boudria: He referred that way to the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Some two weeks ago a similar remark from the same Hon. Member was made towards myself and reported in Hansard. I do not recall anyone on this side ever describing that Member with similar remarks. I would hope you, Mr. Speaker, would ask the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown to learn to control himself and at least to withdraw those two remarks.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remarks. I am surprised the Hon. Member would recognize which Member I referred to.



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 ten petitions numbered as follows: 332-5028 to 332-5030 inclusive, 332-5032 to 332-5035 inclusive and 332-5148 to 332-5150.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
In its twelfth report on May 4 the committee recommended the creation of a new standing committee to review government expenditures before they are made. Such a new budget committee would parallel the work of the Public Accounts Committee which reviews expenditures after the fact.
Today, we are announcing that we have asked the committee staff to carry out a study of the Estimates and budgetary process. The Public Accounts study will focus on ways to relax the non-confidence convention so that Estimates might be changed or reduced, where warranted, without bringing down the Government. The study will seek ways to balance the right of the Government of the day to govern and conduct its business in a planned way with Parliament's right to grant supply, that is, to authorize expenditures.
This study will also consider the connection between the supply process and the Ways and Means process, that is, the link between the Government's proposals for spending and the manner in which Government raises its revenues.
By considering how to improve the opportunities parliamentarians have	to comment	on	government	spending, thecommittee is	seeking ways	to	improve the	Government's
management of the public's money.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


PETITIONS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present to the House of Commons today a petition from a number of residents of Scarborough who are petitioning Parliament. They state that the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough is a unique and precious natural area and that protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas is in the national interest.
The petitioners join with the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Scarborough City Council
July 27, 1988

and Alderman for the City Council, Marilyn Mushinski, who is in the gallery today, the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations, in asking the Government of Canada to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of constituents from Surrey, Langley, Aldergrove and White Rock, British Columbia, who believe that the Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade agreement with the United States. They believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the trade negotiation that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They believe our sovereignty in fact is compromised.
They believe that the trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine it own economic future and would undermine our ability as a country to build a society distinct from that of the United States of America.
They believe that the appropriate thing to do now would be for Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to you a number of petitions from residents of Bowen Island and other residents of British Columbia.
For the past year people have been trying to get the successive Ministers of Transport to give guarantees that the federal dock at Snug Cove will not be removed in favour of a private dock and that all users will continue to be able to tie up in this area.
The petitions call upon Parliament to preserve the government wharf, floats and moorage at Snug Cove, Bowen Island, for the benefit of all users, and to oppose any development plans which would result in the removal of the government wharf, floats or moorage.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to introduce petitions signed by over 200 residents of Watson Lake, the Yukon, Ross River, Lower Post and Dawson Creek, B.C., who have taken the opportunity, among many others, as has the territorial Government and myself, to petition the federal Government to recognize the importance of the Alaska Highway as an important transportation link for the territory. Given that the present condition of this highway is negatively impacting on the transportation
Order Paper Questions
industry and the tourism industry, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to approve immediately and to restore funding for this international highway.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to the House of Commons petitions signed by some 400 citizens from the riding of Hull-Aylmer, which is so well representd in the House, from the riding of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle and from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who ask the House to have the Parliament of Canada pass a law giving all unborn children full legal protection from the moment of conception.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 327, 354, 368, 370, 375, 378, 379, 382, and 383.


Mr. Manly: 1.	Are radiation monitoring procedures conducted at the Canadian Forces Maritime Experiment and Test Ranges (CFMETR) and, if so (a) with what frequency (6) by whom (c) in what areas?
2.	Are chemicals stored on the base and, if so (a) in what manner (b) what procedures are in place (i) for spill prevention (ii) in the case of a toxic spill, and in the latter case, what notification would be given to area residents?
3.	Are procedures in place for emergency response to radiological accidents related to the presence of nuclear-propelled or nuclear weapons capable vessels at CFMETR and, if so (a) what are they (b) do they interface with those of municipal and provincial agencies and, if so, in what ways?


Henry Perrin Beatty: 1. Yes.
(a)	Each March and September.
(b)	The Department of National Defence.
(c)	In areas where nuclear powered ships berth and also from designated upstream and downstream locations.
2. Yes.
(a)	Chemicals are stored on the base in barrels and in underground tanks.
(b)	The barrels are stored in a locked concrete pad complete with a diked compound, surrounded by a six-foot wire fence topped with barbed wire. A drain in the pad connects to two 250-gallon underground tanks isolated from the surrounding environment. Diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, and jet fuel are

July 27, 1988
Order Paper Questions
stored in standard underground tanks with standard above ground pumps.
(i)	The base maintains prescribed clothing and filter masks to permit personnel to quickly contain and clean up spills of toxic materials, such as cleaning fluids and OTTO Fuel II (a self-oxidizing fuel used in torpedos). A standard oil pollution control plan exists and it is similar to those in existence at other bases.
(ii)	If necessary, local residents would be notified of spills in accordance with the alerting procedures established for Nuclear Emergency Response.
3. Yes.
(a)	This response is provided by the Nuclear Emergency Response Team which consists of: radiation safety officer; onscene controller; radiation monitors; decontamination personnel; security; firefighting (including fire and tug boat crews); medical personnel; construction engineering personnel; information services personnel; and other specialist staff as required. Their responsibilities are: to provide an immediate coordinated response of trained personnel to a nuclear emergency; to carry out rescue, firefighting and medical support; to cordon off the area, deny access to all unauthorized persons and ensure those personnel within the cordon are controlled and accounted for; to provide communications facilities between the emergency site, the Command Post and between the various response sections; to provide support and assistance to the base and foreign Emergency Response teams; to ensure contamination control at the scene of the emergency; to conduct radiation surveys; to carry out decontamination at the scene of the emergency of affected personnel to levels set by the Surgeon General; to provide damage control and repair facilities; to restore the scene of the emergency to normal; and to collect data which may be required for future medical or legal purposes.
(b)	To ensure that Nuclear Emergency Response Team procedures interface with municipal and provincial agencies, the Region Commander organizes and chairs a local Authorities Committee which meets annually. This Committee consists of the following: civil defence co-ordination; local government; local health officials; local police departments; RCMP; provincial radiation protection services; regional surgeon; base operations; and applicable command.


Mr. McCurdy: Since September 4, 1984, have jobs been created in the constituency of
Windsor-Walkerville as a direct result of government expenditures and, if so
(a) what is the number of (i) jobs (ii) full-time positions created (6) what
occupations are represented?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am
informed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion as follows:
In so far as the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is concerned:
(a) and (b) The Canadian Jobs Strategy was introduced in September, 1985, in response to a realization that there was a need to deal more effectively with the problems of the most disavantaged members of the labour market. The previous approach of compensation for cyclical periods of unemployment with short-term, make-work projects, as typified by programs like Canada Works, was phased out. In its place, the emphasis was put on providing training that would prepare people to take advantage of jobs created by the activities of the economy.
Consequently, it is not possible to respond fully to the question of how many jobs have been created in the constituency of Windsor-Walkerville as a direct result of government expenditures since September 4, 1984.
It is perhaps arguable that participants in pre-Canadian Jobs Strategy programs, like Canada Works, occupied jobs created as a direct result of government expenditures. It should be noted, however, that in most, if not all, of these cases, while jobs would have been full-time, they would have lasted for a fixed, short period of time only, so at best it is probably a moot point whether or not these constitute "jobs".
Programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, as already indicated, do not "create jobs"; they prepare people for permanent jobs which are created as a result of other economic activities. Hence, the questions asked do not, strictly speaking, apply.
Below is a list of "participants" in all programs, old and new since April 1, 1984.
Participants		Amounts
1984/85:	878	$3,708,2931985/86:	1,358	$6,071,2351986/87:	1,101	$5,388,2471987/88:	901 *	$4,310,136
* not final year-end figures.
In so far as the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is concerned:
(a)	During the period of September 4, 1984 to March 31, 1988, 12 projects were approved for total authorized contributions of $242,215 under programs administered by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, creating an estimated 40 positions and maintaining an estimated 19 positions. Our records do not distinguish between full-time and part-time positions.
(b)	Our records do not contain information on what occupations are represented.
July 27, 1988


Mr. Kaplan: Have any national associations indicated their position regarding Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof and, if so, which ones (a) support (b) oppose the Bill?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: A large number of representations have been received from groups and individuals regarding Bill C-54. Indeed, the associations who have provided their views have done so in the context of analysis of the Bill in whole or in part and it would therefore be inappropriate and unfair for me as Minister of Justice to characterize their representations as either categorically for or categorically against Bill C-54.
AECL-GRANTS AND/OR LOANS WITHIN METROPOLITAN TORONTO


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did Atomic Energy of Canada Limited make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
During the period September 4, 1984, to June 2, 1988, AECL has made an annual contribution of $30,000 to the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at the University of Toronto. These contributions have been made in support of the University's nuclear education and research programs.


Mr. Langdon: Since September, 1985, have dioxin level-monitoring procedures been carried out for the St. Clair River, and, if so (a) with what frequency (b) by what groups or individuals (c) with what results?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am
informed by the Departments of the Environment and of Fisheries and Oceans as follows:
In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: no.
It is the responsibility of the Ontario Ministry of Environment to conduct dioxin monitoring procedures in the St. Clair River, particularly with respect to drinking water.
Under the Canada/U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Department of the Environment is responsible for the monitoring of conventional parameters and contaminants of the open lakes. The Department of the Environment is also developing analytical technology and methods to accurately measure chemicals such as dioxin.
In so far as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is concerned:
Order Paper Questions
Since 1977, DFO has carried out a contaminants monitoring program on fish and other biota of the Great Lakes in response to federal commitments respecting the 1972 and 1978 Canada/U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
DFO has carried out periodic contaminants monitoring programs on the St. Clair/Detroit River system since 1981. Contaminant burdens, including dioxin, have been measured in whole fish samples of top predator and bottom feeding species. The analysis of the most current (1987) samples has been delayed pending the completion of the priority national pulp mill dioxin/furan survey. There has therefore been no dioxin analysis of fish samples from this area collected since September, 1985.


Mr. Rodriguez: Has Canada Post Corporation arranged for people to follow the group known as Rural Dignity as it travels across Canada to gather signatures of Canadians opposed to Canada Post's policies in rural Canada and, if so (a) on what date did these people begin following Rural Dignity (b) what number of individuals was involved in this activity (c) what are their names (d) were they regular employees of Canada Post and, if not, what were (i) the conditions of their employment (ii) the name of any third party involved in their hiring (e) what was the total cost of their (i) wages (ii) living expenses (including meals (iii) travel expenses (/) did they fde any reports with Canada Post and, if so, will Canada Post make these reports available to Parliamentarians on request?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Rural Dignity-a special interest group representing the interests of the rural postmasters' union-is opposed to Canada Post's program to improve and expand postal services in rural Canada. They are seeking to maintain the high costs and inefficiencies associated with the current network of rural post offices.
Canada Post's rural restructuring program means improved service. As a result, Rural Dignity and other vested interest groups, have had to target their efforts in communities where the program has not yet been implemented; by making unfounded allegations about proposed reductions in local service, spreading misinformation, and creating fear. These groups recently sponsored a cross-country drive to seek support for the preservation of the status quo.
Canada Post, like any other business organization, had to respond to this campaign of misinformation. Our customers were being subjected to threats regarding the future of their local postal service. In order to ensure that the true story about improvements in rural postal services was heard, Canada Post personnel made themselves available to local media, community leaders, and the general public as the drive progressed across the country, from May 18 to June 7, 1988.
This effort was entirely undertaken by regular employees doing their regular work.


Mr. Caccia: Has Stora Industries applied for government funding to assist with their proposal to build a pulp mill in Cape Breton and, if so (a) what amount is (i)

July 27, 1988
Order Paper Questions
being requested (ii) already approved (b) will an environmental impact assessment of the project be a requirement for government assistance?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion cannot divulge whether an application has been made or any details regarding such a possible application since all applications for funding remain confidential until such time as an agreement is concluded. Environmental considerations are a part of every project assessment process.


Ms. Copps: During each of the last five years, what number of (a) Canadians applied for a disability pension under the provisions of the plan (b) applicants had their request denied by the director of the Canada Pension Plan (c) applicants who were denied a pension by the director of the plan appealed the decision to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (d) applicants who were granted a disability pension by the director had their application appealed to the Minister by government officials (e) applicant-initiated appeals of the director's decision were denied by the Minister (/) government appeals of the director's decision were upheld by the Minister (#) applicants whose appeals were denied by the director or the Minister or both requested a further appeal to the Review Committee (h) disability pension appeals did the Review Committee not support (/') disability pension applicants whose applications were upheld by the Review Committee had their disability pension applications appealed by government officials to the Pension Appeals Board (j) pension applicants whose applications were rejected by the Review Committee appealed the decision to the Pension Appeals Board (k) diability pension applications heard before the Pension Appeals Board were upheld (/) Canadians who applied for a disability pension under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan had their application eventually accepted?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: (a)	1983-1984	48,468
	1984-1985	52,708
	1985-1986	60,355
	1986-1987	64,040
	1987-1988	57,966
(b)	1983-1984	12,806
	1984-1985	15,996
	1985-1986	17,608
	1986-1987	23,135
	1987-1988	23,854
(c)	1983-1984	3,124
	1984-1985	6,648
	1985-1986	7,909
	1986-1987	10,299
	1987-1988	11,809
(d)	Not applicable. The Director's decisions are not appealable by departmental officials at the first level of appeal.
(e)	1983-1984	1,017	
	1984-1985	1,351	
	1985-1986	2,636	
	1986-1987	4,514	
	1987-1988	5,613	
(f) Not applicable. The Director's decisions are not appealable			
	by departmental officials at the first level of appeal.		
(g)	1983-1984	278	
	1984-1985	634	
	1985-1986	986	
	1986-1987	1,590	
	1987-1988	2,390	
(h)	1983-1984	40	
	1984-1985	62	
	1985-1986	97	
	1986-1987	173	
	1987-1988	231	
(0	1983-1984	30	
	1984-1985	34	
	1985-1986	64	
	1986-1987	111	
	1987-1988	144	
a)	1983-1984	4	
	1984-1985	4	
	1985-1986	23	
	1986-1987	49	
	1987-1988	88	
		in favour of	in favour of
(k)	Minister	Applicant1983-1984	11	01984-1985	7	01985-1986	30	11986-1987	39	21987-1988	65	2First	Second PensionInitial Level	Level Appeals(1)	Application Appeals Appeals Board*	1983-1984	30,193 2,748	213 131984-1985	27,464 4,224	281 71985-1986	37,365 4,176	527 71986-1987	32,505 3,857	630 431987-1988	30,055 3,291	873 48
July 27, 1988

It should be noted that the statistics for the various stages of the application and appeal process do not correspond directly. Many decisions rendered in one year were for applications and appeals received in the previous year and, similarily, decisions on many initial applications and appeals received in 1988 will be rendered during the current fiscal year.
It should also be noted that the great majority of appeals received at the second stage (Review Committee appeals) do not require a hearing. The reasons for this are various: for example, new medical information previously unavailable permits, in the majority of cases, our medical advisers to arrive at a favourable decision; also, many appellants return to work and withdraw their appeal.
* These numbers include cases which were resolved prior to the Pension Appeals Board Hearing.


Mr. Keeper: Did Canada Post Corporation make any expenditure of funds on (a) salaries
(b) per diem payments (c) lodging (d) rental of vehicles (e) other items to have
officials present at the Rural Dignity "Coast to Coast for Rural Post" cross-
Canada caravan and if so, in each case, in what amount?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Rural Dignity-a special interest group representing the interests of the rural postmasters' union-is opposed to Canada Post's program to improve and expand postal services in rural Canada. They are seeking to maintain the high costs and inefficiencies associated with the current network of rural post offices.
Canada Post's rural restructuring program means improved service. As a result, Rural Dignity and other vested interest groups, have had to target their efforts in communities where the program has not yet been implemented; by making unfounded allegations about proposed reductions in local service, spreading misinformation, and creating fear. These groups recently sponsored a cross-country drive to seek support for the preservation of the status quo.
Canada Post, like any other business organization, had to respond to this campaign of misinformation. Our customers were being subjected to threats regarding the future of their local postal service. In order to ensure that the true story about improvements in rural postal services was heard, Canada Post personnel made themselves available to local media, community leaders, and the general public as the drive progressed across the country, from May 18 to June 7, 1988.
This effort was entirely undertaken by regular employees doing their regular work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Motions for Papers


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
CANADA-UNITED STATES FISHERIES ISSUES Motion No. P-9-Mr. Fulton:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all reports, memos, papers, letters, telexes, telegrams, and any other form of communication between government Departments and between the Government and the Government of the United States, including the White House, with regard to the October, 1985 proposal of the United States Secretary of State, that Canada and the United States appoint a Special Representative to oversee discussions and possible negotiations on outstanding common maritime boundary and fisheries issues, starting with west coast boundaries.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested under Motion No. P-9 contain information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct by the Government of Canada of federal-provincial affairs or international affairs or both. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the motion.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that since this is in relation to the international boundary in my constituency, it be transferred for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-10.
Motion No. P-10-Mr. Fulton:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the bilateral memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Government of Newfoundland with respect to Labrador Inuit land claims.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this document cannot be released pursuant to Section 69 of the Access to Information Act. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

July 27, 1988
Abortion


James Ross Fulton: Since these are documents in relation to a bilateral agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada with respect to the Labrador Inuit land claims, and are important to my role as their advocate in this Chamber, I would ask that it be transferred for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-13.
Motion No. P-13-Mr. Riis:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all public opinion surveys carried out by Air Canada on the privatization of the airline.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested are the private information of Air Canada.
I therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion. [English]
Mr. Speaker, those are surveys from Air Canada. It is privileged information to Air Canada rather than to the Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This important issue was a call for papers regarding various surveys that the Government had taken on the public's interest in the privatization of this company. Therefore, I would ask that it be transferred for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-17.
Motion No. P-17-Mr. Heap:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, telephone logs, telexes, telegrams, memoranda, notes or any other form of communication written on behalf of the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Benoit Bouchard, to the Chairman of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee or any other members of the RSAC, with respect to the granting of refugee status to Mr. Santokh Singh Bagga, a former Indian Army Major.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On P-17 the documents requested cannot be released pursuant to section 26 of the Privacy Act. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be transferred for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-19.
Motion No. P-19-Ms. Jewett:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all evaluation reports concerning the costing, operations, nuclear safety, and industrial benefits of the nuclear submarine program prepared by officials of the Department of Supply and Services, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion for the Area Review Board comprised of officials of the above ministries to be completed by June 30, 1988.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the report for the area review board does not yet exist. It will contain information pertaining to the most closely guarded military and proprietary secrets of the United Kingdom and France, and thus is highly classified. Accordingly, it will not be available for release. Therefore, I ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who is acting as an agent on behalf of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), to withdraw the motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as an agent for the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), I know how seriously the Hon. Member feels about this issue, so I would like to ask that it be transferred for debate at the appropriate time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.
Shall all other Motions for Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.