1988-01-22

[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO enact
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-104, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been consultations involving the Parties. Certainly on behalf of the New Democratic Party, in view of the nature of this Bill we are prepared to see it go through all stages in the House today.
It is legislation that has already been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. It is an important and valuable process whereby legislation which has become in some way archaic or no longer in effect as a result of Government policy decisions can in fact be changed, whereby errors which have crept into legislation can be dealt with. Certainly we support the process.
The Bill in question has been dealt with. There were a couple of hearings by the committee on some of the more substantive provisions of the Bill. Given the unanimous support of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, on behalf of the NDP. we are prepared to co-operate in the passage of this legislation in all stages through the House today.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add on behalf of the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus, that this Bill is practically an annual event
and that it is tabled for the purpose of correcting certain anomalies. Occasionally, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors are found in the Statutes of Canada, and I believe the odd translation error as well.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you we will certainly not object to the passage of this Bill, that we support it and that we will allow passage at all stages in the House today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the sentiments that have been expressed earlier with respect to the study this Bill has been given, and the fact that we expect to move quickly, perhaps there would be agreement to grouping the clauses in the Committee of the Whole House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: I thank the Hon. Minister for his suggestion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. Will the Government tell us where this legislation ends as far as statutes are concerned? Is this an update until, say, September or October of last year or does it include all of the year 1987?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is my understanding that the review included all statutes which had received Royal Assent.
Clauses 2 to 84 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
January 22, 1988
12184__________________________________
Currency Act CURRENCY ACT

The Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-99, An Act to amend the Currency Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: The Bill before us is of a purely housekeeping nature. Its purpose is to ensure that the accounting procedures followed in determining the exchange fund's net income are consistent with those followed in the consolidated Public Accounts.

Hon. Members may recall that in 1985, the Auditor General of Canada recommended that several special government accounts, including that of the Exchange Fund, be consolidated in with the general government accounts. In his February, 1986 Budget the Minister of Finance announced revisions to the accounting policies of the Public Accounts of Canada in response to the Auditor General's recommendations. Among these were the consolidation of the Exchange Fund with the Consolidated Revenue Fund for purposes of determining the fiscal position of the Government.

The Exchange Fund is a special account of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) which serves as the principal repository of Canada's official international reserves. Although the Exchange Fund has been consolidated with the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the Public Accounts, it exists as a distinct accounting entity and is governed by separate legislation, namely, the Currency Act, which Bill C-99 proposes to amend.
The Currency Act contains a provision that differs from the accounting principles now followed in the Public Accounts. In determining that income the Currency Act calls for gains or losses from exchange rate changes, and these occur daily and weekly, and gold transactions to be averaged over three years, while such changes are recognized immediately in the Public Accounts. So there are two different accounting treatments.
The amendment we are proposing would repeal the three-year averaging provision in the Currency Act and require that the accounting principles applied to the Exchange Fund be consistent with those of the Public Accounts. This will remove an anomaly that was created by the consolidation introduced in 1986.
I would like to note that this amendment to the Currency Act has no financial implications and will not affect the actual operations of the Exchange Fund in any way. It is concerned only with the presentation of the Exchange Fund's financial statements, making them consistent with the presentation already contained in the Public Accounts and which is based on recommendations of the Auditor General. The Auditor General recommended this not just for the Exchange Fund but for other funds of the Government of Canada as well to bring them into consistency.
Finally, I would like to remark that the payment of income by the Exchange Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund is only a bookkeeping entry. No cash is transferred. Income from foreign currency assets is retained by the Exchange Fund and the Canadian dollar equivalent which is paid to the CRF is matched by an increase in Canadian dollar advances to the Exchange Fund from the CRF so that there is no change in cash holdings. The change also has no effect on the Government's deficit whose measurement is already determined by the accounting principles adopted last year.
I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that not only is this Bill of a housekeeping nature, and not only does it follow the recommendations of the Auditor General, but it makes overdue sense since the changes introduced in 1986, and I would urge the House to give it speedy consideration.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, indeed, as the Minister said, this Bill is a straightforward Bill which is changing certain methods of reporting and accounting in line with recommendations of the Auditor General. Therefore, it is the view of the Official Opposition that it is not a Bill which requires extensive debate or a Bill on which there would be controversy.
The original recommendation to change the methods of reflecting currency matters in the Public Accounts of Canada came from the Auditor General in 1980. Indeed, the audit report to the Minister of Finance for the year ended December 31, 1979, disclosed the matter of the Exchange Fund account as an item that should be brought to the attention of Parliament since it had not previously been disclosed in a manner which made it clear to Members of this House.
I want to put this in the context of the whole question of financial accountability. We in this House have all been pleased with the changes that were made in committees. There was all-Party support for many changes that were made in the way committees functioned. Indeed, we have seen some improvements with which we can all be very pleased. However, a weak link still exists in terms of financial accountability.
If we consider the original purpose for which Parliament was intended a few centuries ago we will see that it was originally intended to be a place where citizens could have their grievances redressed before they paid their taxes. Later on, at the time of American independence, there was the stirring statement "no taxation without representation". One of the basic functions of Parliament is to ensure that citizens have a voice in the way their taxes are spent and that there is proper accountability. In spite of the changes in the committee system with which we are all so pleased, a weak link still exists in financial accountability. I say this not in any partisan fashion because every Party in the House has to bear some responsibility for this.
When we have Estimates put before the House it is traditional under Vote 1, General Administration, that questions
January 22, 1988

can be asked about any aspect of that Department's administration and functions. What happens is that Members of the Opposition come in with whatever criticisms or complaints they have about the Department and they line up with them while the Government supporters line up to protect the Minister. Policy matters are discussed but it is very rare in the course of a debate on the Estimates to have a line-by-line examination of the costs.
Furthermore, since the rules were changed in the 1970s, an Estimates have gone out to different standing committees instead of being dealt with in the House. The advantage that was foreseen at that time was that there would be specialists on the committees, but that has not developed. We still have too much changing of Members in committees. What has been lost is the overview function which used to be provided in the House.
There is now nobody, and when 1 say "nobody" I am talking about Members of Parliament as distinct from Ministers, looking at the totality of expenditures inclusive of all government departments. In standing committees where there may be Members looking at Estimates of a particular Department, we do not find Members examining past expenditures and looking at trends. At the end of the day we come to the Public Accounts Committee which functions as an effective audit committee. However, we do not manage by audit alone. The Public Accounts Committee has the final accounting but the standing committees are not doing it at the present time.
When we consider the chain of information that is provided to Members we start with Estimates. There are Ways and Means Motions which do not necessarily always match precisely the Estimates, since there can still be Supplementary Estimates coming in to confuse matters. Then, eventually, there are the Public Accounts of Canada followed by the Auditor General's Report. Then, the Public Accounts Committee tries to establish at the end of the day that moneys were spent precisely as Parliament meant them to be spent.
I hope that since we have all-and I say "all" because it was an all-Party initiative-managed to make very substantial changes to the standing committees to achieve a higher level of functioning, Members of Parliament will come back to remember that one of the first and most important basic functions of Parliament is to control spending and ensure financial accountability. To carry this out two things are needed. First, what is needed is the will on the part of Members of Parliament, and second, clear, understandable information is needed. The quality of information provided to Members of Parliament has improved over the last 10 years, largely in response to constant pressure from the Public Accounts Committee of the House and from the recommendations of the Auditor General.
Part III of the Estimates now gives a great deal of information which provides an interested Member with the opportunity to ask questions based on financial accountability, and not only on administrative aspects of the Department.
Currency Act
If Part III of the Estimates is well used in conjunction with the Public Accounts of Canada, it can also help one to follow through the actual spending. The Auditor General has developed a further proposal; the acronym is FGRS which stands for federal government reporting study. It was a lengthy study done in co-operation with the Controller and Auditor General of the United States. I am very impressed with its potential since it gives Members a better chance to track expenditures from Estimates right through to conclusion than anything I have seen thus far.
For the busy generalist, be it Member of Parliament, journalist or interested business person, FGRS would allow one to see at a glance what has happened, whereas now one has to plough through Ways and Means Motions, Part III of the Estimates and Public Accounts. Sometimes one is frustrated in this attempt to see what has happened because different items are hidden. I am not saying that anyone has intended to hide them, but we do find apples and oranges and that measures are bulked together in a way that makes it difficult to understand.
The measure before us has to be seen in the context of attempting to provide more clear information to Members of Parliament and, of course, to the public. The next step is the commitment of Members of Parliament to use that information wisely and constantly. What is also required is a commitment from Ministers to make available this kind of information.
I was shocked to see a letter written by one of the present Ministers, admittedly one who has not had a great deal of experience in Parliament, in which, in response to a request of mine as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for additional information he wrote that financial control is a function of Government, not of Parliament. In this, of course, he is quite wrong. To be sure it is a responsibility of Government. It is also a responsibility of Parliament. It has been part of the basic responsibility of parliamentarians for centuries. Any Member of Parliament who forgets that is failing his or her constituents badly.
In the context of providing better information and of clarifying issues so that we know exactly what we are looking at in the Public Accounts of Canada this Bill is one additional step. It affects the presentation of the Exchange Fund account which is governed by the Currency Act. The steps that are taken by the Government today appear to be congruent with the recommendations of the Auditor General. Essentially, it repeals the three-year averaging provision. It requires the accounting principles of the Exchange Fund to conform with those used in the Public Accounts of Canada.
It is another step to make the Public Accounts of Canada more intelligible. It is a step that makes it easier for those concerned with accountability matters to find the facts that they want, and on that basis I welcome this measure.

January 22, 1988
Currency Act


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) for having made what, I believe, was his first speech in French in the House.

I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) on her elevation to the front bench of her Party. I notice that briefly she was occupying a front bench seat in the New Democratic Party. We welcome her here since she may not be able to get a seat in the redistribution in her own Party.
Having worked with the Hon. Member for some time I know there are few who work as hard and as consistently as she does on subjects which are difficult, complex, and not always transparent to the average elector, and her promotion is deserved.
1 wish to comment briefly on the Bill, and then perhaps a little less briefly on some of the implications related to the operations of the Exchange Fund account and the Band of Canada.
As the Minister and the critic for the Liberal Party have indicated, this is a technical Bill. It arises out of the 1986 Budget. In a modest way, it goes counter to some of the other steps that have been taken by the Government to hide its operations from average Canadians. In this particular case, it is a slightly more open accounting for the operations of the exchange fund account.
As I understand it, it appears to make a difference of between $200 million and $500 million a year in the reporting that takes place in the public accounts. It will bring the exchange fund account in line with the practices of the general public accounts. Interestingly enough, this is at a time when the banks in their operations are also moving away from smoothing and are being a little more direct on a year-to-year basis about the operations of their reserves. In a sense, this is what is happening with the Government of Canada.
If that was all there was to talk about, I could now sit down. I do wish to say a word or two, because yesterday for only the second time since his appointment we had the opportunity to have the Governor of the Bank of Canada come before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Since the Governor is responsible for the operations of the exchange fund account, among other things, it is appropriate to take some perspective in terms of how the exchange rate for Canada is being managed or influenced by the Government and what that may mean in terms of economic policies.
I would like to express misgivings over what seems like a single-minded obsession with inflation of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, at the expense of the other objectives of economic policy. The Governor is still worried about inflation. He states that the inflation rate of approximately 4.2 per cent
is still too high. In his view, the only good rate of inflation is a zero rate of inflation. Therefore, until that goal is achieved, he does not wish to relent in terms of keeping inflation as his number one priority. He states that there can only be one monetary policy for Canada, that we cannot have any form of differential interest rates in different areas of the country. Then he states, in a rather sanguine manner, that he hopes that somehow some of the benefits of economic revival in the country might trickle down to Atlantic Canada, to the outlying parts of Quebec, and to those parts of Ontario and British Columbia which remain depressed and retain unemployment rates of 10 per cent or higher.
1 was disturbed at the manner in which the Governor of the Bank of Canada seems to tolerate what really now is a two-Canadas economic policy. We have a situation where unemployment has fallen to 2 or 3 per cent in areas such as Mississauga, west of Toronto; the unemployment rate in the industrial belt of southern Ontario and around Metropolitan Toronto is in fact down to around the 4 or 5 per cent range. I have noticed on recent visits that if people are looking for low wage service industry jobs, they are amply advertised, the want-ads are full, and one can knock on the doors of restaurants and small manufacturing establishments and probably get a job. However, a person would not be able to pay the rent because of the price of housing in the Toronto region. Nonetheless, there is employment there in a way that there was not three or four years ago.
When I say that there are two Canadas, that is demonstrated markedly when one looks at the disparities in unemployment rates between central Canada, particularly southern Ontario, and the rest of the country. Although these are the November figures, December is only a little different. The unemployment rate in Ontario is approximately 5.9 per cent. In southern Ontario it is in the order of 4.7 or 4.8 per cent. That compares with an unemployment rate of 13 per cent in Atlantic Canada, 18 per cent in Newfoundland, 13 or 14 per cent in the interior of British Columbia, 10.4 per cent in British Columbia as a whole, 10 per cent across most of the region of the Province of Quebec with the exception of Montreal, where it is a shade lower, and perhaps the area of the eastern townships.
Therefore, we have a situation where, apart from southern Ontario, unemployment rates remain at levels which are historically excessive, which are too high, and which I believe are unacceptable to average Canadians. Nonetheless, they are certainly acceptable to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Perhaps it is easier for the bank Governor because he moves in rarefied circles, lives in comfortable housing in this, my community of Ottawa. It is a comfortable community which tends to have an economy that is not as good as but close to that of southern Ontario. The real hardship and misery of what is happening and continuing to happen in much of the country in the other Canada is simply not visible to the Governor or to his staff here in their glass tower on Wellington Street in Ottawa.
January 22, 1988

What was particularly disturbing about the evidence of the Governor was when he indicated that in his view the economy of Canada is very close to over-heating. I asked, "What would happen if the unemployment rate came down by another 1 per cent?" He said, "In that case we would be very, very close to over-heating."
We know what has happened since the crash of October 19, 1987. We know that at the time the Bank of Canada, in conjunction and in consultation with the Department of Finance, dropped interest rates sharply, injected a lot of liquidity into the economy in order to prevent a snowballing effect from the stock market crash bringing the whole economy in its wake. That has been relatively successful in the sense that we have not had a continuing and accelerating crash along the lines of what happened beginning three or four months after the great October crash of 1929. Since that time we have seen interest rates go back up both in this country and in the United States. Those rates controlled or directed by the Bank of Canada have gone up by almost a full percentage point. In other words, it has been as if that was only a little nightmare that lasted for a few weeks, but now it is over and we can go back to the real business of the Bank of Canada.
In the view of the Governor of the Bank of Canada the real business is fighting inflation. The Governor is saying that he and his bank are really there to serve as the monetary policy directors for the economy of central Canada, specifically of southern Ontario. They are now putting on the brakes because they feel that southern Ontario is about at or beyond the point of over heating.
I would suggest that that is a message of despair for people who live in Atlantic Canada with an unemployment rate of 13 per cent, and for much of Quebec with an unemployment rate of over 10 per cent. British Columbia is still reeling from the recession and it still has unemployment rates that are generally over 10 per cent. Substantial parts of the Prairies, not to mention northern Ontario, also have excessively high unemployment rates. As far as those people are concerned, they are in another Canada. They can forget about getting any kind of assistance from the Bank of Canada. They can forget about any creative and constructive use of monetary policy to try to spread the benefits of economic revival in the country to those regions. It is significant that we are now in about the fifth year of economic recovery, yet economic recovery has mainly been felt in central Canada.

That is why 1 say we now have two Canadas. We have Central Canada whose economy is concentrated in Southern Ontario around Toronto and in the Golden Horseshoe, where the unemployment rate now averages less than 5 per cent. And we have the rest of the country where the unemployment rate is still over 10 per cent, going as high as 13 per cent in the Atlantic Provinces, 18 per cent in Newfoundland, and 10 per cent or more in British Columbia.
Currency Act
When I asked the Governor of the Bank of Canada whether he was prepared to take the necessary steps to help create full employment in these regions, the answer was in fact negative, since the Governor and the Bank of Canada have a policy that is aimed at fighting inflation, despite the fact that inflation has dropped to 4.2 per cent. They see a danger of economic overheating in Ontario, which justifies maintaining interest rates at levels that are excessively high now at about 5 per cent in terms of real interest. Historically speaking, this is very high, and what this means is that they refuse to allow the economy to expand, which would benefit Quebecers and Canadians in both Eastern and Western Canada.
We have seen this particularly over the course of the time we have had the free trade negotiations. When those negotiations began the Canadian dollar was at about 72 cents. Today the dollar is just above or just below 78 cents, at a level which I believe is the highest it has been for about seven years. It is back up to that particular level.
It is interesting that the American authorities have been pressing Canada to lay off in terms of our trade surplus with the Americans and to do so by raising our exchange rates. We have done that.
It is interesting as well that the exchange fund appears to have been used in recent days specifically in order to keep the value of the Canadian dollar from going even higher and at the same time to prevent the Bank of Canada having to step in to lower Canadian interest rates. In other words, the bank is using the fund, I presume with the co-operation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and perhaps at his direction, to keep the dollar from going higher. At the same time it is adhering to its policy of interest rates which are too high because of its phobia about inflation.
My Party and I have always thought that the priorities of economic policy are not just to try to balance an adequate and acceptable level of inflation against an acceptable level of economic growth.
The third element is that full employment should be just as much an objective of government policy as is inflation control or economic growth. Because	of the	Bank of	Canada'sdirection of monetary policy	and its	influence	over the
exchange rates, I believe that the Bank of Canada must be seized with that as well. We cannot have one part of the duopoly which is governing fiscal and economic policy focusing only on inflation and leave it up to fiscal policy to do the rest in terms of trying to achieve full employment.
I was depressed when the Governor of the Bank of Canada said yesterday that there should only be one monetary policy for Canada. He did not reveal a	shade or	a smidgen	of interestin trying to find ways to work	with the	chartered banks in
order to ensure that their lending policies for real investment and real development in western Canada, Quebec, and

January 22, 1988
Currency Act
Atlantic Canada might in fact be more liberal or more open than their policies in southern Ontario. I do not see why that could not be done. Perhaps it cannot be done by the use of monetary instruments directly, but the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is a man with intellectual force, and is perhaps a bit more vigorous than his predecessor, a man who is new to the job, is in a position to establish some new traditions. In fact he might well start to sit down with bank chairmen and operating officers on a regular basis to review what they are doing in order to try to get away from the structural imbalance where Ontario is close to full employment at the same time that the rest of the country is far from employment, the structural imbalance where we have two Canadas.
Monetary policy, inflation fighting, the exchange rate, and fiscal policy are all very closely intertwined. This is why I have chosen to take this opportunity to speak a bit about these interrelated questions which I think are germane, even though they extend a little beyond the narrowly defined purpose of Bill C-99. However we do not have many opportunities for this kind of discussion. It is germane as well because of what I felt were some rather wrong-headed and misdirected statements of direction by the Governor of the Bank of Canada in his testimony yesterday.
The fact as well is that many of the instruments by which government seeks to influence and change the structural problems in the economy that lead to having two Canadas will in fact be weakened because of the Government's trade deal with the United States, what I call the "American option".
The American option does not stop the Americans from using defence grants, state policies, and those kinds of things to encourage industrial development and to put jobs into regionally poor or underdeveloped areas in their country. However, the American option of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) certainly does that here in Canada. If we try to use labour market policies, training, regional development subsidies, perhaps differential rates of taxation, and fiscal policy to encourage growth in Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and British Columbia, while at the same time discourage growth in central Canada to keep the economy from overheating, we will immediately become victim to interference from the American Government and from American industries. They will shout foul and start to talk about countervailing tariffs and other types of trade actions against the output of Canadian companies. Since most Canadian companies are of a scale where they will need and in fact be encouraged to develop markets in the United States, they will be vulnerable to that, and the Government will be vulnerable to that as well.
We have a Governor of the Bank of Canada who says that he wants one monetary policy, that he cannot do anything about trying to get jobs into Newfoundland, and that in fact he will put on the brakes before Newfoundland even gets close to anything approaching full employment. At the same time we have a Conservative Government which takes an American option which effectively in the trade deal means that future governments-and I am not only talking about future
Conservative governments, but when the NDP forms a government and maybe the Liberals if they ever get to form a government again-will be constrained in using the traditional instruments of fiscal policy and the traditional tools of structural change in the economy in order to try to get a better balance among the regions of the country. I think that is very serious. In effect we are systematically stripping ourselves of the instruments and the tools that we have been using. At the same time we have the Governor of the Bank of Canada saying that he does not want to do anything about it.
I wanted to raise these particular questions. If the Governor of the Bank of Canada thinks that we are getting into an inflationary spiral before large parts of the country have even recovered from the depression, it is a very sad message indeed. One of the criteria on which the Conservative Government will be judged in the election that we expect to come this spring or this fall will be its failure to bring a lot of Canada out of the recession in which it had been plunged under the previous Liberal Government. The Government has talked about its priorities in terms of there being economic revival and national reconciliation. How the devil do you reconcile yourself to a situation if you are in Atlantic Canada where the unemployment rate is 13 per cent and the unemployment rate among young people is 18 per cent or 20 per cent? I would not reconcile myself to that. I say that is totally unacceptable.
What kind of economic revival is it, Mr. Speaker, when in Newfoundland the unemployment rate remains at 18 per cent or more? What kind of revival is that? All of that bumf has gone off to the shredder which was designed to tell people otherwise. The reason people did not take that information is that they knew it contained Tory misrepresentations of what was really going on. That, I grant you, may be a little far from Bill C-99.
I am suggesting that this area of economic policy is too little debated here in the House of Commons and should be discussed a great deal more because these questions all interrelate. It is by no accident that a governor who was obsessed with inflation has contributed to the operations of the exchange fund which has helped raise the dollar to 78 cents from 72 cents. This, in effect, has put an 8 per cent increase in costs, give or take a percentage point, on Canadian industries selling into the United States.
In other words, in order to get the deal with Washington, our monetary authorities in consultation with the Minister of Finance more or less did what they were told, which was to take some of the competitive edge off Canadian industry so that the Americans would not be so mad at us and Congress would pass the Prime Minister's American option-I have finally found the words for it that can be used in a parliamentary sense-which our Prime Minister signed.
What other deals have been made? I am not sure. I was encouraged because I think it was a sensible statement when
January 22, 1988

the Governor said that he is not wedded to a particular exchange rate for the Canadian dollar. I think that is correct. 1 think we make a bit too much over whether the dollar is at 100 cents, 78 cents or 72 cents or even at 65 cents. What is important is how Canadians are living here in this country, and not more than that. I do want to know whether there have been any secret deals made between Canada and the United States in order to encourage Congress to go ahead with this American option for Canada that will put the dollar up to 80, 82 or 84 cents sometime in the near future.
I would like some reassurance from the Government, if it has any priority for full employment, particularly in the regions, that it will reject this obsession of the Governor who is prepared to wrestle inflation to zero per cent even if it means another half a million Canadians have to go without jobs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 understand there is a disposition for Bill C-99 to be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hockin, seconded by Mr. Lewis moved that Bill C-99, an Act to amend the Currency Act, be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
On Clause 1-Net income credited to C.R.F.
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I do not think when we agreed to put this Bill through today that we expected there would be some reason for which comments like the one made would be germane, but I think we can get through this within three or four minutes. Could the Minister of State for Finance comment on the recent operations of the Exchange Fund account? Specifically, will he confirm that the Government has intervened in the Exchange Fund account in order to allow the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates at their current level, a level which I think is excessive and that the Exchange Fund account is being used to control the dollar from going up as fast as it might because the Government is agreeing with the Bank of Canada that interest rates should be kept at their present level?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Chairman, I certainly cannot confirm that. I will endeavour to do some research on that for the Hon.
Currency Act
Member. I think the operation of the exchange fund account is affected by a whole host of variables. The Member mentions but one. There are many others. It would be very difficult to extract one particular determining variable and announce that that is the cause of the Exchange Fund account's differing balance at the end of each day.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, maybe 1 could pursue this a little bit and ask the Minister of State for Finance this question. Is it true that we could have prevented the dollar from rising at perhaps an excessive rate by allowing the interest rates to come down? Is it not also true-the Government talks about 120,000 jobs that might conceivably come in the 1990s from the trade deal which the Prime Minister had signed-that that reduction of interest rates would and could bring about a much bigger increase in employment and this could be done now in 1988 rather than waiting five years for the results of a trade deal which has all kinds of other adverse consequences for Canada.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to accept that this particular question is relevant to the Bill. The Bill is a straight accounting change. We are not discussing substantive policy. I think it is wrong for me to depart into an economic lecture on the use of the Exchange Fund account when this Bill is changing a simple accounting treatment which is about two years overdue for change.


Marcel Danis: I believe the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre recognizes that fact.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, to some extent my question did relate to the operations of the Exchange Fund account. We have the Governor saying that he needs to keep interest rates high because of the inflation problem. Then you see the Exchange Fund being used in order to keep the Governor from having to reduce interest rates. Does the Government agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada when he says that the inflation rate is too high and that the inflation rate should be wrestled to zero regardless of what impact that might have on other desirable areas of economic policy, including unemployment?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Chairman, clearly the Hon. Member certainly thinks that interest rates are too high. Clearly the Hon. Member thinks that the level of the Canadian dollar is too high. Clearly he thinks by lowering both all problems would be solved. The Government disagrees with both those premises.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question for the Minister which follows on what he has just said. As the Minister pointed out, this is an accounting change which is overdue. I would appreciate hearing the chronology from the Minister and why this has taken so long.

January 22, 1988
The rules were changed some two years ago in the Public Accounts of Canada. In the February 1986 Budget, the Minister of Finance announced some changes in the accounting practices respecting the Public Accounts of Canada. Some of these were made in response to repeated recommendations of the Auditor General, and that included the consolidation of the Exchange Fund account and other special accounts with the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Those changes were put into effect immediately in the Public Accounts. Through those changes the three year averaging provision was abandoned with respect to the Public Accounts. It has taken a full two years to bring in this Bill which finally gets things on an equal footing. Could the Minister explain the delay?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Chairman, the Member is quite right. The response in two recommendations of the Auditor General was the consolidation of the two accounts; the Exchange Fund account and the other special accounts with the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This change was put into immediate effect in the Public Accounts. We are now getting around to changing the Currency Act.
[DOT] (MOO)
The Hon. Member asked why it had taken so long and it has been more than a year. I will be glad to try to see if I can get more information on this, but my understanding is that there were a number of accounts of the Government that had to be changed in order to be made consistent with the accounting principles in the Public Accounts. There were grain accounts and various other stabilization accounts. This is one of many. It is my understanding that they were to be done more or less at the same time and that is what has held us up. I would like to be able to confirm that for the Hon. Member and I will look into it further.


Marcel Danis: It being eleven o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the Bill again later this day.
Progress reported.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state in the House that the constituents of Ottawa-Vanier are writing to me in large numbers-this week alone I received over 20 letters-concerning the CBC allnews channel and the protest that has been raised by Tory Members of Parliament and others. I would like to read one letter from constituents of mine representative of the number that I have received this week:
May I request you to voice on my behalf, and on behalf of many other constituents in our riding, our opposition to this move and to contact the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Communications to urge that the Cabinet not overturn the CRTC's decision on this issue.
The standards and quality of CBC's news programming have been judged superior to that of the private broadcasting companies. Moreover, the CBC is one of our most important national institutions, instrumental in the development of Canada's national identity and it is in our own interest to support and strengthen it. Awarding the licence to the CBC will ensure competent and independent news service in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would only ask that, with respect to the question of linguistic specificity, francophone viewers be provided with similar services in their own language.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Montreal has announced that it is about to shed what it calls nickel-and-dime charges. I commend the bank for its leadership in this direction and I am sure customers will appreciate not having to pay to deposit and withdraw from savings accounts.
There are other charges in all banks that are not so nickel and dime that should be looked at very seriously. There is also the feeling in the business community that our banks are charging an excessive interest rate to cover losses chartered banks incurred with foreign loans. Bank customers refer to the large spread between interest paid and interest charged. Perhaps the banks should clear this matter up for the general public. While some progress in public relations may be made by banks, there is still a lot left to be desired.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today at 12 noon in the Rotunda of Parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), on behalf of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), along with Members of Parliament from all Parties, will join with Metropolitan Maxim of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and Metropolitan Wasyly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and representatives of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee in inaugurating the celebration in Canada of the millenium of Christianity in Ukraine.
It is fitting that celebrations of this event be launched today in Ottawa, the day that in 1918 Ukrainians re-established their
January 22, 1988

right to govern themselves by declaring the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in Kiev.
In 988, St. Volodymyr the Great, the ruler of Kiev, adopted the Christian faith as the religion of his nation by baptizing his people in the waters of the Dnieper River.
The acceptance of Christianity profoundly altered the entire further course of Ukrainian history, significantly determining the development of Ukrainian culture in all of its manifestations and giving rise to a wealth of spiritual and social values.
The struggle of the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic churches, along with Ukrainian Protestant denominations, to overcome Russian imperialist and Soviet systemic persecution and banning has been a symbol to Ukrainians across the world to maintain their own rich historical and religious legacy.
I am sure I can speak for all Members of the House, and indeed for all Canadians, in extending best wishes to Ukrainians throughout the world for the solemn observance and festive celebration of the millenium year.



INCOME TAX


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Olympic flame came to the Yukon and it was a great event as it has been elsewhere in Canada. Now Revenue Canada has set up enough hurdles for northern Canadians to file for their northern tax benefits to qualify as an Olympic event.
I have received numerous telephone calls from constituents who, when they received their tax forms, found that they had been requested to fill out their T22-22 northern tax benefit forms only to find that they were not there. I began the quest for the forms.
It appears that the guides for these tax benefits have not been circulated, and indeed are not printed and will not be available until the end of February. 1 have been told by officials at Revenue Canada that they will send out copies of the guides and forms to residents, or that residents may call regional offices. It is a good idea to call the regional offices, but many northern Canadians do not have telephones. That clearly does not serve the public.
I call on the Minister to ensure that guides and forms for northern tax benefits will be made available in all post offices in the designated regions so that northern Canadians too can "go for the gold".



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind the Government and particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) of the ongoing and unacceptable problem of aircraft noise over the Humberlea community in my riding. This frustrating problem is by no means new. The Minister's predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), was presented with this same dilemma on a number of occasions and failed then to resolve it to the satisfaction of residents.
The issue of overwhelming noise from planes departing from or approaching Pearson International Airport emanates from the disproportionate use of the East-West runway 24-L despite the fact that there is another parallel runway, 24-R, just to the North. The community is simply fed up and frustrated with the Government's excuses and it will no longer tolerate an unbalanced, unfair procedure of utilizing 24-L to an exaggerated and unacceptable degree.
I am demanding, therefore, that the Minister intervene to ensure that the Department's policy of alternating runways every four hours be respected. The time for action to guarantee a balanced pattern of flights over the Humberlea community is now, before its fabric as a neighbourhood and the health of its citizens are affected any further, particularly considering that the Government has now approved and will soon be building a third air terminal at Pearson International Airport.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CRITICISM OF GRANTING SPECIALTY SERVICES CABLE LICENCES

Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC's November decision to grant new licences to TV specialty services deprives Canadians of the freedom of choice we cherish. Most do not know that if they do not want a 24-hour rock channel, a religious channel, or an all-news channel, they will be forced to receive it and will have no choice. Most do not know that they will be forced to pay an extra monthly charge for these services, estimated at over $2, and they will have no choice.
What about the 25 per cent of Canadians who do not have a channel converter? Their plight is even worse. Not only will they not be able to receive the new services but they will have to pay for them anyway. What about seniors or low-income families to whom the additional charge of $2-plus per month will be a burden? They will either have to pay it or give up their cable service.

January 22, 1988
Canadians here in Ottawa are rebelling and are making their views known to their cable companies here. They do not want this forced down their throats. 1 encourage all Canadians to write or call their cable companies to express their outrage at this mandatory carriage of service.



WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great expectation that all Canadians await the opening of the 15th Winter Olympic Games in Calgary on February 13. In large part, credit for this air of anticipation must go to the efforts of PetroCan in its sponsorship of the Olympic Torch relay.
As the torch has travelled on its 88-day cross-country journey, it has served to capture the Canadian imagination and has acted as a focal point for national pride. Certainly this was the case on January 5 when 10,000 people braved bitterly cold temperatures to catch a glimpse of the flame as it passed through the city of Kitchener. It was a heartwarming and uplifting experience for everyone who had the privilege of being present.
O)
PetroCan's rigorous planning has not only ensured that the relay proceeded safely and with remarkable precision, its sensitive attention to every detail also contributed immensely to the joy and excitement of this remarkable event. PetroCan is doing a first-class job and is to be congratulated.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua, has asked President Reagan to reopen bilateral talks, since he has met Reagan's condition by opening talks with the Contras. In the past, Reagan and the Contras demanded concession after concession and, when Nicaragua agreed, they demanded further concessions. Reagan demanded reopening of La Prensa, and ending of censorship and the state of emergency. When Nicaragua did so, Reagan said they were only cosmetic and asked for more.
Nicaragua has now abolished the popular tribunals and agreed that 3,300 prisoners, including hundreds convicted of assault or murder, can go free, and either remain in Nicaragua if the war has ended, or else leave Central America. It has offered to let the UN, the OAS, and the Republican and Democratic Parties send observers to monitor the Contras' reentry into Nicaraguan civil and political life. Nicaragua has agreed to hold elections for municipal office and for the Central American Parliament on schedule.
Now the Government of Canada ought to tell President Reagan to stop supplying arms to the Contras and to begin the bilateral peace talks with the Government of Nicaragua which he broke off.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, cohesive and realistic were the words used yesterday by Michel Belanger, President of the National Bank, to describe the Government's economic policies. Belanger maintains that a cautious monetary policy, a gradual reduction of the deficit, and freer trade enabled Canada last year to outrank all other industrialized countries in production and growth in employment.

After asking "how does one explain the widespread silence on the quality of the Conservative Government's performance?", Mr. Belanger went on to say that "a government following a successful policy for which it does not get credit is tempted indeed to change course". However we know that our Government will not change course and will implement the free trade agreement.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, as it stands, Section 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act implicitly discriminates against the mothers of those premature babies who are most at risk and who are, for that reason, unable to come home from the hospital on their due date. Under Section 30, mothers can begin their maternity leave early should the baby arrive prior to the expected date. Alternatively, if the baby is premature and cannot leave the hospital immediately, the mother has the option of delaying her maternity leave until the expected date, at which time, presumably, the baby will be taken home from the hospital. However, there the flexibility of the Act ends. There is no provision to allow for further delays beyond the baby's expected date of arrival.
The mother of a premature baby who is not ready to come home from the hospital on her expected due date has two options. She can take her maternity leave without her baby,
January 22, 1988

which defeats the purpose of maternity leave, can prove very depressing for the mother, and in general makes little sense, or she can choose to forgo part of a leave which should be hers by right of law.
This choice is clearly unjust to a group of mothers who surely need more help rather than less, and I urge the Minister to consider changing this very important part of the Act.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, there appear to be two systems of justice in this country. There is one system of justice for the rich and powerful, one system for Conservative cabinet Ministers, and another system of justice for ordinary Canadians.
We have learned that a Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), appears to have breached the Elections Act. It was decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute him. I ask why is it not in the public interest to prosecute a Minister of the Crown who breaches an Act passed by this Parliament? Why is it in the public interest to prosecute ordinary Canadians who run stop signs or park illegally but it is not in the public interest to prosecute a Conservative cabinet Minister?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) knew or ought to have known that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and convict that Minister. He ought not to have allowed that Minister back in the Cabinet. What message does this send out to Canadians across the country? The message is very clear. If you are a Conservative cabinet Minister, there is one system of justice. If you are an ordinary Canadian, there is another system of justice.
I call on the Government of Canada to show some decency and some sense of morality and force that Minister to resign.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1987, I raised in the House of Commons the case of Balkar Singh, a Canadian citizen under arrest in India, and the fact that, in the presence of both a
Canadian consular official and a doctor he made an allegation of torture.
Since that time Mr. Singh's lawyer has filed a writ of habeas corpus citing that in the presence of named senior Indian police officials he was first hamstrung from the ceiling, then someone sat between his legs and started jumping, using him as a swing. Following this, electric shocks were applied to his sexual organ, armpits and head. His legs were then forced to virtually 180 degrees. He was then beaten on the stomach and on the soles of his feet and to this day he cannot walk.
Three weeks ago a lawyer for the accused gave a copy of this sworn information to the Canadian High Commission and urgently requested a follow-up consular visit. No access has been allowed by the Indian Government.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday John Crow, Governor of the Bank of Canada, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to answer questions about the bank's conduct of monetary policy which affects interest rates and the value of our dollar. It is now clear that Mr. Crow sings from the same old song-book used by Gerald Bouey.
The regions of Canada, the Atlantic provinces, rural Quebec, northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia, and the North, can suffer from exceedingly high rates of unemployment and still the Governor of the Bank of Canada will not even consider the possibility of lowering interest rates because the boom times in southern Ontario may nudge up inflation.
What we have here is an admission that there are two policies in this country, one for southern Ontario and one for the rest of us in the far-flung regions. Do the people in Corner Brook, Chicoutimi, Timmins, Flin-Flon, Cranbrook, Kamloops or Clearwater not matter as much as the people in Toronto? Why are John Crow and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) writing off these people? Do they not care? Obviously not.
New Democrats say it is time that the Bank of Canada reduces interest rates. Even a 1 per cent drop would yield twice the economic benefits of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal over the next decade. We believe it is time for an interest rate policy which is fair to everyone. New Democrats believe that no matter where you live in this great country you deserve a chance to be employed.
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS

January 22, 1988



COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SYSTEM-CALL FOR COMMITTEE EXAMINATION

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the Prince Rupert grain handling dispute is now over and western grain farmers will breathe a sigh of relief, temporarily. The tragedy is that it is those same grain farmers who will have to pay for the failure of management and labour to bargain collectively and reach an agreement. As is so often the case, the Government has been called upon to intervene.
I believe Canadians are tiring of a system whereby innocent third parties pay for the failure of management and labour to come to a reasonable conclusion. I think Canadians are asking parliamentarians to consider doing away with strikes and lockouts in essential services, instead seeking out better ways of resolving these disputes without the terrible debilitating effects which strikes and lock-outs and prolonged labour disputes cause.
Whether it is Prince Rupert or Air Canada, or the railways or the Post Office, the Vancouver Port or the Port of Thunder Bay, the principle is the same. I implore Members of Parliament to consider establishment of a special committee to find better ways of dealing with these breakdowns in the collective bargaining system.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it would be useful this morning if the Prime Minister were available and accountable to Parliament-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Don Boudria: -but in his absence I want to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Where is Turner?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Who is Turner ?


Mr. Speaker:: I very much hesitate to interrupt the lead question. However, one of the reasons, as Hon. Members know, that we do not comment upon the presence or absence of a Member is that Members have to be many places, and that includes Prime Ministers. It creates disorder, as it just did. It is perfectly appropriate to say "in the absence of a certain Minister I will put the question to another Minister". That is a
courtesy and a long-standing tradition. I know that Hon. Members will want to stay within our rules.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it relates to the violation of the Elections Act by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
When the Prime Minister decided to bring the Minister back into his Cabinet in November 1985, was he aware of Mr. Gorman's letter in which he said to the Minister, and I quote: " ... evidence on file indicates that you were party to a violation of Section 62 of the Elections Act."?
At the time, was the Prime Minister aware of that, yes or no?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think what is relevant in this case is the fact that when the allegations surfaced the Minister did the proper thing in the parliamentary tradition and removed himself from the office of the Minister of Communications. The issue was investigated in detail by the appropriate authorities. The Commissioner of Elections rendered a verdict and that verdict was accepted by the Prime Minister.
I remind Hon. Members again that if they want to take issue with the judgment, the discretion, and the verdict that was brought down by the Commissioner, who is entitled to bring down his verdict as outlined in the Act, it is perfectly within their right to do so. However, I remind him that this individual is commissioned under statute to carry out the law and he has carried out the terms of the law, exercising his discretion and judgment as he so saw fit.


Don Boudria: I am taking issue with a judgment, the judgment of the Prime Minister.


REINSTATEMENT OF MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister himself resigned from Cabinet, saying in the House that he was to establish his innocence, and given that Mr. Gorman's letter says of the Minister: "Proof in the dossier demonstrates that you participated in an infraction against paragraph 62.6-" of the Canada Elections Act, why did the Prime Minister, who knew or should have known, return this person to Cabinet?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests that the Minister is guilty. The Commissioner did not find that he was guilty. If he so found he would have exercised his prerogative
January 22, 1988

and proceeded with the prosecution. In his wisdom and judgment there was not sufficient evidence to proceed.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister, in an open letter sent to Members of Parliament concerning public sector ethics and morals, said that there was: "No doubt that the ultimate responsibility for the ethical standards of the federal Government rests with Cabinet and more particularly with me". Therefore, the responsibility belongs to the Prime Minister. He said so himself.
Therefore, why did he reappoint to Cabinet a person whom the Chief Electoral Officer had found to be in breach of the Canada Elections Act? Why did the Prime Minister breach yet another promise to the people of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is really, in effect, a parliamentary issue. An officer of Parliament has been charged with the responsibility of investigating this issue. As was pointed out by the Chief Electoral Officer in a news release of yesterday:
-the Canada Elections Act makes it quite clear that it is the function of the Commissioner to decide whether or not to proceed to prosecute a case. The Commissioner consents to prosecution only when he is satisfied that he has all the necessary facts and only in those cases where he believes that it would be in the interest of justice to do so and where there is every likelihood that the prosecution will succeed.
I invite the Hon. Member to read the pertinent sections of the Act. Perhaps I may have to quote them in the House.
Hon. Members are taking issue with a decision that has been made by an officer of this House. I think it is wrong to do so.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Two and one-half months ago the Minister said, as reported at page 10666 of Hansard'.
One of the consequences of the activity of the Senate is to raise once again the spectre of whether drug prices will increase at a faster rate than the cost of living. They will not. I maintain that those who claim that they will are wrong and have no basis for making that claim.
In view of his undertaking, and in view of the fact that the Ontario Ministry of Health has confirmed that drug prices in that province are rising above the CPI level-in some instances in excess of 100 per cent and in one instance above 250 per cent-will the Minister now admit that Bill C-22 is a sham with regard to protecting consumer interests? What will he do
Oral Questions
about it? Will he do the honourable thing and rescind Bill C-22?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in Canadian law passed by this Parliament, there has not been the ability of any federal institution to monitor the prices of drugs and keep them within reasonable levels. Bill C-22 provides that capability through the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board.
If, in fact, the Hon. Member is angry about this apparent news from Ontario that prices may be rising faster than the cost of living in the immediate past, he should direct his anger at his own colleagues in the other place who delayed passage of Bill C-22 so long that the Drug Prices Review Board is not in place to do anything about that apparent problem.


BILL C-22-MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Canadians are saying, and the Minister has confirmed for all to hear and see, that he is nothing more than a mere puppet for the multinational corporations. After the Minister stated in the House of Commons on August 14, August 21, and November 3, 1987, that prices will not exceed CPI, how can he stand in his place and say that? Is it not a fact that he is not assuming his responsibilities as Minister responsible for consumers? This Bill is being allowed to gouge seniors by charging them a higher cost for drugs. When will he do something about it?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's ignorance of Bill C-22 and its purpose is mindboggling, given the apparent time he spent studying the Bill. He ought to be aware of the necessity of getting the regulations promulgated before the Drug Prices Review Board is able to exercise that authority. Had the Hon. Member, his friends in the New Democratic Party, and the Hon. Member's colleagues in the other place not been so irresponsible in their delay, this Board would be up and operating, and there would not be these price increases.
If he is angry at somebody, he should look in the mirror because the villain is there.

[ Translation]


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr. Bruce Phillips, a well-known former Conservative and now Director of Communications in the Prime Minister's Office, said according to the media this morning, and I quote: "-the Prime

January 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Minister's Office was aware of the facts involving the Member for Frontenac well before yesterday". Mr. Phillips said: "There was other correspondence prepared by Mr. Gorman which gives further details on this case".
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: What was the date on the document which Mr. Phillips was referring to? When was it received in the Prime Minister's Office and what did it contain?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure of all the details to which the Hon. Member is referring. However, what is at issue here is a judgment that was rendered by an officer of Parliament who rendered a decision after an investigation and consideration of the case. Perhaps it might be appropriate to quote from the Canada Elections Act to put this whole issue into perspective-


Mr. Murphy:: Answer the question, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If they do not want me to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, I can sit down. I am trying to explain it so it might enlighten them, because I think there is a certain amount of political grandstanding here-


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's an injustice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -over an issue that is of very fundamental importance, which strikes at the very heart of our parliamentary institution.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Indeed, it does, integrity.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is a law that was passed by all Parties in this House. Section 70 (3) states the following:
The Chief Electoral Office shall appoint a Commissioner of Canada Elections-whose duties, under the general supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer, shall be to ensure that the provisions of this Act are complied with and enforced.
Section 70(4) states:
No prosecution for an offence under this Act or for an offence under section 115 of the Criminal Code in relation to anything that this Act forbids or requires to be done shall be instituted except with the prior consent in writing of the Commissioner.
It is the Commissioner who has the duty, the power and the authority to press charges. In this case he exercised his judgment and discretion and chose not to do so, because of insufficient evidence, I would assume.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have here the ghost of Allan J. MacEachen. Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to the question I just asked. Mr. Bruce
Phillips, Director of Communications in the Prime Minister's Office, said that other correspondence had been drafted by Mr. Gorman in the case involving the Member for Frontenac well before yesterday and had been circulated in the Prime Minister's Office.
I would like to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to table these documents and also what these documents contain. And I would like to know when the Prime Minister's Office was made aware of the situation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has some documents which he has in his hands, as he had yesterday, let him table them. Let him bring them forward.


RETENTION OF MINISTER IN CABINET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It seems to me that Mr. Bruce Phillips is rather a reliable person in this operation across the way, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have that document tabled before this House and I am sure the Canadian people want it. What we want is honesty and openness in government and we are not getting it from this Minister across the way.
I also want to know why a year and a half ago, when the Prime Minister found more information about a former Minister, he kicked him out of the Cabinet and set up an inquiry, and now when we have more information about a violation of the Elections Act by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, why is that Minister kept in Cabinet, and why is there no inquiry into his conduct?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a categorically false statement. If there had been a violation, prosecution and charges would have been laid. This was not the case-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There was a violation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There was a violation.


Mr. Fulton:: There was a violation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member is now questioning the judgment of an officer of this House. I think it is fundamentally immoral to do so.


RESULT OF INQUIRY-REINSTATEMENT OF MINISTER IN CABINET-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the Deputy Prime Minister did not find time in the last two days to speak to the Prime Minister and find out whether he was aware of the results of the investigation when he recalled his Minister to Cabinet. Canadians expected
January 22, 1988

the Prime Minister to consider the results of the investigation before making that decision.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to the House how the Prime Minister could decide to recall his Minister to Cabinet without first checking the results of the investigation. And if the Prime Minister did have time to check the results, how could he reappoint to Cabinet a Minister who was found violating the law of this country?
[English)


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is really amazing how the Hon. Members try to involve the Prime Minister-


Jacques Guilbault: He appoints Ministers, as far as I know.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -in an issue which was dealt with by an officer of this institution, namely, the Commissioner of Elections. The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated in The Globe and Mail that he would be prepared to come before any parliamentary committee and explain this whole issue. If Hon. Members want to take issue with the verdict or decision that was rendered, let them take issue with the officers of this House who rendered such a decision.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Deputy Prime Minister that it is the Prime Minister who appoints Ministers and who has the responsibility to make sure that they are clean.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Absolutely.


QUERY WHY CHARGES NOT LAID
Jacques Guilbault: The Election Commissioner has determined that there is proof in the dossier that the Minister has participated in an infraction against Section 62 of the Canada Elections Act. Yet no charge has been laid. On the other hand, three ordinary people have been charged in connection with this election expenses violation.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how come there are two standards of justice in this country under this Government? There is one special standard for Tory Ministers and there is another standard of justice for ordinary people. Why do you accept the double standard? Why didn't you inquire as to why the charges were not laid?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will, of course, put his questions in the appropriate way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to smear everybody, including the Commissioner of Elections, he can choose to do so. If the Hon. Member takes issue with the decision he rendered it is certainly his prerogative under the
Oral Questions
rules of the House to call him before a committee to explain his judgment. There is no question about it. That is not a decision, it is not a judgment that was rendered by this Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Will the Prime Minister appear, too?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This Government was not even responsible for the appointment of the Commissioner.


Ms. Copps:: What about Masse?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is a parliamentary issue.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who appointed the Minister?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Will the Prime Minister appear?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a parliamentary issue inasmuch as the officers of this House are charged with the responsibility of determining the facts and then rendering a judgment. That is what is done. If Hon. Members opposite want to take issue with that, they can certainly do so. If they want to call the individual before a committee of the House to respond, they can do that as well.


COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS-PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The cabinet Minister in question, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, was found by the Commissioner of Canada Elections to have participated in an infraction of the Canada Elections Act. Other people were prosecuted for that same participation. Did the Prime Minister know that the Commissioner had found that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had also participated in this infraction? And if the Prime Minister did know this, when did he find it out?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members insist on prosecuting the individual when there were not grounds for prosecution. Again, I am quoting from a background document which was provided by Elections Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member who wants to ask a question would stand up, he may be recognized, rather than talking from his seat.
The backgrounder document has an item in here that explains when a prosecution is authorized, and I quote:
The Commissioner consents to prosecution only when he is satisfied that he
has all the necessary facts and only in those cases where he believes that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so and where there is every likelihood
that the prosecution will succeed.
That is the power and authority he has, and he rendered that discretion and that judgment in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

January 22, 1988
Oral Questions


INFRACTION OF ACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, time after time the Deputy Prime Minister has risen and quoted from the press release. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister pretend that the letter written to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not exist? Why will he not deal with the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was found by the Commissioner to have participated in an infraction of the Canada Elections Act, an infraction for which others were prosecuted? Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not answer the question as to when the Prime Minister found this out and whether or not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told the Prime Minister this? And why has the Government not acted on this very important issue? Why the stonewalling? Does he have a log cabin in Vegreville he wants to go back to?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member takes issue with me quoting from the background document that is provided by Elections Canada. Perhaps, then, to edify his mind just a wee bit, 1 might quote from Section 70(8) of the Canada Elections Act which again puts into perspective the discretion and power the Commissioner has. It states as follows:
Where the Chief Electoral Officer has reasonable cause to believe that an
election officer may have committed an offence against this Act. the Chief
Electoral Officer shall-
The word is "shall",
-direct the Commissioner to make such inquiry as appears to be called for
in the circumstances and, if after making such inquiry, it appears to the
Commissioner that a prosecution for the offence should be taken, he shall-
It goes on to outline the steps that he should take, such as institute and carry on such a prosecution or cause it to be instituted and carried on. It is solely the Commissioner's judgment in this case. It is clearly specified in the Act.
Why will Hon. Members not follow an Act which this House passed and which had the endorsement and agreement of all Parties?


HUMAN RIGHTS
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that in recent weeks Israeli troops in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have killed 36 Palestinian demonstrators, including women and children. He will also know that Israeli troops have indulged in beatings, the use of
food as a weapon, and violated fundamental human rights of Palestinians.
Will the Minister advise the House what specific action the Government of Canada is taking to protest Israel's excessive measures?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am pleased to know that some Members of the House are interested in questions of this importance. I met yesterday with Israel's Ambassador to Canada. I expressed to him Canada's deep and growing concern about developments in the occupied territories and about actions of the Government of Israel. I was able to speak as strongly to the Ambassador because of Canada's historic and continuing close friendship with Israel.
Later today I will be meeting with Ambassadors to Canada of various Arab countries. In all of those conversations I am making known not only our deep concern about developments there but I am asking that all parties with influence on events in that region use their influence to try, in the first instance, to bring about some reduction in the atmosphere of violence and, in the second instance, to look for any ways that might provide a more durable solution to the problems there, including conditions that would allow an international peace conference to be effective.


REVENUE CANADA
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are wondering about justice in Canada. My question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Last night Canadians were outraged to learn of the case of an elderly couple in Eganville who were wrongfully accused of a criminal act and subsequently acquitted. They had their $62,000 motor home seized three years ago. The Government and the Minister of National Revenue refuse to release the $62,000 motor home to this elderly couple.
Canadians are wondering where is the justice. They are wondering where is the fairness. Why has the Minister not taken action before now? I ask him not to give us any excuses. Will he tell us today whether he has given the order to release the motor home immediately?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite comes a bit late to this case. Some of his colleagues have been making very effective representations for a long time.
This matter came officially to the attention of our Department about a year and a half after the difficulty occurred. Had Mr. and Mrs. Buelow been able to avail themselves of the regular appeal procedures there would have been a much
January 22, 1988

easier resolution to the problem. However, I am glad to inform the House that, after some difficulty in finding an appropriate mechanism to do the proper thing, it appears that a solution has been found. I will be glad to report to the House very shortly on the matter.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of strange that it takes the news media to bring some sense of justice to the Government. Had it not been for the report last night the Minister would not have taken action.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Could we have some silence from the other side?


Mr. Charest:: We are sorry, we will not do it again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


John V. Nunziata: The Minister has admitted that he has known about this case for about a year and a half. Notwithstanding the fact that he has known about it, his official on national television last night said that there was no answer. 1 would like to propose an answer to the Minister today.
Will the Minister introduce immediately in the House a Bill-and I give my consent on behalf of the Official Opposition to allow it to go through all three stages-to allow the release of the motor home to the Buelows? Further, will he extend an apology on behalf of the Government of Canada to the Buelows and pay them the necessary compensation?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, it appears that it was the media who brought the attention of the matter to the Hon. Member. As I stated, our Department has known about this matter for some time.
We will do whatever is necessary to provide some equity in this situation. The solution my colleague has offered may be feasible, but there is probably a more expedient way to deal with the matter.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL SECURITY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday we learned that when CSIS agent Marc Boivin worked at the CNTU he incited others to engage in such criminal activities as arson, kidnapping, dynamiting, and even murder. On Tuesday the Minister said that CSIS did not exceed its
Oral Questions
mandate. Here is my question: Can the Minister tell us whether CSIS was aware of Boivin's activities and why it kept such a dangerous agent provocateur on its payroll?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first, I believe that the Hon. Member is referring to some allegations made yesterday in a press conference by a certain individual of the CNTU. I suggest, if he is making allegations of that kind and, given the serious nature of these allegations, he should certainly go to the police with them. I am surprised that he has not done that.
Second, with respect to the activities of Mr. Boivin, I have advised the House on a number of occasions that I asked the Inspector General to investigate this matter thoroughly. He has completed his investigation in that regard. I am advised by the Inspector General that Marc Boivin was not directed or encouraged by CSIS to commit any illegal acts, nor was Boivin targeted against the CNTU or any union in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada by CSIS.


ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT BY CSIS OF POLISH HIJACKER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the fundamental question. Did CSIS in fact know that Boivin was encouraging these criminal and illegal acts while he was being paid by CSIS? If CSIS does not know what its own agents are up to it is no wonder that it does not have a clue as to what its real targets are doing.
In light of this latest revelation of Boivin's activity and the Minister's blindness to it, and after learning that CSIS apparently got a committed Polish hijacker and prison escapee into Canada with fake I.D., how much more will it take before the Minister finally recognizes that he has no control whatsoever over CSIS, and does the honourable thing and resigns?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the allegations with respect to Mr. Boivin.
With respect to the Hon. Member's allegations about the Polish individual, I advise the Hon. Member and the House that the individual entered Canada illegally in December, 1984. I am advised that some months after and only after he arrived in Canada he volunteered his services to CSIS. I have been advised that prior to his voluntary departure in August of 1986 from Canada the Service severed its relationship with him.
Finally, I can advise the Hon. Member and the House that there is an outstanding warrant for this individual. If he attempts to re-enter Canada he will be arrested and subsequently deported.

January 22, 1988
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


INDIA-ACCESS TO DETAINED CANADIAN CITIZEN
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It again concerns Balkar Singh, a Canadian citizen under arrest in India.
Can the Minister confirm that several weeks ago Mr. Singh's lawyer requested a further consular visit from our High Commission in New Delhi citing allegations of torture, that the Canadian High Commission has been attempting to secure access to Mr. Singh, and that the Indian Government is refusing to allow a consular visit? If so, what formal action is the Minister prepared to take?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we were requested to seek a second consular visit. We have sought a second consular visit. I have not yet received a response. I expect to receive that response soon, and I expect it to be positive.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or his spokesperson. It deals with the outrageous revelations in today's paper that multinational drug companies have succeeded in ripping off Canadian taxpayers by putting in increases which the Minister claimed would never occur.
I would like to ask the Minister's spokesperson, given that he made this commitment, does he realize that this juicy little increase that has been implemented by the multinational drug companies will result in an extra billion dollars in compounded profit over the next 10 years? Because of this outrageous rip-off by the multinationals, will he not now revoke this unfair law which will raise drug prices for senior citizens?


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell the Liberal Senators.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was in the House earlier, and he answered that question. He gave that answer to the House, and that answer stands.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He did not answer that question.


COST TO CONSUMERS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Minister's promise on no higher drug prices is about
the same as the Prime Minister's promise on no cuts on senior citizens' pensions.
I wish to ask the Minister if he will answer the specific question, that as a result of this deliberate move by the drug companies to sabotage a price system in Canada, they have moved in and jacked up prices because they know that this will be compounded over the next 10 years. Does he realize that Canadians will be paying an extra billion dollars to the multinational drug companies? Is that what we can expect from the benefits of free trade?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, experience has taught me not to accept anything as factual from that Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I don't tell lies. I don't tell lies to the people of Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I say to the Hon. Member is that they delayed Bill C-22. They are now delaying Bill C-84. Whenever something happens to the public then they want to blame somebody else for not having taken the action.
They set up the Eastman Commission. They knew there were going to be changes. Now they want it both ways. It is about time that they decide which way they want to go-


Sheila Maureen Copps: We want that Bill removed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -rather than coming here every day and creating issues when they know in the Senate that they have been blocking those Bills, and this commission would have been in place even when they themselves had appointed the commission. It is just that the Member loves much more to make some political mileage than to get back to the truth.


REQUEST THAT INCREASES BE ROLLED BACK
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Health.
When Bill C-22 was introduced the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Health were repeatedly questioned on the effect on drug prices. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated on November 18, 1986, "The price of drugs will not increase by one cent, not those now on the market, not those coming on the market".
Since the Government gave the drug companies 10-year patent protection retroactive to June 27, 1986, and the drug companies promised no increases above the CPI, and now on more than 1,000 drugs they have broken that promise, will the Minister of Health tell the House and the people of Canada whether the Government is going to live up to its word and roll those price increases back?
January 22, 1988


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Government will live up to its word. With the passage of Bill C-22 it is setting up a commission along the lines of the Bill for exactly the purpose relative to the CPI and the pricing policy related to that Bill.
1 wish that the Hon. Member had thought of this a little sooner and supported it a little earlier.


SENIOR CITIZENS-PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAMS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
This obviously intentional blink will cost the consumers of Canada a couple of hundred million bucks, but I guess that those kind of blinks are okay for the Conservatives.
Late last year the Government sent to households across Canada a leaflet about the drug Bill C-22. In the publication it states, "All senior citizens are covered by prescription drug programs". The Minister of Health knows that to be categorically false. What steps does he intend to take to at least set the record straight for seniors in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the NDP Party opposed the establishment of a price review board under Bill C-22. They did not want a price review board and opposed it day in and day out. Now, after that long delay, we can finally shut it up because it is going to work-


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -I say to the Hon. Member that they should have supported a price review board rather than coming here and asking what we have done about it. We have done something about it, and they have not as yet.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He probably knows that Canadians are stunned to learn that the Minister of the Environment wants to make his position in Cabinet weaker by relinquishing part of his environmental duties in favour of the fixed link from P.E.I. to the mainland. The Minister of the Environment proposes to reduce the heart and soul of his environmental mandate.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, in light of the Minister's support for the fixed link and his concern about possible conflict of interest, he should be relieved of his environmental duties altogether in order that he will be free to pursue his involvement in the link?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of the Environment has written to the Prime Minister expressing his concern about the perceived conflict that could arise in the consideration of this very important matter. The letter is in the Prime Minister's hands and it is being considered, but it by no means has been accepted at this time.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW MINISTER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: My supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following. If the Minister of the Environment is unwilling to carry out his full duties, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not appoint a real Minister of the Environment in order that we have the environmental concerns of Islanders, New Brunswickers, and Canadians at large fully addressed by one and not by two Ministers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone in this House, or anyone in the country, would wish to criticize the distinguished service that the present Minister of the Environment has provided to Canadians, and particularly on environmental concerns.
It is simply because of his high standard of integrity that he wanted to draw this to the attention of the Prime Minister. I certainly believe that, in fairness, the Minister will be able to carry out this duty and all his other responsibilities pertaining to the environment in an effective fashion.
It clearly demonstrates to the House and to the country the fact that he, as a Minister, wants to be seen and perceived as being a man of integrity, and a man who is primarily concerned about the environmental interests of this great nation.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Last year the Minister and his Department gave a very needed $140 to $150 increase to the disabled and disadvantaged in this country only to see this very generous sum taken back by the Peterson Government in Ontario. I find it rather hypocritical when the Liberals talk about drug price increases-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Tories did it for 40 years.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: -that we would see this type of uncaring attitude from the province.

January 22, 1988
Oral Questions
We now see a further increase of 4.4 per cent for the disabled pensioners. Does the Minister foresee the same callous act being perpetrated by the Peterson Government in Ontario taking back this very much needed increase to the disabled pensioners in this country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in what changes were made to the Canada Pension Plan, and specifically disability benefits to those on social assistance. The Ontario Government chose not to pass on that benefit to those who were on social assistance.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 wrote to all the provinces, keeping in mind the jurisdiction in the social welfare field, stating that it was the Government of Canada's position that that money should be passed on to the recipients, that it was a contributory pension, and additionally that our interpretation of the Canada Assistance Plan was such that the provinces would not be in violation.
To my understanding the former Liberal Government never did that, so we brought in that change. While we now have an increase of 4.4 per cent, the principle of the past remains. I say to the Hon. Member that it would be my hope that Ontario and the other provinces would pass it on, because one of the positions we have taken is that, if people on welfare can get additional money through contributory pensions, part-time work, or training programs, they should not lose their social benefits immediately but rather have the opportunity to get out of welfare. Obviously the Liberals opposite do not agree.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF RETRAINING PROVISIONS FOR WORKERS
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This week the Minister of Labour released the report on labour adjustment benefit programs. According to this document one-third of claims filed under such programs have been rejected. Only 719 workers throughout Canada have been declared eligible for these benefits.
At the same time as ever more older workers find themselves excluded from the labour market, the federal Government gradually eliminates adjustment benefit programs. In addition, the Government has yet to make a move in connection with the retraining program for laid-off older workers.
In February the Minister had promised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but could she, please, ask her question?


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I already raised that question with the Minister. When is he going to make sure that older workers, both male and female, have access to adjustment benefits?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is out of town. He is on Government business outside of the capital, but I will pass the question on to him and I am sure he will answer it as soon as he comes back to Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain has the floor for a short supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the February, 1986, Budget the Minister of Finance announced that there would be a program for the people. Some 1,300 people have been laid off at Firestone, as well as many other older workers across the country. When will the Government make use of this program?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is probably more appropriately directed to the Minister of Labour. As I am sure the Hon. Member is very much aware, the Minister of Labour has had negotiations with the provinces to try to involve them to the maximum extent possible in this program.
There have been changes of government in some provinces since the time the program was announced, which has resulted in some delays. I think there are three or four provinces which are on side, but the Minister is working to ensure that we can get all provinces committed to this program so that we can move ahead and deal with the problem the Hon. Member has addressed.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, and given the fact that we started just a little late for legitimate reasons, the Hon. Member for Algoma has indicated that he will ask a single question, and that will be the last question of Question Period.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the fall of 1986 he promised a Northern Ontario Recovery Program to try to cope with the serious economic difficulties faced by that region of the
January 22, 1988

country. He announced that a six-point program was being considered. In fact only one of them was announced with great flourish last July, the FEDNOR Program. After more than six months no criteria are available, no application forms are available, and things continue to worsen.
When will the application forms and the criteria for the program be made available? All we have heard about so far are the blatant political patronage appointments to the board of directors. We want the application forms and the criteria so that people can apply and make use of the program. When will they be made available?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the precise details. My colleague, the Solicitor General, has taken a very active interest in this issue. He had to leave early to pursue some activities with respect to northern economic development, and as a matter of fact 1 think some announcements are being made.
Quite frankly I find it rather strange that the Hon. Member is taking issue with it, because as we travel the northern Ontario region the people out there are very happy with the performance of the Government and with the initiatives we have taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on a point of order, 1 think I should advise him and other Hon. Members that I received a question of privilege during Question Period which must take precedence. I will come back to the Hon. Member in a moment.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from comments made during Question Period which follow on the comments made yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). I understand that in my absence the Deputy Prime Minister had tried to associate my name, among others, with the investigations that have taken place in the case of the Minister of Energy, and that the Deputy Prime Minister had withdrawn those comments yesterday.
However, today in the course of Question Period I distinctly heard the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer), the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette, and the
Privilege-Ms. Copps
Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) make specific references to myself again in relation to the events surrounding the Minister of Energy.
I would like to make very clear to the House that at no time was I ever investigated for any under-the-table overspending under the Canada Elections Act. At no time did I ever receive a letter in which it was indicated that I was in fact violating sections of the Canada Elections Act. At no time did I allow workers or friends to proceed with charges in court and keeping my silence knowing in fact the situation.
I resent very directly the association made between my name and the name of the Minister who has allowed his workers to take a fall for him, and I would like to have the Members withdraw that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sure the Hon. Member will also allow me to suggest that she withdraw the statement she just made about the Minister. That would be appropriate, and I would ask the Hon. Member to do that.
In the meantime let me say that 1 will look at the "blues" to see whether anything is recorded there. However, I think it is appropriate for the House to know that yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) most clearly made an unequivocal withdrawal of any suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and also the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
If any Hon. Members have said anything that suggests that they do not agree with that unequivocal withdrawal, then of course the Hon. Member for Hamilton East has a complaint which 1 will have to take into consideration.
1 will look at the "blues" and I will talk to the Hon. Member, but 1 want all Hon. Members to know exactly what is the situation and that there was absolutely no equivocation in the withdrawal of the Deputy Prime Minister.
I would like the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to put on record that she withdraws the last couple of remarks in her submission.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The only reason 1 even raised the issue of the Deputy Prime Minister was because, of course, yesterday he unequivocally withdrew and I accepted that. I was not here at the time of the interchange, and I would hope that that type of statement would not continue.
Certainly, in the interest of respect for the Chair, 1 will withdraw any section of my remarks that the Chair finds offensive.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for her statements.

January 22, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis POINT OF ORDER


PROPOSED REFERENCE OF ALLEGED WRONGDOING TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps I will make a suggestion. In a number of exchanges during Question Period today the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated that perhaps the matter regarding the questions surrounding the Minister of Energy ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
Since both Mr. Gorman and Mr. Hamel have indicated a willingness to appear before that committee, and to show leadership and perhaps to clear the air so that these exchanges will not need to take place in the future, I wonder whether the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) will indicate that the Government is prepared to take the leadership and refer the matter to the appropriate committee for consideration.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, once again, we seem to be bringing up committee business on the floor of the House. It seems to me that if any committee which has jurisdiction in this matter wishes to hold a committee meeting and discuss the matter it would be within the purview of that committee's agenda to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to make one thing clear to Hon. Members. I indicated that the Question Period, for legitimate reasons, had started late today. In the event that there are any Hon. Members wondering why that was, Members will remember that we were in Committee of the Whole and in order to complete that work we extended past the usual time for starting statements by Members. As a consequence, the Chair allowed the procedure to go on for a little longer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to seven petitions, being Petitions Nos. 332-3470, 332-3471, 332-3476 to 332-3478 inclusive, 332-3502 and 332-3503.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in both official languages.
The eleventh report deals with the selection of votable items pertaining to the ninth draw which took place on December 17, 1987. May I note that pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b) that this eleventh report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, today it is my duty and my privilege to table in the House four petitions dealing with a very important matter, in which the undersigned object to, and ask Parliament to take a firm stand on, the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the petition reads as follows: Whereas the Mulroney Government has sold Canada without obtaining anything in return:


Jean J. Charest: Who signed those petitions?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Whereas Canadian industries still have no protection against U.S. trade laws;-


Jean J. Charest: Members of the Macdonald Commission!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Minister would keep quiet, I could read the petition and he can make his comments later on.
Whereas Canadian industries still have no protection against U.S. trade laws;
Whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in major sectors, including agriculture, energy, the automobile industry, financial services and investment;
Whereas the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened; and
Whereas the Conservative Government has no plans for manpower adjustment assistance to help Canadian workers.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to condemn the Conservative Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. As for the Minister, I can
January 22, 1988

inform him, that the undersigned are probably all from Quebec.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), on a point of order.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier has just informed me that the petition in question came from the Province of Quebec. Perhaps the Hon. Member could inform the House whether one of the persons who signed the petition also signed the Macdonald Commission's Report which recommended a free trade agreement, and I am referring to Michel Robert, President of the federal Liberal Party of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not consider that a point of order.
Perhaps we could discuss this some other day. Meanwhile, the House will revert to petitions. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to you and to the House signed by many residents of southern Ontario in which they petition this House that the Government had no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade agreement with the United States. They petition that the proposed agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have a petition, and it is my responsibility to present it to the House, signed by many citizens from Hamilton Mountain. These petitioners say that whereas the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States; whereas a trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions, the undersigned, the petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my pleasure and, indeed, honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who indicate that the Conservative Government has no
Petitions
mandate from the Canadian people to conclude this trade deal with the United States. They believe that the trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States of America.
Because they feel the agreement denies Canadians secure access to the United States market, which was in fact the key objective in the negotiations leading up to the trade deal, they are asking Parliament to dissolve in order to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of citizens of Canada who are very concerned about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and the threat-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -it brings to Canadian sovereignty, as well as the fact that this Government has no mandate to negotiate such a trade deal with the United States. They ask the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate take place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is signed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition from a number of residents of Toronto, and St. John's, Newfoundland, who say that because the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know that Members are all aware that they should not use the family name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I ask Members to do that also when they are presenting petitions. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has the floor on petitions.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your advice. I would ask you given that I am reading from the wording of the petition, could you, instruct me as to whether I should follow the wording of the petition or not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. The rule would apply for instance if the Hon. Member would be reading from a newspaper. One could not use the family name of the Prime Minister in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The petition was approved by the Clerk.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, because the Government with the unmentionable name has no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 22, 1988
Petitions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -and because this unmentionable person negotiated with the President of the United States a deal which would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs of Canada-


Mrs. Mailly:: You have no respect for the House.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -and because this deal with the unmentionable name would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base, for these reasons they ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate take place on this deal and that the debate result in a national general election before such an agreement is signed.

Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) raises a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. First of all, 1 understand that the Standing Orders require a petition to be summarized. Also, our Standing Orders forbid Members of this House to refer to their colleagues by their family names; this is not a weird or whimsical requirement, but the very tradition of this House, and by refusing to abide by our rules, the Hon. Member shows complete disrespect for the House. And I suggest that this disrespect should not be taken lightly. Heaven knows just how difficult it is for our institutions to command respect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member wants to reply to the point of order, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that the Chair welcomes the intervention of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) but does not find that it is a point of order.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions containing over 200 names of residents of Teslin, Mayo, Pelly Crossing, Whitehorse, Yukon, and Edmonton, Alberta, who are calling on the Canadian Government to say no to plutonium flights over northern Canada proposed in the pending United States and Japan agreement.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from citizens of Canada. The petition is certified correct as to form pursuant to Standing Order 106.
These petitioners say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised and they further state that the trade agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister's Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
They further state that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement in a national General Election.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by persons from my constituency and adjoining constituencies. It contains approximately 300 names. It has been certified correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 106.
The petition indicates the feelings of the petitioners with respect to the trade agreement with the United States. The petition first suggests that the Government has received no mandate to proceed with such an agreement. It points out some of the problems that would exist with the agreement, in particular, the loss of policy freedom on the part of Canada to determine its own economic future. It also indicates the feelings of the petitioners that there would be a loss of thousands of jobs as a consequence of the trade agreement.
Given these various factors, the petitioners call very strongly on the Government to permit the people of Canada to have a final say before this agreement goes forward through a General Election.
I would wish at this time to move:
That this House adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received a motion which is the following one: moved by Mr. Langdon, seconded by Mr. Benjamin:
That this House adjourn.
The Chair finds the motion to be in order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
January 22, 1988


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion defeated. Resuming petitions.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
1 have a petition from residents of Canada who point out that the present Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and that the proposal removes the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and removes the power to develop the Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and to equalize opportunities between regions.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by residents of the City of Windsor. These petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to dissolve in order to allow a national general election to be held on the matter of the trade deal the Government purports to have signed between this country and the Reagan administration of the United States of America.



POINT OF ORDER


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order with the Chair regarding the assertion of the Chair that the name of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) should not be mentioned in the House, particularly in the context of a preamble to a petition. Since the petition has been approved by the Clerk of the House as to form, and I presume that also means content, I do not see how the Chair can rule that that name should not be mentioned.
Does the Clerk or an Hon. Member of the House have any authority or right to change or amend the wording of a petition signed by Canadian citizens outside this Chamber? 1 do not know if we have any right to change the words of the petitioners.
The form of the petition, as 1 understand it, is in proper historical and traditional form, and the Clerk has so said. I think it is just a case of a petition being presented with a brief explanation, no matter what its content is, as long as the Clerk has okayed it.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this time I will make a preliminary ruling to the effect that the first ruling I made still stands. I would like to remind all Members that they must not read the petition but rather make a summary of it. The Chair holds the view that in that summary the family name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should not be used. However, the Chair will look into the matter and make a formal ruling as soon as it can and report back to the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to draw to the attention of the Chair that there are some 10 paragraphs, 1 believe, in the preamble to those particular petitions. Members have presented only one or at most two of those paragraphs. They have not read the whole thing, which 1 believe would be proper, if they chose to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member and I will get back to the House on this point.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 221, 228, 231 and 236 through 239 inclusive.
[ Text]


Ms. McDonald: Do Transport Canada's practices with respect to the provision of nonsmoking areas in airport terminal buildings ensure the provision of smoke-free
air to those employees and passengers using the buildings and facilities who
wish to avoid exposure to second-hand smoke?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: During the past four months, Transport Canada has taken several steps towards ensuring the provision of smoke-free air to those employees and passengers using airport buildings.
In late August, 1987, all airport staff were advised of the Treasury Board ban on smoking by public service employees at all service counters, waiting rooms, desks or wickets where the public is served. Employees were also advised that, as of October 1, 1987, smoking was prohibited, except for designated smoking areas, in all Public Service work places in accordance with the Treasury Board policy to phase in a total ban on smoking in all Government of Canada buildings by January 1, 1989.
Since the Treasury Board directive pertains only to government employees, Transport Canada took the initiative of issuing a directive to all its airports to restrict smoking in most areas of the air terminal buildings for the travelling public as well.

January 22, 1988
Order Paper Questions
Specifically, the directive bans smoking in all free circulation areas, ticket locations, baggage claim areas and washrooms. A minimum of 60 per cent of the seating locations in holdrooms and food and beverage outlets is designated as no smoking, and a maximum of 40 per cent of the seats in these locations can be designated as smoking. All these smoking areas are wherever possible located well away from service counters and aircraft boarding exits where passengers congregate.
In areas where there is insufficient space to properly delineate smoking and non-smoking areas, then the whole area is designated as no smoking. The only areas where smoking is freely permitted are in the bars.
To indicate smoking and no smoking areas, pictographic signs are being posted in conspicuous places inside all air terminal buildings (ATBs). Additional signs are also being posted at the main entrances of these buildings to inform the public, in both official languages, that such accommodation is provided.
Enforcement of these regulations is in accordance with the airport traffic regulations, and nay applicable municipal bylaw in cases where the airport is within the boundaries of a particular municipality.
Although public co-operation is required in order to respect the provisions outlined above, we feel that these measures will significantly improve the level of safety, comfort and health of both passengers and Transport Canada employees.


Mr. Boudria: On or about November 21, 1987, was the Petro-Canada jet utilized for the purpose of transporting Maurice "Mad Dog" Vachon from the United States to Canada and, if so (a) who were the passengers on this flight (b) what was the role or purpose of each person for being on the flight (c) what was the total distance travelled for this purpose by the plane in question (d) what was the total cost of the trip?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned:
1. Yes. (a), (b), (c) and (d) This information is proprietary to Petro-Canada and therefore cannot be released.


Mr. Aithouse: 1.	(a) Did the Department of Agriculture recently grant $500,000 to Julac Inc. in the Lac St-Jean area of Quebec to assist in reviving the blueberry processing industry (b) did the shareholders provide any new funding and, if so, in what amount?
2.	(a) How long has the company been in business (b) what is the company's experience in the processing of blueberries (c) what is the name of each shareholder?
3.	Has any other government department granted monies to the company and, if so, in each case (a) in what amount (b) from which departments?
4.	What form of processing is to be developed from the use of these funds?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes, The shareholders have contributed $347,140.
2.	(a) The company has been in business for 15 years, (b) The company has been processing blueberries since it was founded and, at the time of closing, it was selling two blueberry aperitives and one digestive, (c) The shareholders are: Evans Laberge, Philibert Simard, Maurice Darveau, Andre Bussieres, Gaston Perron, Jacques Madgin, Lise Audet, Claire Denano, Ls-Henri Frigon, Andre Tremblay, Mario Naud.
3.	In so far as the Departments of Employment and Immigration and Regional Industrial Expansion are concerned; no.
4.	No new form of processing will be undertaken as a result of the grant. The grant will be used primarily to reimburse the creditors and to reinstate production. The company intends, however, to undertake research on new products made from blueberries such as fillings, jams and syrups.


Mr. Young: 1.	Have cases been reported in Canada of birth defects associated with the use of the drug Bendectin and, if so (a) how many (b) for what reason does the Department of National Health and Welfare allow the continued use of this drug, by prescription, under the name of Diclectin?
2.	Was Bendectin tested by the Department and, if so (a) how extensively (b) for how long before the drug was originally approved?
3.	Have there been adverse reports on this drug and, if so (a) how extensive arc they (b) on what date did they first appear (c) does the Department keep records of women who use Bendectin during pregnancy for the purpose of tracking possible birth defects?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1. Yes.
(a)	Worldwide approximately 30 million women have taken Bendectin. The Canadian market is about 2 per cent of this, thus, approximately 600,000 Canadian women were exposed to the drug between its marketing in 1957 and 1983 when the drug was withdrawn by the manufacturer, Merrel Dow. there were 40 reported cases of birth defects in Canada associated with the use of Bendectin. This corresponds to about one child born with birth defects, out of every 10,000 children born to women exposed to the drug. Since 2 or 3 out of every 100 children born have a major birth defect, the available data indicate that fewer children were born with birth defects to Bendectin-treated mothers than to untreated mothers.
(b)	The Department of National Health and Welfare allows the continued use of Diclectin, a generic product, because careful review of a large number of epidemiologic studies have provided no evidence that Bendectin causes congenital malformation.
Similar conclusions were reached in the United States and by health authorities in most countries. Therefore, there is no reason to ban this drug.
2.	(a) & (b) No. The testing of drugs is the responsibility of the manufacturer; the Health Protection Branch carries out only an evaluation of the data provided by the manufacturer.
January 22, 1988

3.	Yes.
(a)	The Drug Adverse Reaction Program, a voluntary reporting program has received the following reports; five affecting the mother alleged to cause rash, dry mouth and unsteadiness, 32 affecting the baby with signs and symptoms ranging from various limb and other deformities in no specific pattern, to convulsions and death. In most reports the mother had been taking a number of other drug products concomitantly.
(b)	First report of suspected drug adverse reaction was in November, 1965.
(c)	No.


Mr. Young: 1.	Has the government or any government agency taken any measures to aid the families of children with birth defects associated with a drug taken during pregnancy and, if so, what are such measures and do they include maintaining a fund that can be drawn on for the purpose of pursuing legal action?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, is there an association of parents of children with such defects caused by drugs taken during pregnancy?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1. The Health Protection Branch has taken steps to assist in the prevention of future birth defects, including those which may be associated with drugs.
Health Protection Branch maintains a congenital anomalies surveillance system, which provides data for studies to identify factors which contribute to birth defects. This system also provides early notice of unusual occurrences of birth defects.
Second, drug manufacturers are required to submit to Health Protection Branch the results of tests of new drugs in animal models. Such tests are designed for a number of purposes, including to identify the potential of a drug to cause birth defects.
2. DES ACTION/Canada, Snowdon, P.O. Box 233, Montreal, Quebec H3X 3T4.


Mr. Kaplan: When Thomas R. Berger retired from the bench, was he eligible for a pension and, if so, is the government paying or planning to pay him one and, if so, what was or will be the date on which the payments begin?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: No. In order to qualify for a judicial pension, a judge who has not reached the age of retirement must have served at least 15 years in office and have attained the age of 65 years, unless retirement is due to ill health. Mr. Berger did not seek retirement on the grounds of ill health, and did not meet either the age or service requirements of the Judges Act.


Mr. Friesen: Order Paper Questions
Did Transport Canada send an official from its Airworthiness Branch to
Italy, in order to make inquiries about the SIAI Marchetti SF 260 aircraft
and, if so, what was the cost to the Department for travel and expenses for this
official?


John Carnell Crosbie: The
Transport Canada Airworthiness Branch did not send an official to Italy, in order to make inquiries about SIAI Marchetti SF260 aircraft, but took the opportunity of having one of its officials, who was in Italy on other business, to discuss with SIAI Marchetti and the Italian airworthiness authorities the eligibility of the SF260 aircraft in the military and civil roles.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the answers to the questions on the Order Paper. I must congratulate the minister for answering this week at least a good many questions. However, Question No. 209 listed in my name has been on the Order Paper since October 15 of last year and it should have been answered within 45 days which so far has not been the case. That is why I ask the Minister of State to urge the people in charge of answering questions to answer this one concerning the National Arts Centre, a matter of some interest, if only to Ottawa residents.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise also on a point of order. I call the Minister's attention on Question No. 235. It is a question dealing with the operation of the Canada Lands Corporation in Mirabel, and as the House is aware, all questions concerning this Crown corporation raise considerable interests. The Canadian people want answers to these questions. I should like to remind the minister that the 45 day delay is now over concerning this question and I urge him to press his colleagues for an answer as soon as possible.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for having finally answered Question No. 228. I dare hope, however, that most questions may be answered within the 45 day limit, and not after the 45 day period has expired, sometime even months and months later.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their inquiries. As they know, we have made every effort to answer as many questions as possible prior to the time required. I think the record is pretty good in that respect. I appreciate the questions they have raised and I will make inquiries to see whether we can get these answers to the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 22, 1988
Question Passed as Order for Return


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 230 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 230 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of National Health and Welfare make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-99, an Act to amend the Currency Act-Mr. Hockin-Mr. Danis in the chair.
Mr.   Chairman@: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-99, an Act to amend the Currency Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Net income credited to C.R.F.
Act requires gains or losses from exchange rate changes to be averaged over three years, while such losses are recognized immediately in the Public Accounts of Canada. This amendment simply repeals the three-year averaging provision. That means the accounting principles of the exchange fund conform with those of the Public Accounts of Canada.
This was announced in February, 1986, and the Bill is coming before the House only now, two years later. It is a very simple Bill. It has just one clause to give effect to that recommendation. Therefore, I would appreciate knowing from the Minister why the delay; why did it take almost two years to implement?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Chairman, I have made some further inquiries as a follow-up to the answer I gave the Hon. Member before Question Period. A number of accounts are going to be brought into conformity with the accounting treatment given them in the Public Accounts of Canada. As well, if you look at what was announced in 1986, this affects the 1987 accounts, so this is relatively rapid.
The Hon. Member is probably aware as well that it has been necessary for all of us to find a time convenient for the House to introduce this Bill, which is basically a housekeeping Bill. There just did not seem to be a propitious time in the House schedule for it. I think that is a large part of the answer as well.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, before the House went into Question Period I asked the Minister of State for Finance if he was in a position to explain the delay in producing this Bill which, as he himself said, is a simple technical Bill. Just to repeat my question, since it was asked some hours ago, in February, 1986, the Minister of Finance agreed to move on a number of recommendations made over the years by the Auditor General, supported by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with respect to changes in accounting policy. These changes in essence made for a faster reporting in the Public Accounts of Canada of some items which in the past were averaged out over three years.
These changes were partly made, but the exchange fund, which is the subject of this Bill, is a special account of the Minister of Finance and serves as the main repository of Canada's official international reserves. It is governed by the Currency Act and that Act contains a provision which differs from the accounting principles followed in the Public Accounts. Namely, in determining net income the Currency


Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-99, an Act to amend the Currency Act, be read the third time and passed.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add a brief tail to the excellent speech by my colleague from Ottawa Centre on second reading with respect to interest rates, unemployment, and the interaction of those two factors with the level of the Canadian dollar.
Even within the Province of Ontario itself there are tremendous variations in economic circumstance. For instance, the most recent statistics available from the labour force in the City of Windsor for December, 1987, indicate that the unemployment rate for the City of Windsor district is 11.3 per cent. This suggests that there are parts of the province, even in areas which are relatively close to other centres of prosperity, which suffer from considerable unemployment rates. If one considers northern Ontario, the difficulty is even greater.
January 22, 1988

The fact is that we are talking about the golden horseshoe when discussing the tremendous strength of economic growth that has taken place. It is perhaps historically the least widely shared process of economic growth has taken place in any business cycle which I have looked at as an economist. For that reason I would urge the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) to spend some more time dealing with this question to see if the department itself is prepared to give it more consideration. It makes a very strong case for an attempt at differentiating both fiscal and monetary policy to a much greater degree than before.
I am not certain that it is possible to go that far with respect to monetary policy, but I believe the examination must be made. I believe it is certainly possible to make such differentiation with respect to fiscal policy. We try to do so through regional development policy, but that regional development policy itself is very often caught up on statistics which are very much out of date. For instance, despite the very heavy level of unemployment in Windsor at this stage, we are still classified as tier 1 for the Industrial and Regional Development Program, which means that virtually all modernization and expansion projects in our industrial sector cannot be supported.
I believe this caveat to the points made by my hon. colleague is very much worth considering. I hope the Minister will be spurred by this debate and take some of those questions to the department to see if it will be persuaded to look more closely at ways to differentiate the levers of government with respect to fiscal and monetary policy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the Question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

Philip Derek Lewis: that Bill C-96, an Act to validate certain customs duty orders relating to fresh fruits and vegetables, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to move this Bill to the Committee of the Whole.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister asking to move to Committee of the Whole?
Fruit and Vegetable Customs Orders Validation Act


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am prepared to make a few preliminary remarks at second reading, if my colleague wishes to do the same. We would be pleased to do it that way. We could then move to Committee of the Whole.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that is with the understanding that once we are finished in Committee of the Whole we will proceed directly to third reading today.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent, therefore, that the Bill be sent to Committee of the Whole instead of a legislative committee.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate the co-operation of the Opposition Parties with respect to this and other Bills today.
This particular Bill is an Act to validate certain customs duty orders relating to fresh fruits and vegetables. We are essentially cleaning up a technicality. Between January 1, 1972, and January 10, 1985, there have been collections of tariffs and customs duties on fruits and vegetables pursuant to certain orders made. I believe it was found that there was some technical difficulty with them. This Bill simply corrects that technical difficulty and declares that all customs duties which were collected to be validly collected.
I have no further remarks to make on the Bill. I commend it to the House for second reading and reference to Committee of the Whole House.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding as well that Bill C-96 is designed to validate the collection of certain tariffs which were collected between 1972 and 1985 but not properly registered as a statutory instrument. This was observed by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in its report to the House in 1987. We support this legislation because we believe the work of the committee is very important in order that the House or the Government does not take action which may go beyond the rule of law.
The third element of the legislation, as I understand it, also provides for the validation of certain tariffs which were imposed between 1984 and 1985, and provides for the remittance of certain tariffs which have not been collected during that period.
I wish to raise a couple of other issues with the Minister when the Bill goes to Committee of the Whole. However, we support the Bill as it is put before the House.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this Bill. It simply clears up a technicality. Apparently the Minister's signature did not appear on many of the orders that had allegedly occurred under the Bill. It was only recently discovered that his signature rather than that of officials had to appear before those orders became

January 22, 1988
Fruit and Vegetable Customs Orders Validation Act
operative at the border. This amendment is expected to clear that up.
I want to say a few words about the question of fruit and vegetable imports and exports, given the fact that we do not have much opportunity to discuss the need for and efficacy of these temporary duties. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the importance of these duties in the past and how they will be gradually done away with under the proposed trade agreement with the United States. I would like to read into the record a couple of briefs and letters which have come to my attention from the Province of British Columbia. 1 could do so for other regions of the country but these are the shortest and most concise.
1 think the House should be aware that the use of seasonal import duties has in fact created an industry in this country. 1 think we sometimes tend to think that fruit and vegetable production is not a terribly important part of agriculture, but I want to point out some information I received from the British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission. It tells us that in 1987 there were 34,000 tonnes of speciality crops that will be affected by these changes proposed in the Trade Act. That includes sweet corn, beans, peas, cauliflower, broccoli and brussel sprouts.
I think the important thing to note here is the great amount of value added that occurs. It points out that the farm value of these crops is only some $9 million, yet through the processing, sale and distribution of these vegetables, between $85 million and $90 million of gross value added is attached to the British Columbia economy.
Removal of the ability to provide these duties is going to mean that fewer producers will survive. As a result, the jobs that go with the distribution and processing of these vegetables and small fruits will disappear as well. Therefore, it is a very important part of the economy, particularly in the lower Fraser Valley.
Some of the other valleys have also concerns. I have a letter from a resident of Summerland, British Columbia, who points out the importance of keeping the seasonal tariffs alive and well. She states this year our markets were flooded with North Carolina and California clean up, last of the season and small fruit, which ruined our markets before we were even ready to ship. Our apples are traded in the States now on a fairly free basis but we only export because the States floods our markets before our apples are ready to be shipped. In order for British Columbians to get rid of their crops they are forced to go to the United States.
I just wanted to bring that to your attention very briefly, Mr. Speaker, to point out the kinds of concerns people have that these temporary seasonal tariffs are to be lifted. I think it makes very good sense that in the period of time they are still permitted to exist, officials of the Ministry may provide their signatures to the necessary documents at the border. I do not
know how we managed to make this error back years ago when Parliament passed the Act originally, but I hope we will now correct it very quickly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Mr.   Chairman@: Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2:-Validation of Orders.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the Minister because I know he is an expert on the whole question of fruits and vegetables and the tariffs which have been forgone in this case.
Is it clear now that the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has recommended that in fact when an order or seasonal tariff is being ordered on the seasonal tariff list it is being ordered on the day on which it is imposed? For instance, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments found that an order was being executed on February 5 in one of the years under consideration in this Act, but imposing the seasonal tariff five or six days previously. Of course, that rendered the whole exercise illegal. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister can assure the House that in fact the procedure which was recommended by the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments is being followed at this time?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, since my hon. colleague has asked a detailed question-and I am pleased to have the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary-I would like to ask for a moment's recess and we will bring in an official to assist on some of these detailed questions.


Claudy Mailly: I might begin by answering this question, Mr. Chairman.

It is precisely because there were some delays in the signing of some of these orders. First, there was an error in having them signed by officials other than the Ministers and that started back in 1972, in fact. That was founded on the fact that the officials who were dealing with that matter were following a legal order that was out in 1973. It was their interpretation that they could sign these orders. When it was discovered in mid-1984'that perhaps that was not according to
January 22, 1988

the regulation, it was decided to suspend some of these signings by officials and to have the Minister sign them all. Indeed, there were some delays in some of the signings. So that was part of the problem that we are trying to deal with today.
I would just like to ask my official about the matter that was brought up by the Hon. Member whereby there were some delays in the signing of some of those orders and whether they come into effect, I believe, on the same date as the order is issued. Was that the question asked by the Hon. Member?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes.


Claudy Mailly: Yes, it has just been confirmed. Actually, those orders come into effect the same day, and there were these delays, and this particular housekeeping Bill will also solve those problems, as well as ensure that all those orders that were signed and all the moneys that were brought into the Canadian Treasury from that order since 1972 can remain with the Canadian Treasury. In other words, it makes them all valid.
Those orders which were not carried out during the short period where the regulation was in suspension will also be made valid and the moneys that were not received at that moment will be brought into the Treasury. I believe it is a very small amount of money that was not received, but all will now be in order. All this was done because of the-

-recommendation of the secretary of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, namely that the Department ought to draft corrective legislation to validate the remittance collection orders which I have just mentioned.
That is precisely the purpose of this measure. We want to make sure there is no mistake and that everything is very clear.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Will the Parliamentary Secretary outline exactly how many dollars of tariffs are being legitimized by this measure, both those in the period from 1972 to 1985 and the period from 1984 to 1985? As well, can the Parliamentary Secretary outline which funds are being forgiven or remitted to those who have not paid the tariffs that were due in the period 1984-85?


Claudy Mailly: In the first case, the figure amounts to millions of dollars. This is why this is a very important piece of housekeeping legislation.
In the case of sums which were not remitted for a short period of time, I believe the figure is just a few thousand dollars. There is really not very much involved in that case.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Since the Parliamentary Secretary has an official with her, can she advise whether or not the Government is enforcing Sections 58 and 59 of the fruit, vegetable
Fruit and Vegetable Customs Orders Validation Act
and honey regulations? This whole issue has been before the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which seemed to rule that it was ultra vires and was brought into the House to strike down those regulations. However, after due consideration and negotiation between House Leaders it was decided to refer the report of the Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments Committee back to the committee.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether those regulations relating to container size in the fruit and vegetable industry for imports are being enforced?


Claudy Mailly: No, Mr. Chairman, the Bill has nothing to do with those sections. Still I should like to tell the Hon. Member that with the advent of tariff harmonization in January 1988 the question has become irrelevant because these are no longer non-statutory regulations and so we do not deal with these regulations any more.
[English ]


Maurice Brydon Foster: Does that mean that with the harmonization of those container sizes between Canada and the United States there will be complete harmonization and in fact the Government will not be able to maintain separate regulations in Canada different from the United States?


Claudy Mailly: Perhaps my colleague did not understand what I said in my previous response to him. This has nothing to do with containers. The harmonization has to do with tariffs, the way they are listed and the way to which they are referred. It has nothing to do with the actual content of those regulations.
The two sections to which the Hon. Member referred. Section 57 and Section 58, will not be in force any longer. Under the harmonization there is a different system and the question will not pose itself. The matter of containers is another question which is not dealt with in this Bill and about which I am not ready to talk today.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The reason I raise the matter is that the industry is suffering tremendously without the enforcement of these sections of the fruit, vegetable and honey regulations. It has been promised by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that he will bring in new regulations under the agricultural standards legislation. I am not sure whether or not amendments to that legislation are required! However, I thought that, since we were dealing with it, since it is intimately tied up with the whole trade negotiation arrangements with the United States and is of tremendous value and since we have a Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister of the Crown before us dealing with the question of tariffs and import duties in regard to fruit and vegetables, she might be able to comment.
I have a copy of a directive from Agriculture Canada, from the Food Production and Inspection Branch, which advises that these regulations are not to be enforced, although it is suggested that it should be indicated to exporters from the

January 22, 1988
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act
U.S. and importers to Canada that this should not be made public. In fact, the whole matter should be left in doubt. It seems to me that when the Minister is running around the country promising to do something about this in order to preserve our fruit and vegetable industry it would be useful to have a straight answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.
Since these sections of the legislation dealing with fruit, vegetables and honey cannot be legally enforced, many people would like to know whether the Government will bring in amendments to the agricultural standards legislation to do the same thing as these sections have been doing in the past. That is to say, they have been providing the standards with regard to container size and other issues. This will ensure the integrity of the fruit and vegetable industry. This is an industry which will be under tremendous attack, especially in light of the type of seasonal tariff which we are legitimizing.
These are tariffs that have been collected for the last 16 years which are being legitimized as a result of Bill C-96. Under the free trade deal such seasonal tariffs which have allowed the fresh fruit and vegetable industry to continue in the Okanagan Valley and the Niagara Escarpment will be done away with. There is a new mechanism called the snap-back mechanism which most observers feel will not be very effective because injury has to be shown. The processing procedure will be so long and so cumbersome that it will not be effective. Once the price breaks on a fresh fruit or vegetable it is very difficult to reinstate it, even with the proposed snap-back mechanism. Of course, that is being completely done away with for an industry which is expanding and growing. It is only available if that sector of the agricultural community is in entrenchment or not growing at all.
It would be useful if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an indication that the equivalent regulations to the fruit, vegetable and honey legislation will be brought in under the guise of the agricultural standards legislation.


Claudy Mailly: I would like to assure my colleague that those regulations exist but that they are not under the purview of Revenue Canada. They are under another Department. This particular Bill has nothing to do with containers or with the agricultural parts of these items. It has to do with process and with housekeeping matters. It has to do with the money that this Bill permits and validates.
In terms of the harmonization of tariffs, the United States is not part of that, so we are not dealing here with U.S.-Canada. As a matter of fact, in Revenue Canada we have a joke that we do not want to be the fifty-second country, we want to be thirty-third, because we are now the thirty-third country that has gone into this harmonization of tariffs, and the United States is not one of them.
This Bill has really only to do with validating practices or decisions that were made where millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was involved. The money was brought into the Treasury, and it was found in mid-1984 that perhaps the practices were not in conformity with the law, and that these instruments were signed by officials rather than by the Minister. We want to ensure that this money stays with the Canadian Treasury and get those few thousand dollars that were not received.
I would like the Bill to go through very quickly, unless the Member has something to discuss about the process. I would be delighted to answer his questions, but it has nothing to do with the agricultural aspect of this item.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall the title carry?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am not a specialist in linguistics or in the English language, but today I have had some communications from persons who state that the title, "An Act to validate certain customs duty orders relating to fresh fruits and vegetables", is utilizing an "s" at the end of "fruits" which is an American usage and in Canadian usage the "s" should not be on "fruits". I wonder if the Chairman would advise the drafters of our Bills that Canadian usage does not have an "s" after "fresh fruits". In other words, it should read "fresh fruit".


Mr.   Chairman@: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his comments, and I am sure the people who draft bills will make a note of this.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Claudy Mailly: I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for having dealt with this Bill rapidly. We are very thankful. I wish that this spirit were dominant here all the time.


CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded with consideration of Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-91 be concurred in.
January 22, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, be now read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on third reading of this Bill, I would like to thank the members of both the liberal and the New Democratic Parties for their co-operation in ensuring the speedy passage of this legislation.
These amendments reduce the paper burden of corporations by bringing the reporting period under the Act in line with the fiscal period of each corporation. At the same time, these amendments give assurances that sensitive data on finances and technology transfers will remain confidential to Statistics Canada.
Equally important to these changes is the fact that the original statistical program of CALURA will be unaffected by these changes. Such reports as those that I have recently tabled will continue to shed light on aspects of foreign control and corporate concentration that are fundamental to the examination of Canadian economic issues.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise on Bill C-91 and indicate my Party's consent to the provisions of the Bill. We certainly agree with the necessity, where possible, to save on the reporting burden of companies, corporations, and labour unions. We agree that there is little purpose served in reporting periods that do not coincide with the fiscal period of the company or union to which the financial reporting cycle is directed.
We are glad to see the flexibility retained in the Act for the deeming powers granted the Minister in order to cope with special situations such as those where corporate mergers or reorganizations take place which may result in changes to the fiscal year. We believe that the Bill will constitute a significant measure of administrative convenience for a number of the corporations and unions, particularly the smaller ones which are reporting under the Act at present.
We are entirely in agreement with the need for Statistics Canada through the CALURA process to continue collecting information on corporate control and particularly the degree of foreign ownership within the Canadian economy. That is something that definitely has to be continued, and we are glad that there is no erosion of this objective of CALURA.
We are in broad agreement with the provision that confidential data provided by corporations should not be made too readily available to analysts within the Government. Similarly to many corporations we are concerned that they not be inadvertently granted opportunities for the use of government
Business of the House
programs to accomplish corporate data collection objectives on their competitors which, of course, are generally available through the disclosure provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.
The distinction between public and private corporations is one that is very germane to this Bill. We trust that the Government will continue to monitor closely any process by which public corporations are converted into private corporations, and determine the relationship between any such movement and the reporting provisions of CALURA.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to record my Party's support of this Bill on third reading.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I have some very brief comments to make in support of Bill C-91, and on third reading I would like to say that my Party has seen fit to support this measure.
Information collected annually by the authorities will now be produced according to returns based on the fiscal instead of the calendar year. I understand that businesses are in favour of the new system, which requires an amendment to the definition of reporting periods. This has been done in the Bill.
A second and vital amendment repeals all provisions relating to access to privileged information. My colleagues explained that this amendment responds to a need for giving our statutes some flexibility and for preventing departments from gaining access to detailed business information for policy purposes. I believe this is a positive measure and we will support it without hesitation.
Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who was our spokesman on the Bill in committee, we are very pleased to support the Bill on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I should like to begin my comments by thanking all Hon. Members of the House for their co-operation today in order to clean up these four housekeeping Bills.
There have been discussions among the Parties, and I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent to commence

January 22, 1988
Canada Elections Act
Private Members' Business now with the consideration of Bill C-246 standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). The Government has no intention of calling any more government business today, so we could commence Private Members' Business now with unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we commence Private Members' Business at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

John Barry Turner: that Bill C-246, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (sale of liquor) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to say a few words about this Bill, whose purpose is to remove the ban on the sale of liquor in a public place during polling hours.

1 first introduced this Bill on March 5, 1986. The House prorogued and the Bill subsequently died on the Order Paper. I reintroduced essentially the same Bill on January 26, 1987. That was almost a year ago, and here we are now finally getting a chance to address it.
A Federal Court Justice referred to this continual national frustration of the Chief Electoral Officer about a year and a half ago in the Federal Court of Canada. He said that the community should look to Parliament, not the courts, to find relief from this archaic law. This is one of the reasons I brought the matter before Parliament.
It is not new to Parliament. It has been introduced before by other Hon. Members of the House. In October 1978 the late Tom Cossitt referred to it as an archaic, Victorian anachronism and asked the House to strike out this part of the Canada Elections Act. The Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) referred to it in May, 1982 in the same vein, as did the Hon. Member for Halton, now the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek). They asked the House to consider removing it from the law.
Here we go again. Finally there is a serious new twist to this archaic law, as it has been described, in that the Government of Canada in its wisdom saw fit to incorporate this particular
Private Member's Bill, word for word, into a piece of proposed government legislation, Bill C-79, which received first reading in June, 1987. Bill C-79, which I have here, incorporates word for word the two suggested sections I want to have repealed.
The prohibition can be found in Canadian legislation since shortly after Confederation. In 1970, the House amended the Canada Elections Act to restrict the prohibition to polling hours only, whereas before that 1970 date prohibition applied to the entire election day.
In the last few years some provinces have abolished the legislation within the context of provincial election campaigns. Ontario was one of them that in 1975 completely abolished the legislation at the provincial level. British Columbia did it in
1978.	Manitoba did it in 1985. Quebec now permits the sale of liquor during by-elections.
There is a certain amount of inconsistency on two counts at the national level. First, there is confusion between national and provincial responsibilities during election periods and, second, there is no prohibition at the national level during the days of advanced polling, which seems to be somewhat an anomaly as well. As we know, extensive votes are cast during advance polling hours, but anyone can have the enjoyment of imbibing if one so wishes anywhere in the country.
Confusion also exists during by-elections where an establishment on one side of the street just outside the riding within which the by-election is taking place can sell alcoholic beverages. However, an establishment inside the riding cannot do so. Obviously that confuses the public and is discriminatory in a sense.
In his last three reports following the federal elections of
1979,	1980, and 1984, the Chief Electoral Officer asked Parliament to repeal those sections of the law in order to make it clear and consistent and to bring us into the 20th century.
Some of the organizations from which I have heard recently which are very much in favour are: Red Lobster of Canada in Toronto; the Tourism Industry Association of Canada; Pacific Western Airlines, which is now part of Canadian Airlines International; the Tourism Industry Association of Alberta; Tourism Ontario Incorporated; CN Hotels; Molson Breweries; and the Ontario Motel and Hotel Association which represents 1,600 members. As we can see there is a fair amount of broad support for the proposal.
Because I have a considerable amount of faith in the process in this House, I believe that Bill C-79, which the Government introduced in June of last year, will come forth and become the new law of the land. I am not advocating any mad, passionate plea to repeal the Act. I am trying to make a rational request to bring that part of the Act into the 20th century. In the best spirit of Parliament, and so as not to use unnecessarily the resources and finances of Parliament by having the, piece of legislation I have introduced go to a legislative committee, and recognizing that the Government intends to move fairly soon to see that Bill C-79 comes back to Parliament and becomes
January 22, 1988

law before the next federal election, I seek unanimous consent of the House to have my particular Bill withdrawn.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want to refuse the unanimous consent for which the Hon. Member has just asked. However, perhaps we could agree informally among ourselves to proceed with the deliberations, and a few minutes before the appointed hour of adjournment, we could then proceed with giving unanimous consent. Notwithstanding the fact that the Hon. Member wants the item removed, 1 believe a number of Members would nevertheless like to speak on this very important issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has no objection to that. Is that suggestion agreeable to the House? The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) has asked for unanimous consent to withdraw his Bill, but one or two Members would like to say a few words. May I gather from that that after a few Members have spoken the House will give unanimous consent to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe there has already been some debate on this matter, and there are a number of Members who would like to comment on the subject, but it will not take long, and we agree with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) to have the Bill withdrawn- always, of course, with the consent of the seconder of the motion.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner) for having brought the matter to the attention of the House. As all Hon. Members will know, the present law is one that has certainly long outlived its effectiveness. We could go further and say that it has outlived its usefulness and in fact has created harm to our tourism and hospitality industries.

Prior to being in elected office I had the opportunity to work in the tourism and hospitality industry for a number of years and 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that people in that industry are of the opinion that an Act of this Parliament which precludes the sale of any alcoholic beverages on the day of an election is somewhat antique in 1988. It is fine that elections are important and have to be treated seriously. Obviously any elected person in this Chamber or elsewhere is aware of that. That being said, elections are no less serious if there is a convention going on in this city where alcoholic beverages cannot be sold, which has created tremendous harm. We have within a stone's throw of this building one of the largest and most beautiful convention centres of Canada. Imagine having
1,000	delegates to a meeting there, some of whom may not even be Canadians-I am told by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton that that has happened-at the same time as a general election is taking place and the whole place
Canada Elections Act
virtually shuts down from an entertainment standpoint because of the election. I do not think that makes the electoral process any better. Frankly, 1 think it makes us look stupid and archaic.
The other proposition is one of by-elections which the Member from Ottawa-Carleton raised. If liquor were an influence on the electoral process at one time, I would suggest that in 1988 one could hardly buy someone's vote for a bottle of beer. Even if you could, the arbitrary line in the case of a by-election is what would make it legitimate to buy that bottle of beer on the north side of the street but not on the south side of the same street?
We have established, in my opinion, that this law is outdated. It is so outdated that it is nothing short of a joke. We know that around Confederation there was a period when we did not have formal ballots the way we have now. The process was far less rigorous than the one we know today. It could have been that, at the time when we were choosing people to represent us in Parliament and the process was less formal, you did not want that type of meetings totally permeated by alcoholic beverages. That does not enhance the debate in any way nor does it provide for effective representation afterwards.
At one time I suppose the availability of liquor was synono-mous or was influenced by candidates who had the wherewithal to provide it, namely, candidates with money to buy liquor for people who did not. Again, that is hardly applicable in 1988, nor do I believe that it would be meaningful in the years to come.
The law needs to be revamped. There are other sections of our election law which probably have ridiculous kinks in them as well.
To come back to the last point which the Member for Ottawa-Carleton raised in his presentation today, I would hope that our agreement as a House to withdraw this Bill later today will indicate to the Government, not that we are disinterested in the subject and, therefore, are willing to stand aside, 1 think it will be a unanimous demonstration instead of our willingness to have Bill C-79 enacted in the very near future. 1 want the Government to understand that that is at least my position. From what I see of the interest of other Members, I am sure that that would be the position of all Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the proposal by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) to bring this outdated and Victorian piece of legislation into the 20th century.

Just to make one point in closing on the availability of liquor in the unlikely event that someone is not convinced that the law ought to be modernized, our electoral process, as you know, has evolved into a two-tier affair, one being the nomination or the investiture by a political Party and the other one

January 22, 1988
Canada Elections Act
the election. Some nominations will have four or five thousand people attending a very large convention type of affair in order to choose a candidate. We all know that liquor is not restricted in that kind of process. While there is this two-step affair, with the first step having no restrictions at all, one could argue that in some cases there should be a little more restriction in that regard. On the other hand we have this second level, the formal electoral process. Once the candidates have been invested, the laws governing the process are, shall we say, at best useless and are at worst the laughing stock of the country. In order for any law to be effective, it should reflect the contempory view and it should have a purpose. I believe that the present Act as it pertains to liquor distribution on election day does not serve either of those two purposes and, therefore, should be altered.
Having said that, 1 want to offer my support for the initiative of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton and also my support for that portion of Bill C-79 which will modernize our Elections Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner) has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw his Bill. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Bill is, therefore, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday morning at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, January 25, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers