1988-12-13

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that there have been discussions among the Parties and the staff of the Parties as to the most appropriate order of business today. It is our wish to proceed in as orderly a manner as possible after the completion of the vote on the Ways and Means Motion.
Therefore, we are proposing to the House that we resume debate after the vote on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in order to give the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) an opportunity to speak, and also in order to give the Leader of the New Democratic Party an opportunity to speak.
We make that proposal on the condition that the procedural debate which is on the Order Paper in my name, which we intend to call tomorrow, be completed by 7 p.m. Wednesday evening.


Mr. Gauthier:: That's closure.


Mr. Murphy:: Closure on closure.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, while it seems reasonable on the surface that we have the debate continue today, I do not think that it is reasonable for the Deputy Government House Leader to attempt to direct you, Sir, as to at what point the procedural debate we are sure to have on the acceptability of the Government's motion to suspend the rules should conclude. I think that any such decision as to how long debate on the acceptability of the motion will go is a matter for you, Sir, to decide. I am prepared to rely on Your Honour's good judgment in this matter.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I have two reactions to the comments made by the Deputy House Leader. The first
concerns the intention to proceed with the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, something which seems to be appropriate. I would like to seek an understanding at this point that once we get to this item on the agenda that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) will speak and, with the approval of the House, that the Leader of the New Democratic Party will follow immediately in terms of having a chance to complete his remarks immediately following the remarks of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I seek that clarification first, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister in reply.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, naturally, on the understanding that the entire suggestion is taken into account, yes, we on the government side are prepared to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party after the Leader of the Official Opposition speaks. We want to give both individuals full opportunity to speak. Naturally, we would proceed on that basis on the understanding that, however, the procedural debate on the motion which is on the Order Paper now be called tomorrow and be completed by 7 p.m.
I am giving our undertaking that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would have ample time, the same as the Leader of the Official Opposition, to speak. We look forward to the remarks of both individuals.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a twist in the way the House does business. Never before have we had conditions attached to the approval for the Leader of the New Democratic Party to be allowed to complete his remarks. I am concerned that the Deputy House Leader for the Government is also directing decisions that ought to be Your Honour's to make and tying our hands as to when we can make procedural arguments and when they have to be completed. That does not seem to be a decision that the Deputy House Leader should be making but one that in fact Your Honour should be making.
I want to say that we have to consider this proposal. We are certainly prepared to consider it. But at this point I am not in a position to respond either favourably to it or against it.

December 13, 1988
Tabling of Documents


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that I asked the House Leader yesterday in the House what the agenda for today would be. At that time the Deputy House Leader answered, and we will find that on page 18 of Hansard:
-we will be calling the vote on the Ways and Means Motion tomorrow-
I asked specifically if he would designate a day for continuing the debate on the address. He did not answer me. I took it that he knew what he was doing at that time, that there was either total confusion on that side or that they had a plan for today.
[DOT] (UIO)
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal now is that we will have this address continued today but on the condition put by the Government that we agree tomorrow on closure. That is the point. At seven o'clock tomorrow night, debate on a motion must be taken up and finished, if I understood the Minister properly. If that is the point, then-

.. . That is blackmail! That is all it is. It is bargaining in public and it does not work; it cannot work either.
I would say to the Minister that if he wants to begin the session with this kind of approach of giving, taking back, giving . . . this kind of attitude will not work.
So I ask him to be frank with the House. Today we would like to proceed with the Speech from the Throne. We ask that the Leader of the Liberals and the Leader of the New Democratic Party be heard. If he is prepared to do that, we will negotiate other matters after. But we must not negotiate the Throne Speech with such an unacceptable proposition as, "Tomorrow, we will impose closure." That does not work.


Mr. Speaker:: I think under the circumstances it would be best if we proceeded with Routine Proceedings. There may, of course, be further discussions between representatives of all three Parties.
I have a preliminary matter which I must bring to the attention of Hon. Members. Hon. Members will know, at least some will know, but I want to bring it to all Hon. Members' attention, especially new Members, that there is a new set of House Orders which were adopted on May 27. These copies are now available. Some of you may have been operating under the old Orders. What you will find is that basically in substance they are the
same. However, the numbering is different. When Members are addressing the Chair on a procedural point, it might be advisable from now on to have a copy of the new book and keep it with you.
Some of you may find at first, because you are familiar with the old book, that you want to work with that, but as soon as possible I think it would be helpful for all to get the new book. You will find that it is an improvement. The rules are more logically set out. 1 do not think you will have any difficulty in using them. I do want to bring this especially to the attention of new Members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I must formally make this announcement. I have the honour to lay upon the Table, pursuant to the Order of the House adopted on Lriday, May 27, 1988, a copy of the re-ordered and re-numbered Standing Orders of this House dated November, 1988.


SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies, in both official languages, of the 1988 Annual Report of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.


REMISSION ORDER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: And pursuant to Standing Order 32.2,
December 13, 1988

I also table copies in both official languages of the report to Parliament on the remission orders for the six months ending September 30, 1988, as well as other important remission orders.

While I am on my feet, I wish to move:
That the House now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek clarification. If this motion succeeds and we go to Orders of the Day, does that preclude the request for an emergency debate being made today?


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party that under the rules, unless some consent can be obtained, I would not be able to entertain an application for an emergency debate. It may well be that consent could be obtained, but at the moment that would be the ruling I would have to make.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Government's interest in getting on with the daily business. I also appreciate that the Government would not want to be seen as, if you like, prohibiting a Member of the Opposition from requesting, at least, an emergency debate. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you see if there is unanimous consent of the House to allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party to at least request an emergency debate, in the spirit of the process of healing and reconciliation.


Mr. Speaker:: I think probably it would be advisable if Members discuss that matter further. I notice that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is seeking the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, what the House Leader just proposed and moved will cut off any chance of the Opposition Parties addressing the Speech from the Throne today. The motion says: "proceed to Orders of the Day". The only item under Orders of the Day is a Ways and Means motion, which is not debatable. It can only be put to a vote. We will vote against it, but that is it. You will have to recess after that unless you can find some solution now to address that question. I say to the House Leader, you cannot have it both ways. You allow the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the NDP to address the question today on the Speech from the Throne, and do it democratically, otherwise you are cutting off debate.
Tabling of Documents


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, we will hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops. However, what I am going to suggest to Hon. Members is, because the Speaker is now seized with a motion, procedurally what the Speaker now has to do is put it to the House. Again, in the interest of making sure that all Members, especially new Members, understand what will take place, there will be a voice vote and then, depending on the outcome of that, there may very well be a 30 minute bell calling in the Members.
Of course, I cannot assure you of that, but that is a possibility. During that period I think Hon. Members on both sides of the House might have a discussion and perhaps the result of that discussion might assist the Speaker.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops, is there anything further?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Mr. Speaker. All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to introduce a measure to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, laid upon the table on Monday, December 12, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!
December 13, 1988

Privilege-Mr. Thacker


Mr. Speaker:: Gaffney
Gagliano
Gardiner
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guarnieri Harb Harvard Harvey
(Edmonton East) Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Hunter Kaplan Karpoff Karygiannis Keyes Kilger
(Stormont-Dundas) Kristiansen Langan Langdon Laporte Lee
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Maheu
Manley
Marleau
Martin
(Lasalle-Emard) McGuire McLaughlin Mifflin Milliken Mills Mitchell Murphy


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
Nault
Nunziata
Nystrom
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parent
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard
Proud
Prud'homme
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rodriguez
Samson
Skelly
(Comox-Alberni) Speller Stewart Stupich Taylor Tobin Vanclief Volpe Waddell Walker Wappcl Whittaker Wood Young
(Gloucester)
Young
(Beaches-Wood bi ne)- 106
I declare the motion carried.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to elaborate upon the question of privilege raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) relating to the traffic jam on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Speaker, this matter must be referred to a committee because today we have to solve certain problems concerning access to this chamber and to committee rooms. As a rule, access is difficult enough in normal times, but the situation does get worse in winter.

December 13, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Thacker

I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to read, for the purposes of enlightening some of our colleagues in this House, new ones perhaps, what privilege is all about, because the question was put yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, I will not dispense. It is a very important point. The front bench of the Government takes it frivolously, but we on this side take this very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to read Beauchesne's Fifth Edition Citation 16:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
I go on quoting because this part is important.
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members.
Mr. Speaker, when a Member cannot come to the House of Commons because he simply cannot hear the bell-and we had an example of that today at the Wellington Building where the bell failed to ring-is that a breach of his privileges? I say it is.
If the same Member experiences difficulties because there is no adequate, rapid and efficient transportation from the Wellington Building or the Confederation Building, Mr. Speaker, again I say that the Member has a question of privilege and that, in such instance, his rights might be curtailed if he were to find it impossible to get here on time to vote or debate an issue.
Mr. Speaker, I think that a committee might be asked to consider the whole question of Parliament Hill and the means of transportation provided there.

Members should be sure that they can arrive at the House when they want and in time to discharge the duties for which they were elected. The question raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) indeed prevented him from arriving in time to
exercise the right of a Member; that is he heard the bells ringing when he got into the Confederation Building, he took a bus, and he told us in his remarks yesterday, he was unable to be here because of the traffic tie-up.
Members are elected to participate in debate, to participate in committees and to vote in this House, and they should be allowed to be here whenever they have to be here and whenever they want to be here. That is my point. There are several buildings in these precincts which are not connected by tunnels. At times we have to use buses. These buses sometimes have certain difficulties.
Hon. Members will remember that many times in the last Parliament we had to ask the Speaker to hold the vote because we knew certain Members were unable to come here in due time to exercise their democratic right to vote. The Speaker has given us this understanding.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point raised yesterday is interesting because we now have a building with the offices of 23 Members of Parliament, the Wellington Building, which has no transportation facilities available at this time. Buses are not at the disposal of the Members. They have to cross Wellington Street and come to the bus stop which is on the property of the Parliament of Canada. Therefore, those Members should be entitled to come here whenever they please, whenever they have to and whenever they want to exercise their rights as Members of Parliament.
I thoroughly endorse and support the proposition that this whole question be sent to a committee for study, consideration and that action be taken thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: Before adjourning the House, has the appropriate motion been made?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and I am completely in agreement that the House ought to entertain the appropriate motion.


An Hon. Member:: So moved.


Mr. Speaker:: So moved. I should also say that the Sergeant-at-Arms has made arrangements with the RCMP starting this afternoon for police assistance in clearing traffic and that that matter, including the matter of the bells, ought properly go to committee.
December 13, 1988
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1.02 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988.

I remind Hon. Members that this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on this day, at the beginning of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, I thank the people of Mount Royal for once again expressing their confidence in me. I pledge my commitment to represent them to the best of my abilities. One way will be working to ensure that the Government takes full responsibility for the impact of the trade deal.
Do plant closures by Gillette in Montreal, by Pittsburgh Paints, and Catelli Spaghetti represent the wave of Canada's future? Is the trade deal making plant closing decisions such as that of Northern Telecom easier? Is that the type of future Canadians expected and voted for on November 21?
Is the Government going to take credit for plant openings because of free trade, and try to blame plant
_________________________27
closings on some other mysterious force? The Government will have to learn that denying the connection between job losses due to the trade deal does not change the fact that workers are losing their jobs.
Liberals will be here every day watching the Government on behalf of the people of Canada, the majority of whom did not support the trade deal. We shall monitor the negotiations to ensure that the Government does not abandon its responsibility for the Canadian workers.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT EXPANSION OF CANADIAN COMPANIES' OPERATIONS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, free trade has already opened new opportunities for the city of Scarborough.
Next month, CDA Industries, Canada's largest display company, will open an office in Atlanta, Georgia, to pursue new markets as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. CDA's President, Mr. Vince Devitta, and the board of directors, have welcomed the free trade agreement as an opportunity for their company to expand. In fact, CDA has already negotiated a $6.5 million U.S. order which will create new jobs at its Scarborough plant.
Canadian Thermos Products and Warner Lambert Canada, which are also located in Scarborough Centre, also plan to expand their operations as a result of free trade. Canadian Thermos expects to create an additional 60 jobs in Scarborough because of better access to the U.S. markets under free trade, and Warner Lambert has already built a new research centre.
CDA, Canadian Thermos Products, and Warner Lambert are proving that free trade will have long term benefits for Scarborough's and Canada's future.


DISASTERS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest sympathies to the



December 13, 1988


S'. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
people of Armenia who are experiencing one of the worst disasters of this century.
I would also like to commend those thousands of Canadians who have devoted their time, energy, and resources to collecting and sending relief supplies to the troubled areas.
Unfortunately, however, it appears that the coordination of the Canadian response could have been better handled. Some volunteers with needed skills were not even able to get a few supplies such as tents and blankets so that they could fly to the scene of the tragedy. Other questions have been raised with respect to the lack of communication between Emergency Preparedness Canada and External Affairs. I hope the Minister will look into this and report back to the House.
In the meantime, I hope that the quake will have done one thing useful. I hope that it brings home to us that the people in the Soviet Union are real human beings. If we can be moved as we have been by their suffering in this instance we should also be moved to eliminate nuclear weapons which would visit upon the people of the Soviet Union and all the people of the earth a disaster that would make even the events in Armenia look like a picnic.

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Zoya Stevenson, Nancy Jacobi, and thousands of other Canadians in Parkdale-High Park and across Canada were disenfranchised in the federal election of November 21 because of our inefficient enumeration process.
During every election we hear horror stories of residents of entire streets and whole apartment buildings not being enumerated. Many voters were omitted because they were travelling or working odd shifts during the enumeration period. Others did not discover the omission of their names until they arrived at the polls on election day.
I urge Parliament to give speedy approval to the following recommendations.
1. Develop a registration process to establish a permanent voters list.
2. Approve election day voters registration in urban areas, the same right as given to rural voters.
The implementation of the these two recommendations would prevent discrimination against urban voters, and would guarantee Canadian voters their citizenship rights. It is our duty as parliamentarians to make it easier for citizens to vote, not place obstacles in their way.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the people of the riding of Champlain for putting their trust in me for a second consecutive mandate. Of course, I promise to keep on working for every man and woman of my constituency in order to improve our quality of life, attract significant investments and make the Canadian economy and that of my region work as well as in the past four years.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind both opposition parties that on the night they were defeated they solemnly committed themselves to let the Free Trade Agreement pass without objection or unjustified pressure. As we can see the session has no sooner begun that both parties have already reneged on their promise and simply seek to obstruct the Government in its action to prevent what Canadians decided on November 21 with their vote for free trade, for the economic development of Canada and against the regression of both opposition parties.


DISASTERS
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 7 last, the worst natural disaster to befall the Soviet Union in this century took place in Soviet Armenia.
December 13, 1988

Armenian Canadians in Don Valley North and other ridings in Canada are in a profound state of shock. While they, many thousands of Canadians, and the Canadian Government have responded with generosity, massive reconstruction efforts will be necessary.
I urge the Government of Canada to respond with the greatest generosity and compassion to this crisis and to advise the Soviet Union that Canadians would welcome such refugees as the Soviet Union may be prepared to grant exit visas to, in the face of this enormous calamity.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT SUPPLY MANAGEMENT MARKETING SYSTEM
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement in its present form is a direct attack on the supply management system of marketing, a system that has served Canadian farmers since it was introduced in the early 1970s.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government gave assurances over the past few months that the supply management system of marketing as defined under Article 11 of the GATT will be protected under the Free Trade Agreement. But we have also heard, Mr. Speaker, that the Americans would like to see an end to the supply management system as we know it here in Canada.
The constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk, who include many supply-managed farmers, are genuinely concerned that supply management is threatened, not only under the GATT, but within the free trade deal itself. Clearly, the Bill, in its present form, does not protect these farmers.
Our Party, Mr. Speaker, has proposed amendments to this deal which we believe protect farmers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our Party is committed to protecting all Canadians from the ill effects of this agreement. We will be the guardians of Canadian sovereignty, and we put the Government on notice that we will not stand for any decline in the farm economy.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Ken G. Hughes (MacLeod):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honour of attending the GATT talks as a member of Canada's parliamentary delegation.
Many Canadians involved in agriculture, including my constituents, were deeply disappointed with the lack of concrete results at the Montreal meeting.
The future of many agricultural industries in Canada is at stake in these talks. We must reduce subsidies to agriculture world-wide. Canada, as a member of the Cairns Group, as well as Japan and the U.S., were there prepared to negotiate. Where were the Europeans?
We must continue to pressure the Europeans in particular, as well as the Americans, to come to their senses and end the subsidy war.
As a new Member representing MacLeod in southern Alberta, I welcome the chance to defend aggressively the interests of Canadian agriculture.

[ Translation]


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last November 21, Canadians had to choose the leader and the political party best suited to govern the country for the next four years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, their choice was clear and unequivocal. Basing themselves on the record of the Progressive Conservative government from 1984 to 1988, they once more chose the team best suited to lead the country, the team of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party, thus giving them a second majority mandate, an historic event in the Canadian political life of the twentieth century.
The environment, implementation of free trade, national unity, security for our senior citizens, these will be the priorities of the government which I represent in this House.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow citizens for having entrusted me with a second mandate. They can rest assured that their Member of

December 13, 1988
Parliament will continue to represent them with dignity and that he will defend their interests relentlessly.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my constituents in Vancouver Quadra, as well as yours in Vancouver South, and the constituents of Vancouver Centre, will be relieved and grateful that the Government of British Columbia has dedicated the University Endowment Lands as a provincial park, preserving them in perpetuity in a natural state.
This will be the largest urban park in the world at 850 hectares, twice the size of Stanley Park of which you and I have spoken, four times the size of Hyde Park in London, and the greatest preservation of land in a natural state in any modern city in the world.
I want to thank and congratulate the Premier of the province, and particularly the citizens of Vancouver who have lobbied so well and incessantly to preserve these beautiful lands for nature and for the future citizens of British Columbia.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, December 10, marked the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an occasion commemorated by organizations and individuals around the world. Having just resigned as a Commissioner of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission in order to take my seat in this Chamber, I take great pleasure in bringing this important occasion to the attention of the House.
Recognition of and respect for human rights are the foundation stones upon which our democratic government is based.
Together with our human rights legislation and the principles enshrined in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Universal Declaration stands as a model for appropriate relationships amongst individuals and the peoples of the world. It will continue to be a source of inspiration for national and international efforts to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms now and in the future.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in over a century a Prime Minister has been re-elected with a commanding majority. Congratulations on this remarkable achievement!
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, one of whose Members I am proud to be, is the politician who did and will continue to steer the ship of state with firmness.
Our future looks promising thanks to the appropriate policies of this Conservative Government.
On behalf of the people of La Prairie and of my colleagues in the House I should like to express to him and to his family my heartfelt sentiments of affection and pride for this extraordinary achievement.
Once again, Mr. Prime Minister, sincere congratulations!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is fond of saying that the people "spoke" in the last election. Millions of Canadians have expressed serious concerns with the free trade deal. Grain farmers in Saskatchewan are particularly concerned with the lack of protection for the Canadian Wheat Board under the terms of the Free Trade Agreement.
December 13, 1988

The Prairie Wheat Pools, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, UPA and other farm organizations have repeatedly called for government action to protect the Wheat Board and other farm marketing boards. To date, the Government has not dealt with this concern.
American interests are continuing to pressure the Canadian Government to dismantle parts of the Wheat Board. Just last week at the GATT talks in Montreal, U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter said the U.S. administration will not rest until it gets its way with the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board is vital to the survival of Canadian grain farmers. My colleagues and I will be expecting guarantees for the Wheat Board in the trade legislation to be presented in this House.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my first remarks in the House at the beginning of this 34th Parliament should relate to a high technology firm located in my riding.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Quebec City's Multitel is the world's only maker of a data management and acquisition device for back-up battery systems. It has been able to show that a small local business can successfully break through on the markets of such countries as the United States and Europe.
This has been made possible thanks to the co-operation of young and old employees whose experience and modern know-how are a guarantee of the firm's challenging future.
I pay special tribute to Multitel President Leon Methot, Operations Vice-President Gilles Huot, and all their colleagues who had faith in the future and who live up to the daily challenge brought on by know-how and creativity so that high technology may, for all of us, become a way of life where excellence prevails.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that his trade agreement with the United States would have no effect on our regional development programs, our social programs and our environmental programs, now or in the future.
Will the Prime Minister agree to put these election promises into the law itself? Will he do it in writing in the trade bill which is before this House?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all these issues have been debated in front of the electorate.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has explained his point of view and the New Democratic Leader explained his position. I have defended the Government's interests; on behalf of the Minister for International Trade and of the Government, I said that the matters raised were not affected by the free trade treaty. I explained the reasons why. The treaty has not changed since then and I think that the Leader of the Official Opposition has every reason to be confident that the matters he raised will be well defended by the Government of Canada.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I could feel more confident if the Prime Minister were prepared to put in writing in the law itself the commitments he made during the election campaign.


UNITED STATES LIST OF CANADIAN PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, four days after the election, namely, on November 25, the United States trade representative issued a 17-page report to the Congress of the United States which lists 40 Canadian programs and administrative practices which the United States claims, according to Mr. Clayton Yeutter, violate the trade agreement. These include Canadian Wheat Board

December 13, 1988
Oral Questions
programs, financial services policies, auto-pact regulations, and broadcast rules.
Does the Prime Minister intend to change any or all of the programs which the United States says must be changed under the terms of the agreement?
While I am at it I ask the Prime Minister whether Canada has a list of improper trade practices and administrative regulations of the United States which contravene the agreement. If so, why has that document not been made public?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we will have to make our own report in due course as to whether we think the U.S. legislation complies with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, or whether there are any provisions of its laws which do not so comply. Under its legislation the United States has the same duty or obligation.
Of course the Americans can have their own opinions about various matters here in Canada as to whether they think they violate one principle or the other, or whatever. But that is not determinative of the situation. We have our own views of what complies with the Free Trade Agreement and what does not.
There is nothing unusual or alarming about the Americans having opinions that are contrary to our opinions. We will continue to hold ours and to put our own position forward.


TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR AFFECTED WORKERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there may be nothing alarming in the mind of the Minister, but at least the Americans have a forthrightness to be public about what they have in mind for the implementation of this trade agreement. My point to the Minister is that if he has anything in mind-something which we begin to doubt-would he render public what the Canadian position is on American administrative practice and regulation?
Since the election there have been massive lay-offs announced by several Canadian industries-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Come on! That is why you are over there.


John Napier Turner: The new Minister from Brampton is becoming just as sensitive as his colleague from St. John's.
Under the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States will the Government of Canada be allowed to provide new training and retraining programs for these workers who have been displaced? More important, why has the Prime Minister been stalling on the introduction of any adjustment policy? All he has told the country so far is that we must await the de Grandpre Report. That might be months and months away. Does he not realize that the workers at Canada Packers, Northern Telecom, Pittsburgh Paints, Catelli, and Gillette have already lost their jobs? They cannot afford to wait for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister and I and other members of the Government have made clear is that we have in place the Canadian Jobs Strategy which provides-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -which provides an adaptable and flexible approach to job training both in terms of skill development and skill investment so that people can upgrade for the future.
We have also made it clear that we are committed to innovative and generous adjustment and retraining programs to assist individual Canadians under the Free Trade Agreement as under other economic concerns.
The Canadian economy is constantly adapting. That is why we as a nation have had such an excellent record in the past few years. There are, for example, 1.5 million layoffs in Canada in any typical year, where someone doesn't return. We are prepared to deal with that as we are with other things.


RISK TO CANADIAN PLANTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in response to the answer provided by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is interesting to know why the Government has cut back by 32 per cent the actual expenditures under the Canadian Jobs Strategy program.
December 13, 1988

We would like to know from the Prime Minister also whether the Government has examined the report from the Economic Council which it refers to as the Bible of the Free Trade Agreement. It states that over 24,000 Canadian plants are at risk if the trade agreement goes ahead. We would like to know if the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Prime Minister, or anyone in the Government can tell us which plants are at risk, where they are located, how many workers will be affected, and what the Government is going to do-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Mr. Speaker, it shows the insensitivity to all those workers in those 24,000 plants that the Government is proceeding on sheer and total ignorance of those facts. We want to know if the Government will set up a special committee of the Commons to examine the critical question of plant closures to make sure the victims of the trade agreement are properly protected.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises some very specific questions and I would like to answer him with very specific numbers.
In terms of announced investments in this country, since the beginning of the year-and I will spare him the details by industry but I would be willing to provide them to him-in Nova Scotia, $2.2 billion; in New Brunswick, $1.6 billion; in Newfoundland, $1.7 billion; in Quebec, $3.1 billion; in Ontario, $3.7 billion; in British Columbia, $511.1 million; in Alberta, $6.78 billion; in Saskatchewan, $150 million; in Manitoba, $10 million, a total of close to $20 billion of new investment, of faith in the future of this country and its job-creation potential.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I say only to the Minister that the workers who will be losing their jobs under this trade agreement cannot feed their families on the statistics given by that Minister.


FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST THAT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question again to the Prime Minister. During the election campaign the Prime Minister gave guarantees that a number of essential Canadian programs would in
Oral Questions
no way be affected or touched by the trade agreement, such as the Wheat Board, the regional development programs, and agricultural subsidies. We now have a report from the United States Trade Office challenging many of these programs.
We have the Minister for International Trade himself saying that the agricultural transportation subsidies are on the negotiating table, and we have a new round of negotiations beginning on the question of subsidies and the harmonization of standards without any report or any examination as to what will be on the negotiating table.
Canadians do not want to be blindsided again. Will the Prime Minister agree to establishing a committee of the Commons to examine the new round of negotiations to ensure that the essential programs for Canadians will not be negotiated away this time?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, every conceivable kind of assurance has been given to the Canadian people to that effect.


Mr. Allmand:: Not true.


Ms. Copps:: Your word is not worth the paper it is written on.


John Carnell Crosbie: Certain personages opposite do not want to believe any assurance, no matter how many assurances are given.


William Warren Allmand: We had a bitter experience.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister's word on seniors' pensions.


John Carnell Crosbie: My voice is not loud enough to outshout the Hon. Member for wherever she is from this time. The position is that Canada has been part of GATT since 1947, and there is a GATT code on subsidies that has been in effect since then. There has been no agreement yet between us and any other nation in the GATT or between any two nations in the GATT as to what constitutes a trade distorting subsidy and doubtless it will be a very long time before that is agreed.
If Canada and the United States, in the next seven years, can agree on that it will be a great precedent for the world. In the meantime we do not intend to agree to any definition that would in any way endanger regional development or other Canadian programs of that nature.

December 13, 1988
Oral Questions


MEASURES TO AID AFFECTED WORKERS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We just heard three Ministers indicate that the Government is not prepared to bring in any innovative measures to aid workers displaced by the trade deal. The Prime Minister said on November 25, in complete contradiction to what we just heard, that the Government would be innovative and generous with adjustment and retraining program wherever and whenever they were needed.
Since we have had some 2,400 lay-offs-


John Carnell Crosbie: Nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: -that have been announced to be either directly or indirectly related to the trade deal since the election day-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -why is the Government not bringing forward those measures that the Prime Minister promised to aid workers who are affected now, not next spring?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party prefaced his question by saying, I think I have it accurately, that three Ministers indicated that the Government was not prepared to bring in new training programs. That is not accurate.


John Edward Broadbent: Now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now the Leader of the NDP says "now". The free trade agreement is not yet in effect. We already have various-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about Gillette workers?


Mr. Marchi:: Just wait until it is in effect.


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members would agree that, with many more Members seeking the floor during Question Period, I have to try to be as fair and firm as I can. I would ask Hon. Members to keep their comments to a minimum so that their own colleagues will be able to have a chance to ask questions. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to indicate to the Leader of the NDP, in regard to a legitimate question that he raises about retraining and innovative and generous retraining programs, that at the moment we have some of the best in the world but clearly we can
do better. We have invited Jean de Grandpre, one of Canada's most distinguished people, to chair a blue ribbon commission to examine the programs that exist around the world, to ensure that as the Free Trade Agreement comes into effect over a period of time, as the need emerges, if it does, we have in place the finest programs that exist anywhere. That was the commitment we made and that is the commitment we are going to honour.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Prime Minister that unemployed workers who have already had their lay-off announcements cannot eat blue ribbons. They want action now.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE NEW PROGRAMS
John Edward Broadbent: Since the distinguished gentleman to whom the Prime Minister has alluded has said he will not have his report ready until quite possibly as late as June, I return to what the Prime Minister promised on November 25 when he said that whenever and wherever those programs would be needed, the Government would produce them. They are needed in Canada and they are needed now. Why do we not get such legislation before we recess for the Christmas break and not after?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP says that the programs are needed now and he ties that statement to a quote of mine on November 25. That quote on November 25 was in regard to the Free Trade Agreement which will come into effect beginning on January 1. There is no correlation whatsoever between what the hon. gentleman says now and that, which is not to diminish the need for better retraining programs on behalf of employees in Canada.
My hon. friend refers to some of the job changes that have occurred. Some four million Canadians a year change jobs for various reasons. We have a very dynamic and mobile workforce. Retraining will always be a great challenge for the federal and the provincial Governments.
What my hon. friend should, I think, remember, is that the record of 1.3 million new jobs that have been created over the last four years, leading the industrialized world, can and will be maintained with the dynamic and modern approaches that we have adopted with the Free Trade Agreement.
December 13, 1988


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the new jobs that have been created, and the Prime Minister knows this, do not directly affect the people who are laid off at Gillette, Catelli, Pittsburgh Paint or any other industry that is making decisions in the context of free trade. That is the reality and the Prime Minister knows it.


GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is very direct. The Government has expressed its intention to adjourn the House till the spring, but the workers who have lost their jobs have lost them recently. Why does the Conservative Government give priority to giving time off to its members rather than dealing with the layoffs? Is that Tory justice?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, major programs have been established throughout the country to assist workers laid off because of technological changes. It is a fact of life in industrialized societies and that situation is not about to change, unfortunately. A responsible government must therefore provide the affected workers with the most generous programs possible. That is what we have done and will continue to do.
My hon. friend brings up some problems with the Gillette company, which is a real problem. But he does not mention the $500 million investment in the Trois-Rivieres region in the aluminum sector, which is going to create hundreds of jobs. He does not mention the hundreds of jobs created at National Sea Products in Lunenberg and at Hearn Harbour Terminals in Windsor.

Du Pont Canada plans to double its capital spending for 1989 to $156 million. There will be 480 new jobs at a new Cargill Limited slaughter house in High River, Alberta. There are 90 new jobs at Quaker Oats, Campbell Soup, et cetera.

Of course, jobs are lost regularly as a result of technological change. Many more new jobs are created because of the new climate of cooperation with the provinces fostered by this Government.
Oral Questions


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Report of the Auditor General. The Auditor General has chronicled case after case of questionable projects approved under the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore Development Fund. Of the $130 million approved to date, the Auditor General concludes that fully $75 million worth of projects is questionable as to their eligibility under the fund.
Will the Prime Minister now give this House and the people of Nova Scotia his assurance that a full investigation will be undertaken and, where evidence of misappropriation is found, that the Government of Canada will replenish the fund for the amounts spent which did not meet program criteria?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, for four years, this Government has operated on the basic premise that the provinces are partners with the Canadian Government in developing policies within their jurisdiction, and it intends to maintain this attitude in the present mandate.
In this spirit, an accord was signed between the Governments of Canada and of Nova Scotia to give this province the means to develop its infrastructure when offshore development occurs. The Government of Nova Scotia did what it was entitled to do, namely present us with its priorities for developing its own territory, and this Government recognizes its responsibility and treats Nova Scotia as a full partner, Mr. Speaker.


DARTMOUTH SEWAGE SYSTEM PROJECT
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister because that answer is simply unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald MacDonald: The federal Minister has the responsibility to sign off on each and every one of those projects. My supplementary question deals with a specific project. I wish to know under what specific program criteria did the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources approve $2.3 million for the

December 13, 1988
Oral Questions
construction of a sewage system for Portland Estates, a private residential development in Dartmouth.
Is every private development in Nova Scotia now eligible for such funding, or has this particular project qualified solely on the basis of the developer's personal friendship with the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the development of Nova Scotia's territory is primarily a responsibility of the Government of Nova Scotia. With this in mind, this Government drafted and approved . .. and Parliament approved the legislation and funds required for the development of these programs. We recognize the responsibility of the Government of Nova Scotia, and we are particularly	proud that	Government	of	Canada
money was spent for the development of Nova Scotia's territory.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Ordinarily this is	a wonderful	time of year	for	Canadians. Unfortunately, many	Canadians are	finding
themselves frustrated and harassed by the fiasco at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, frustrated by lengthy delays, congested airways, and real danger to lives. In view of the fact that there is a viable, underused and highly accessible airport at Hamilton, will the Minister of Transport finally take immediate action to improve the situation and redirect traffic to the Hamilton airport, or will it take a catastrophe before the Government acts?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton West well knows, action was taken at Pearson International Airport on Friday when we started to control the traffic flow through Pearson by the number of flights per hour. That action has been taken. Traffic moved well yesterday and it moved well today. It will continue to move over the Christmas season to make sure that Canadians
will be able to travel home with the least amount of delay possible.


REQUEST FOR ACTION
Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, another Hon. Member from the Hamilton area on the government side of the House has indicated that he cannot condone his own junior Minister's statements of Friday.
I might point out to the junior Minister that three years ago the Liberal Party pleaded that the Government designate Hamilton airport as an under-used airport. Three years have passed. Would the Minister of Transport redirect air traffic from a paralysed Pearson to the under-used, viable Hamilton airport immediately?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the traffic through Pearson International Airport is not paralysed at this time and it is flowing.
As far as the Hamilton Airport is concerned we have been working over the last four years with the people there to make sure the airport is utilized.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is a farce.


Shirley Martin: We now have flights in and out of Hamilton.


An Hon. Member:: Once a week.


Shirley Martin: A little more than one a week, Sir. You should try it some time. Hamilton, certainly, will be part of the over-all study as we look at the medium and longterm problems within the area and as we look at the management of the airspace over southwestern Ontario.


UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN SHAKES AND SHINGLES
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last week in a move that will be devastating to the shakes and shingles industry in British Columbia, U.S. President Reagan renailed the industry with a punishing 20 per cent tariff.
Does the Prime Minister recognize the seriousness of this tariff and does he intend to capitulate to this attack,
December 13, 1988

or will he take action on behalf of the workers, the owners, and their families?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the free trade agreement was not in effect when-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Read the agreement.


John Carnell Crosbie: I try to answer in a mild fashion, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If I might just start my reply again. Unfortunately, in 1986 when this matter arose, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was not in effect. If it had been in effect the shakes and shingles decision taken in the United States could not have occurred in the form-


An Hon. Member:: You are choking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister could finish his answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is my first glass of water in 20 years, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I agree with the Hon. Member that this is a deplorable decision. It was a decision that is damaging to both the Canadian and the U.S. industries, and it is a great pity that President Reagan apparently was not advised so that he did away with the shakes and shingles action as he could have done. He did, however, reduce, as the Hon. Member knows, the amount of the additional duties that are being levied. I suppose we should be thankful for that, but this decision is harmful to the industries in both countries.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the House that loss of jobs in the shakes and shingles industry is not a laughing matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joy Langan: I would thank Mr. Crosbie for his choking response.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister rushing through the business of this House so that we can take a Christmas holiday while families in British Columbia, in Mission- Coquitlam in particular-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Stop ringing the bells.


Joy Langan: -are facing a future of unemployment? Will the Prime Minister stand up for those people, the workers in the industry, on this issue?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rather resent the suggestion that I made a joking reply to the plight of the shakes and shingle workers. I am having difficulty with my voice because I am suffering from a cold as a result of struggling at GATT last week with 100 nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have taken action to protect the jobs of Canadians by refusing to allow cedar logs, blocks, bolts, planks and short boards to be exported to the United States. We issued an export prohibition. That was challenged in the courts. We were successful and that prohibition is now in effect. We are doing everything we can to preserve the jobs of Canadian workers.
We do not find this amusing, and I am not amused by the Hon. Member's suggestion that I took this matter lightly. We have done everything possible within Canadian law to ameliorate the effects of the action taken in the United States.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, being a fellow Newfoundlander I have some compassion for the Member for St. John's West. I know that he is screeched out-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is that time of the year. We heard that he was in a sing-along in St. John's last week.

December 13, 1988
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. We have just witnessed the spectacle of a Minister of Transport, a member of this Government for the last four years, stand and tell the House that we finally began to deal with the problem at Pearson last Friday.


An Hon. Member:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Pearson is inefficient, it is frustrating for passengers, and Pearson International Airport is dangerous.
Beyond these bland assurances, what measures are being taken by the Government to hire and train additional air traffic controllers and to make the system safe so that Canadians travelling during this holiday period and in the months ahead know that Canadian airways are safe?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I answered earlier questions in the House today, action has been taken to ensure that traffic flows safely and more effectively through the airport at Toronto. Part of the problem that we have with some of the shortages go back to the Auditor General's Report under the former Government which said that we had-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You have had four years.


Shirley Martin: Four years of deregulation. Regulatory reform has brought forth far more traffic at Pearson International Airport. Traffic has escalated and we are working to handle it. We will be bringing more air traffic controllers on-stream next year to help. We are handling the traffic that will be going through over the holiday season. Safety has always been number one and will continue to be number one at Pearson International.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's Report in 1984, as the Minister started to say but thought better of, said there were insufficient air traffic controllers in Canada. The Standing Committee on Transport of the House of Commons said at the time of the introduction of deregulation, four years ago, first that we must have more air traffic controllers. The Government in 1984 actually laid off air traffic controllers.
The current situation is dangerous. It is not just frustrating. It is dangerous. I want to ask the Minister of Transport to quit beating around the bush and tell
Canadians and Members of this House what concrete measures the Government has taken concerning our air transportation system after the Government has botched it through four years of inaction.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, action has been taken to make sure that traffic flows safely through Pearson over the Christmas holiday period so that travellers can get home for the holidays.
Meetings will be held in January in Toronto with all the interested parties. As far as the medium and longterm plans for the airport are concerned, number one is safety and will continue to be for this Government as far as air traffic flow is concerned.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the EEC yesterday unilaterally set its own 1989 fishing quotas off the East Coast of Canada 12 times higher than those allowed by the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization. A spokesman for the Government claimed this morning, "There is not enough fish in the entire north Atlantic to satisfy that EEC quota".
Does the Government realize that 84,000 tonnes of the 160,000 tonnes of cod in that unilateral declaration will be from the nose of the Grand Banks where, Mr. Speaker, as you know, a moratorium exists on fishing activity to help rebuild the stocks so that they can come ashore and employ our people in our fish plants?
What does the Government intend to do about this further destruction of our fishing resource by foreign nations?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to know that the Hon. Member can distinguish the nose from the tail of the Grand Banks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Siddon:: The Hon. Member raises a very serious issue. It is one that Ministers, provincially and federally, have been wrestling with for the last two years, and which has led to partial results.
December 13, 1988

The point that the Hon. Member raises is the overfishing beyond Canada's economic jurisdiction on the common property stocks of the Grand Banks. That overfishing is being pursued by the European nations, especially Spain and Portugal, contrary to the rules of the International Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization which sets the quotas and administers these stocks. Canada deeply regrets this outrageous abuse of these resources.
This very day I am meeting with the Atlantic Fisheries Ministers to decide how we might escalate the initiatives we have set out under a plan to end this flagrant violation of all good conservation principles. We expect to take further actions, over and above those which we have taken to deny port privileges and quotas in Canadian waters, to end this wasteful abuse of our fish resources.


ALCOHOL TARIFFS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, of course I can distinguish between the nose and the tail. I wish to tell the Hon. Minister that the EEC is pillaging our fishery on the nose of the Grand Banks, and they allow the U.S. to fish unchecked on the tail of the Grand Banks, so we are getting it at both ends.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: I want to ask the Minister the following question. Does the Government not realize that Canada has lost respect internationally because we do not have the will to protect our fishing resources?
Will the Government today instruct the negotiators who are meeting with the EEC this afternoon on wine, beer, and spirits to tell the EEC that we will talk about tariffs on their booze when they cut their quotas on our fish?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well the consequences of linking a fisheries management issue with another trade issue.
The Hon. Member also knows full well that the Government has taken strong measures to end the European abuse of our fish stocks within the Canadian 200-mile zone, but the fish stocks in question are beyond Canada's sovereign jurisdiction from a management perspective.
The Hon. Member knows that we have denied port privileges, we have ended over the side sales, and we
___________________________39
Oral Questions
have denied any quotas of any fish in Canadian waters to these wayward European nations, and we will continue to raise the pressure in order to end these very regrettable practices by the European Community.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister will recall that only 10 days before the election date the Government announced a drought aid program for farmers which was supposed to top up crop insurance by 10 per cent, and cost the Government some $850 million.
Since the Government's delay in making that announcement was supposed to have been in order to make certain that the program would be ready to implement immediately, can the Minister explain why at this date there is still no program, why the drought zones have not been defined, and why the provincial Premiers on the Prairies are now being asked to contribute money to the program, money which was supposed to have already been committed by the federal Government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member takes exception to the fact that we have announced a program to support the farmers in a serious drought situation.
Our record of support for the farmers, whether it was for drought, grasshoppers, depressed prices, you-name-it, has been pretty good; in fact, second to none.
We have made the commitment and we will deliver.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. Given that prairie Conservatives who were defeated by the farmers on the Prairies have been stating after their defeat that this means that the region will no longer get any money, can the Minister tell us whether that is in fact his Government's policy? If so, is this the reason why it has not provided the drought program to the dried out prairie farmers as promised during the election?

December 13, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to malign a well-intentioned program during the course of an election campaign, and the NDP are experts at that. It is another thing to malign the program now that the election is over. The Hon. Member does not have to worry. His farmers will be looked after.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Premiers are maligning you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We go back to the days when we announced the first billion dollar deficiency payment. The Leader of the NDP said that it was borrowed money, then it was advance money, and then he was concerned about whether it was new money or old money. This money will be put on the table and the farmers will receive it as was outlined.

[Translation\


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Housing).
The Quebec Regional Office of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has decided not to press for the construction of three homes in Clova this year under the native demonstration program, by citing the remoteness of that community located in Quebec's heartland.
Here is my question: Can the Minister assure the House that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will immediately review that decision so that native people in Clova can get warm and comfortable homes in 1989, despite that community's remoteness?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I can advise him that the CMHC officials have informed me that the municipality of Clova will be in a very good position to receive its housing under the Rural and Native Housing Program in 1989.


FISHERIES
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and deals with the matter raised earlier of the quotas established by the European Economic Community.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister is no doubt aware that Eastern Canada's fishing industry already suffers from insufficient resources, especially in northeastern New Brunswick. Here is the question I must ask you today on behalf of plant workers and producers and the whole Eastern Canada's fishing industry: What steps are you expecting to take to protect the fishing industry's interests, in view of the quotas that have been set at twelve times the level recommended by NAFO?

Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): First I would like to welcome my colleague, the former Minister of Fisheries for New Brunswick, to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I have appreciated his helpful advice and that of the provincial Ministers of Fisheries for the five Atlantic provinces on such questions during the past three years.
Today 1 am meeting with the same Ministers to deal with the question of shortage of quotas within the Canadian 200-mile economic zone. We hope to have some progress to report which will be beneficial to the fishery of Atlantic Canada.
On the question of quotas beyond Canada's economic jurisdiction, we must resort to diplomatic initiatives and sanctions such as the denial of port privileges. Together with my colleagues we will continue to search for more effective ways of stopping this blatant abuse of fish stocks beyond Canada's economic jurisdiction.


CANADIAN POSITION
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I recognize that the Minister stated he is meeting with eastern Canadian Fisheries Ministers. Can the Minister advise us when the Government will meet with the representatives of the European nations? What exactly
December 13, 1988

will the Government of Canada put forward in terms of how it sees the situation of overfishing and the overlap that will exist if this policy is pursued?
Finally, will the Minister advise what measures Canada will put forward on the basis of retaliation? We have talked about the closure of ports. Does the Minister have any other suggestions to make to our colleagues in the European nations with respect to possible Canadian retaliation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Hon. Member, as a former Minister, knows that, whatever measures we contemplate putting forward, we do not put them forward in the House of Commons until such time as the deliberations have been completed.
At this stage I am not prepared to speculate as to what additional measures may be taken. I can tell the Hon. Member that the provincial Ministers from Atlantic Canada, together with their federal counterparts, now consider that we will probably have to raise this matter to the diplomatic level in a major way, which is a course of action that I am contemplating at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired.
Privilege-Mr. Thacker PRIVILEGE


TRAFFIC JAM ON PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCTS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to put the following motion before all Members, by unanimous consent. Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moves:
That the question of transporting Members of Parliament to and
from the buildings within the precincts of Parliament be referred to
the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, it is not possible to proceed with further business at this time, without consent.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no business before the House, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 14, 1988