1988-06-16

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Government has exempted lumber, unprocessed fish, and beer from the trade deal with the United States, but not water. Despite claims to the contrary by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), it is obvious that the trade deal does not explicitly prohibit the sale of water to the United States. Therefore, we do not know what the future might hold with respect to water diversions and export.
By not exempting water from the trade deal, the Government has left the door open for the United States to seek Canadian water in decades to come. If the Government will not amend the proposed legislation so as to exclude water from the trade deal, the consequences could be enormous.
The Government should include water in the proposed trade legislation so that Canadian water stays in Canada for present and future generations of Canadians


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Over the past few days, Mr. Speaker, the business of the House has been perturbed by the Liberal-socialist tandem of the Hon. Member for Windsor
West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
Futile and costly war of words and procedural wrangles! The Opposition has both the duty and the right to oppose the principle of our policies.
Why not debate basic issues? We would welcome that with professionalism. We are open to any legitimate representation concerning any issue on the Order Paper of the House, including the matter of free trade, among others.
I thank The Gazette's columnist William Johnson for his June 15, 1988 article from which I drew inspiration for my statement.


&quot;THEY HAVE REACHED THE SUMMIT&quot; COMPETITION-SCARCITY OF FEMALE WINNERS DEPLORED
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Youth announced the winners of the "They have reached the Summit" competition. Fifteen out of 1,000 young Canadian men and women were chosen to attend the Economic Summit in Toronto this weekend.
This kind of competition seems to offer a unique opportunity to young Canadians. However the distressing fact is that only three of the fifteen winners are women. Whenever this Government has an opportunity to offer young people a challenging experience it continues to perpetuate a sexist system which invariably bars women from institutions where political and economic decisions are made. It is very discouraging to find out that even today young Canadian women have no guarantee they will have equal representation and participation in our country's major events.
I want to extend my congratulations to the competition winners, particularly to the three young women. The name of the competition-"They have reached the Summit"-was quite appropriate, even though so few women did reach the top.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BELL CANADA EXTENDED AREA SERVICE-DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to learn that the CRTC has once again delayed the announcement of its decision concerning extended area service of Bell Canada.
The residents of the northern part of the new riding of Markham with telephone exchanges 727 and 841 are only able to make local calls to Oak Ridges, Aurora, and Newmarket, whereas many calls must be made regularly to the greater Metro area. Residents such as Roy Graham have been fighting to get this changed.
I now live in the Gormley area. We have an 841 exchange. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is inconvenient and costly for residents to make calls to the greater Metro area. Almost all the calls are to the south, not to the west and north. This patchwork quilt of rates is particularly costly to small businesses with clients across the York region.
I would urge the CRTC to examine its criteria in order to apply the extended area service to our community and to many others across the province.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest the decision of the Liberal Party to frustrate the operations of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The result of this decision is that projects that might be eligible for assistance cannot be funded. This in turn means lost opportunities for Atlantic Canadians, lost jobs, and lost investment.
Atlantic Canadians support the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. They know it is a big improvement over the past Liberal strategies of economic development.
It is time for Liberal Members to stand up for the interests of Atlantic Canadians. To date, their performance has been shameful.
[ Translation]


BY-ELECTIONS LAC-SAINT-JEAN CONSTITUENCY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity to report on the situation in Lac-Saint-Jean.
As you know, the Prime Minister appointed Lucien Bouchard thinking that he could walk on the waters of Lake Saint-Jean. But we have seen, over the past few weeks, that he is having trouble keeping his head above water. He now finds himself in such a bind that he can only rely on support from outside the riding. The fact is that he has little support inside the riding, which explains the obvious contradictions on the part of the government, the panic that has overtaken its ranks. Conservative members know that the government will never be able to invest as much in their own ridings.
The Hon. Member from Chambly, for example, knows that he will not get millions of dollars to buy votes, like Lucien Bouchard in Lac-Saint-Jean. Even the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion had to be bulldozed into agreeing to some grants where there was no program.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an abuse of public funds. Never has so much money been spent in an effort to buy votes. But the government can be assured of one thing: the people of Lac-Saint-Jean will not be fooled by Conservative promises. And the sad thing is that we now see that Lucien Bouchard has obviously been to the same school as the Prime Minister because he tends to forget the truth.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Ontario Legislature when asked about a report on rape the Ontario Minister responsible for women's issues responded by saying that the Blue Jays were leading the Cleveland Indians 9 to 1. Liberal Members applauded.
Then when a Progressive Conservative Member of the Legislature said that he was shocked to hear the ball score when the question dealt with rape, the Minister put him down by saying he didn't know what the Member had against baseball.
If that exchange had occurred in this House, one can imagine the reaction of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), and rightly so.


LEVEL OF LEAD IN GASOLINE-QUICKER REDUCTION SOUGHT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a group called the Canadian Coalition for Lead-Free Gasoline presented a brief to the federal Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan).
In the brief the Coalition outlined the dangers, especially to young children, of lead poisoning. The Coalition presented evidence that even very small levels of lead in the bloodstream can hurt children, and have terrible effects such as low birth weight and hearing loss. Fifty-two per cent of children aged six and under have an unacceptably high level of lead in their blood. That is half a million Canadian children.
To combat this problem, the Coalition has asked the Government to reduce the level of lead in gasoline sooner than the Government's plan to reduce levels in 1992. Why should the Conservative Government drag its feet when the health of Canadian children is at stake?
The Minister of the Environment expressed a concern for the industries, saying that the Government would have to ask the industries if they could meet this target for reducing lead at an earlier date.
It is time this Conservative Government got the lead out, and told the industries to do the same.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, as of June 3, the Western Diversification Office had provided funds for 382 projects across western Canada. These announcements have amounted to $305 million being injected into western Canada. It is important to realize that the vast majority of the projects funded are for small and medium-sized companies. These are the companies which create most of the jobs and are the driving force in diversifying the prairie economy. These companies have the entrepreneurs who bring new ideas and skills to both rural and urban areas.
An example of the impact that ingenuity and government support is having can be found in Saskatoon East. A Saskatoon engineer's unique mining conveyor system will become a reality with the help of western diversification funds. As a result of this co-operation up to 1,000 new jobs could be created in businesses over the next three to four years. This is an example of how individuals can build innovative and highly competitive industries while providing growth and development in Saskatchewan.
The western diversification initiative is beginning to enhance the development of a broadly based western economy. It is promising a brighter future for the west.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went along with the suggestion of the Economic Council of Canada to move from downtown Vanier to downtown Ottawa. Big business, Mr. Speaker! It will cost one million dollars to move the offices of the Economic Council for purely egocentric and snobbish reasons. This move is totally unjustified. Today, we have at our disposal the telephone, facsimile and messengers, so, if they only wanted to be closer to Members of Parliament and senators, Mrs. Maxwell and her staff should come here on the Hill to meet us from time to time. May be then, we could know them better. And what do they have against Vanier, Mr. Speaker? Nothing!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed fortunate in this country in having an outstanding Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). His understanding and compassion for this country's veterans, and his persuasive abilities with his cabinet colleagues, have resulted in unprecedented new initiatives to recognize and assist those men and women who have served Canada so well.
For example, at the Dominion Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion this week, the Minister announced that an additional $200 million has been approved by the Government in order that those veterans who served at least one year during wartime in Canada will be eligible for the Veterans Independence Program.
This will more than double the number of veterans who will be potentially eligible for the Veterans Independence Program which ensures that veterans receive assistance to help them remain independent in their own homes. He also announced that the Government has agreed to provide more chronic care facilities in order that, when needed by veterans, the beds will be available.


Oral Questions
It is these efforts by this Government which are ensuring that our veterans face their future with dignity and security.
* *
*


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the disgraceful and utterly reprehensible comments made by Ontario's Minister responsible for women's issues in the provincial Legislature yesterday.
In response to a question by an opposition Member concerning rape, the Minister had this to say: "I thought I might take the opportunity to advise my colleagues in the House that, as we debate these matters, at Exhibition Stadium the Blue Jays are trouncing the Cleveland Indians nine to one, and Stieb is pitching a one-hitter".
It is reported that Liberal Members of the Legislature applauded.
The Minister's levity betrays a profound and distressing insensitivity to the issue of rape. Each year thousands of Canadian women are the victims of sexual assault, a violent crime that should not and must not be trivialized.
Mr. Sorbara, Minister responsible for women's issues in the Ontario Government, owes the women of Canada an apology, and I call on the Premier of Ontario and the Liberal Party of Canada publicly to disavow this Minister's comments and attitude.
* *
*


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Hungarian minority in Rumania is faced with an ever increasing level of discriminatory policies aimed at forced assimilation. Over two million Hungarians in this region have been subject to deprivation of their language, culture, religion, and historical traditions.
They have been subjected to compulsory resettlement, and recent reports indicated that entire Hungarian villages in Rumania are being demolished. The Ceausescu regime has found in the Hungarian minority a scapegoat for Rumania's disastrous socio-economic conditions.
The racist policies of the Ceausescu regime toward the Hungarian minority in Rumania are outrageous.
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Government of Canada to issue the strongest possible protest to Rumanian authorities, and to use every means at their disposal to press for the establishment of fundamental human rights for Hungarians in Rumania.
* *
*


INDUSTRY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to buy his way into a by-election which he will never be able to save, I wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would start concentrating on some of the problems across the country.
I refer to a question raised yesterday in a telex that was sent to the Right Hon. Prime Minister with respect to the loss of hundreds of jobs of Massey workers in Brantford. There is an opportunity with an immediate meeting between the Prime Minister, Peat Marwick, the provincial Government as well as union workers, to try to save the bid of the Park Corporation. If that does not happen, we will see in Brantford what we saw in Hamilton. The picking apart of a company piece by piece that we saw at Firestone is on the verge of happening in Brantford.
There is a Minister and Government who are too busy- [Translation]
... too busy squabbling in Lac-Saint-Jean to do something for all the workers.

I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to respond today with an immediate meeting to try to resolve this problem and to save hundreds of jobs of the Massey workers in Brantford.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. I have a copy of a memo from the Department of External Affairs outlining the Government's massive propaganda sale of the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
The Prime Minister has stated, as has the Minister, that this trade deal will be part of the next election. We also know that


the legislation has not passed Parliament and that there is a very divisive debate across the country.
Yet the memo clearly outlines that not only will the Government be spending millions of dollars, it will now be requiring public servants, including all the trade commissioners presently in the United States, to be flown to Canada at taxpayers' expense to team up with Conservative Members of Parliament to attend meetings across the country to sell the trade deal as part of that election platform.
How can the Minister possibly justify not only the outrageous waste of taxpayers' money but an attempt to force public servants to appear for blatant election political purposes? Does he not clearly consider this to be a destruction of the independence of the Canadian Public Service?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member has never heard of the fact that Canada has an export promotion program and we have been spending tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars in Canada for many years now to promote our exports. Since just about 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States of America, much of that money is spent on promoting exports to the United States of America, which is what we are doing in our campaign which will start next week With a series of 17 seminars across Canada. We will invite Canadian businessmen to them and the theme of these seminars is how they can increase their exports to take advantage of the opportunities of the free trade agreement.
Is there any point in negotiating a free trade agreement which starts next January 1 unless we encourage Canadian businesses, large and small, to take advantage of it, to see where the opportunities are and to follow up on them? We have had studies done now of 30 industrial sectors in which Canadians can increase exports to the United States, and we are spending the money on that purpose. It has nothing to do with the promotion of the free trade agreement, but it does show how valuable the free trade agreement is to Canada and Canadians.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Minister that the trade deal is by no means a fait accompli. It has not been passed by Parliament yet, and he better not count his chickens until they hatch.


WARNING ISSUED TO PUBLIC SERVANT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question about the contrast. Three weeks ago, a public servant who works for Customs and Excise, Mr. Mike Clough, was give a written warning from the Government that he would face disciplinary action if he attended a meeting to debate the trade issue in opposition to the Canada-U.S. trade deal. He is still under investigation and hearing on disciplinary action dealing with that trade proposal.
Oral Questions
How can the Government on the one hand justify gagging certain public servants who oppose this agreement while on the other hand it forces other public servants to go in attendance with Conservative Members of Parliament to sell the deal? Why the double standard? Why are public servants only given the right to speak on this crucial issue when they support the Government's message?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have trade promotion experts in the Government of Canada and we have trade commissioners stationed in the United States to help Canada's businessmen increase their sales to the United States. That is their job. When we ask them to come to explain to Canadian businessmen how their opportunities will be improved under a free trade agreement, that is a proper and legitimate expenditure of the Government of Canada and a proper and legitimate request to make of them. That is their job and they do it well.
I might point out as well that 43 per cent of all Liberals, by the way, believe that Canada and Canadians will be better off under the free trade agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Call an election, issue the writ.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thirty-six per cent of all supporters of the NDP believe the same thing. This agreement has tremendous support in all Parties in Canada, apart from the scattered few who are trying to obstruct the House of Commons in an undemocratic and dictatorial fashion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid the Minister having another cardiac arrest, as he just had, perhaps I would suggest that if he really wants to test that proposition he should call an election. We will see where the public opinion lies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the real public opinion poll.


AWARD OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in this memo it says the Government has given contracts to five firms, untendered, unbidden, uncompetitive contracts, all of which companies have made major contributions to the Conservative Party or have very clear connections to the Conservative Party by way of appointments.
Considering that the $10 million the Minister is spending seems not only an attempt to dupe the Canadian people as to what a bad deal this really is, but is also being designed to provide major assistance to friends of the Conservative Party, how does the Minister justify using taxpayers' money simply to support his friends and prepare himself for the next election campaign?


Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, call an election? I would be only too pleased to call an election, but I am not in a position to do so. I am not the Prime Minister. He has not delegated to me that authority or I would have an election that would make your ears spin, I will tell you that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this effort to advise Canadians as to how they can best take advantage of the free trade agreement starts in Saskatoon on June 21 then in Vancouver on the 22, Edmonton on the 23, Winnipeg on the 24, London-St. Catharines on the 27, Montreal, Toronto and eastern Sherbrooke on the 28, Toronto and western Quebec on the 29, Kitchener and Chicoutimi on the 30th, Charlottetown on July 1, Halifax on July 5, St. John's on July 6, and Saint John, July 7. Members opposite are invited to come to those meetings.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thanks for the chance to advertise.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Stay out of Hamilton, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The only thing wrong with Hamilton is there are too many Copps.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, my question is for his sidekick. Yesterday in this Chamber, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion told us that the grant of $1.4 million to the Industrial Incubation Centre in Alma was promised only by the Secretary of State. After leaving his seat, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was bulldozed into changing his mind and said on his way out that he had just approved a $1.4 million grant to the Industrial Incubation Centre in Alma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know under what program the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion approved a $1.4 million grant to the Industrial Incubation Centre in Alma.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: What I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is why the Liberal Party is against an incubation centre in Alma. Since 1984, Mr. Speaker, some 18 000 new jobs have been created in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region, in contrast to the 17,000 jobs lost when Gimaiel represented that riding. The residents of that region have asked the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion for financial aid, for a development tool and, under vote 10 "Departmental Contributions", the Minister had full authority to grant to the Business Creation Centre in Alma the amount he mentioned.


CHOICE OF CITY OF ALMA FOR INCUBATION CENTRE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that no program exists and that even the official responsible for this area in his Department, Lise Moras, in Montreal, said, "We will have to set up one to keep the Minister's promise."


Some Hon. Members:: That's right!


Jean-C. Lapierre: This is what I want to know: How come they could give Alma an immediate answer, whereas the Grand'Mere incubation centre has been waiting two years for a reply and other incubation centres have applied to DRIE. They have been refused until there is a national policy on this. Can the Minister explain to me why all the incubation centres in Canada have been refused, except Alma? Does he think this is proper administration of public funds or is it not just blatant patronage?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, when I see a Liberal get indignant about patronage-we have no lessons to learn from the Liberal Party, none at all! Mr. Speaker, when he says that there is no other incubation project in the country, the Hon. Member is misinformed. Let him do his homework, because there are some in other parts of the country.
As for the other question, why Alma? It is quite simple! The Minister was presented with a project. We are the Government that supports small business. We have created jobs throughout the country, and the Alma project was brought to the Minister's attention. He decided to approve it and he had full authority to do so. The Hon. Member probably does not remember, because he was not in Cabinet long enough, but there is a mechanism within the Department for the Minister to make such a decision, which is what he did. If you are against it, too bad for you!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Leader.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure you noticed that during the last few weeks both the Minister and his pet poodle, the Parliamentary Secretary, have been saying in this House that water was not part of the negotiation of the free trade agreement.


Mr. Masse:: We want the Leader.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you have noticed that both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have said that a water exemption was not part of the negotiations of the trade deal. The Minister is now, of course, trying to pretend that water is not part of this agreement.
1 want to know whether the Minister will finally admit it in the House. Will he finally be open, honest, candid, and frank with the people of Canada and tell us that Canadian officials agreed to give up the water exemption in the free trade deal in order to get an agreement at the eleventh hour? Will he admit that in the House today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, certainly persistence is a virtue of the hon. gentlemen opposite. It does not matter how many times you explain, how many times you tell them, they still ask the same old question.
Water was never discussed at the bargaining table in connection with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's false.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is nothing in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement that forces Canada to sell water to anyone or to sell anything to anyone.
I can quote again the two personages whom I quoted yesterday. Ambassador Niles for the United States said: "Water was never, never raised at any point during the negotiations. It is not an appropriate subject". The U.S. Trade Representative, Clayton Yeutter, interviewed on our own Canadian TV program, Question Period, said: "-I don't think anybody in Canada should be concerned that our water supplies are now going to be committed to the Americans. Obviously that will not happen except by deliberate decision of the Government of Canada".
That is the position. It wasn't discussed and the agreement does not affect it. You can harp on water all you like, but that is the position. Water was not a subject of negotiation at the U.S.-Canada free trade discussions. I ask the hon. gentleman who is acting for Shirley Carr to bring that message back to her.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN OFFICIAL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if water was never discussed I want the Minister to explain why Mr. Frank Quinn, a senior federal government official on
Oral Questions
water, told the Associated Press recently that Canada wanted water exempted from the trade deal but abandoned the demand in final compromises with United States negotiators. He said: "In the eleventh hour, we didn't get all the changes we wanted".
Can he explain this statement from a senior Canadian water official, and also a statement of a former official of the former Minister who said recently: "I am surprised that the water exemption is not there".


Some Hon. Members:: Name him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Minister get up in the House today and admit that Derek Burney or other senior officials of the Canadian Government agreed to allow the water exemption to be dropped at the eleventh hour to save the Prime Minister's political neck? Is that not the case?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is not here today or he would not allow this to go forward. The Leader of the Liberal Party wasn't even here this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Where's your Leader?


Some Hon. Members:: Where's Brian?


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're never even here when you're here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Minister could answer the question for those who are here.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with whatever statement was made by whoever was quoted by the hon. gentleman. I am not familiar with his statement. I am familiar with what I have been told by the people who were involved in the U.S.-Canada trade negotiations, that is, that it was never discussed at the bargaining table.
Our position was made clear by the Minister of the Environment in November of last year when he said: "Our policy prohibits large scale interbasin export of water but not smaller scale exports such as bottled water or shipments by boat container". That is the position, and nothing can force us to sell water to anyone if the Government of the day does not wish to.
It's water, water everywhere, but there's not a drop of water that is affected by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE DRAFTS OF AGREEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I can send a copy of Frank Quinn's statement across to the Minister. This gentleman is in the Inland Waters Directorate and said that Canada wanted water exempted from the trade deal.
If the Minister is so confident of his position that water was not discussed, will he undertake to table in this House the
16510 _____________________COMMONS DEBATES___________________June 16, 1988
Oral Questions
previous drafts of this agreement so that we can see whether or not water was in one of the original agreements? Will he do that in the House?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations went on for a year or a year and a half, and the hon. gentleman wants us to table here in the House every document that passed between the parties. We are not going to do that. It is not necessary.
Water is not affected by the free trade agreement. This country is just as free to do what it wants with its water, to retain its water, to keep its water, to control its water, today as it was a year ago. While this Government is in office, Canada's water is safe just as all Canadians are safe.


BY-ELECTIONS LAC-SAINT-JEAN CONSTITUENCY-RENOVATION OF ALMA AIRPORT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Minister who rose earlier in connection with the grant for Alma's industrial incubator did not answer the question. We still do not know under which program this grant was awarded. Mr. Speaker, Conservative candidate Lucien Bouchard-Mr. Clean-who was expected to give the Conservative Party a virginal image must now be very ill at ease with respect to the methods used by his own Party to prevent his election campaign from backfiring in Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Speaker, I have here another press release dated May 27 concerning the expenditure of close to $1.6 million for repair work at Alma's airport. However, in French the release indicates that work would get under way only in 1990. In English . . .

"Construction is scheduled to begin in 1991".

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether work is scheduled to begin in 1990 or in 1991, or perhaps the date work begins does not matter at all because the only important thing was that the announcement had to be made before next Monday, June 20, the day of the byelection?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to respond to the Hon. Member concerning the airport, but I will enquire and tell him whether it will be in 1990 or in 1991. One thing for sure, you will agree that any repairs to the Alma airport will be a boon to the region.
Liberal Party Members seem to think that we ought to stop government assistance to the regions whenever there is an election. That argument does not hold, it does not make sense. I do not think they would have done that in the past and I fail to see why Lac-Saint-Jean residents should be penalized because of the by-election in their riding.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the Minister doesn't know under what program the job creation centre in Alma was announced. The Minister doesn't know either when work on the airport will be carried out. It is clear that all these announcements were made only to attract votes. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will finally have the decency to stop these million-dollar promises which are being made for only one purpose, and that is to buy votes. What do you think the people of Lac-Saint-Jean are?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party must be afraid of Lac-Saint-Jean. You must be afraid of what is going to happen there. During the last three years, 18,000 jobs were created in Lac-Saint-Jean. Did the Liberal Party ever rise during that time to congratulate the Government or to accuse us of wanting to buy votes? Economic prosperity is coming back to Quebec's resource regions, and the Liberal Party deplores that fact. For sixteen years, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party was in power, Lac-Saint-Jean was left to its own devices. Our Government is taking care of all the regions of this country and of all Quebec's resource regions, including Lac-Saint-Jean, and not because we are having a by-election, because this has been our policy since 1984.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Regional Industrial Expansion.
While the Prime Minister and his candidate in the Lac-Saint-Jean by-election are announcing regional economic development programs worth $1 billion, and while the Minister of Transport is distributing goodies in this riding, Air Alma may well be obliged to close down tomorrow, as result of competition from Inter Canadien.
What is the Minister going to do to save this local business and its 60 jobs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we know there would have been no problem for a socialist government, because it would nationalize everything. There would be no competititon. It would be a government...
In this case, the programs are in place. If under the Job Development or Job Strategy Program we can help workers that might be affected ... This is hypothetical, since I don't have the details. But I am sure there are programs to deal with this.
The Hon. Member also referred to the Regional Development Program. One billion dollars has been announced for this program, with the co-operation of the Government of Quebec. This is an important measure for Quebec's resource regions. I am pleased that the New Democratic Party realizes the value of this program. In the weeks to come, programs will be developed in various areas, and perhaps one of these new programs can be used to provide assistance in this particular case, but so far I don't know.


QUERY WHETHER SITUATION WILL OCCUR IN OTHER REGIONS
M. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister, the mouth-piece of patronage.
In January 1988, when deregulation came into effect, the Conservatives promised us better service at lower cost.
What is going on with Air Alma reflects exactly what we have seen with the Conservatives, the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
Can the Minister tell us if what we are seeing in Lac Saint-Jean will happen in other remote areas, like Sept-Iles, and Rouyn-Noranda?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, when I hear those people saying that the "rich are getting richer, while the poor..." One thing is sure, in this country, since 1984, far less people are living below the poverty level than before. A lot more people are working than in 1984, when we were elected. And that holds true for every region in this country.
The Government has embarked on a regional development program and has made some considerable changes which have resulted in a healthier economy.
Back home, that means more money to send the children to school, more money for other projects.
So, the rhetoric of the Socialist Party may look terrific in print, but we have seen the results of its application in Manitoba. I don't think Canadians want a piece of it, and that is fine with us. We will continue to implement programs in Quebec and in other regions, just as we have done since 1984, programs which benefit all Canadians.
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF JORDAN MINISTER OF ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Hisham M. Khatib, Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CROSSCOUNTRY SEMINARS-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. In order to sell his free trade salad, the Minister has hired no less than six public relations firms to do the cross-Canada trips. That is in addition to the seventh firm, of course, which just happens to be run by his former campaign manager. What selection process was utilized to hire these firms which, by happy coincidence, resulted in the fact that Prime Public Relations Inc. run by Mr. Garry Watton, a well-known Conservative, got the contract in Newfoundland; that Saga Communications Ltd., which contributed $3,000 to the Conservative Party, got the contract for the Maritimes; that Basin, Dumas, Dupre and Sormany, which contributed $3,000, got the contract for Quebec, and so on? What happy coincidence led to this? And can the Minister indicate to this House approximately how much it will cost to reward the few Tories left in this country who have not yet been rewarded?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can quite truly tell the House that I do not know who has been awarded contracts-


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, come on! Your nose is growing longer.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know who has been awarded contracts to assist with the seminars, but whoever has been awarded contracts is the best who could be found at the best price. I have no idea who has contributed to the Conservatives or who contributed to the Liberals.


Lloyd Axworthy: The devil made you do it.


John Carnell Crosbie: There wouldn't be anybody in the country you could hire if you excluded people who contributed to the Liberals, who were in power for 20 years and made sure that everybody who wanted to do a tap of business in the country with the Government had to contribute to the Liberals. But we are not going to eliminate anyone because of who they


Oral Questions
contributed to. Even if they contributed to the New Democratic Party, we would still consider their services.
In the meantime, there is someone called Garry Watton who is supposed to be a great Progressive Conservative down in Newfoundland. If so, I am delighted to hear about the man. I am going to welcome him as a new member the next time I see him. I have never met him in my life.


TIMING OF CROSS-COUNTRY CONFERENCES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister said earlier, in answer to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, that this promotion campaign had nothing to do with promoting the free trade agreement, per se. Given that the press release sent by FAX all over the country states:
The conferences are being arranged in an incredibly short time frame and
will call for a maximum of flexibility, goodwill and last minute preparation by
our posts in the U.S.A., the regional trade offices-
And so on. Can the Minister tell the House if it is not a fact that the Government wants this program to be done quickly so it can get it over with before the election, so it can use this as political party propaganda designed to promote the Conservative Party and nothing else?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have seen an outline there of the Liberal philosophy and Liberal actions. The hon. gentleman exemplifies them in every word of suspicion he tries to transfer to someone else.
The agreement is going to go into effect on January 1. This is June. There are six months for us to ensure that every Canadian businessman, large and small, is advised of what his opportunities are in the United States.
There are 90 studies being done by the firm of Peat Marwick Mitchell on different sectors and industries in the United States to show how we will have an advantage under this agreement as compared to other countries so that we can sell where we are more competitive, and that is what we are doing.
We have six months to prepare. We would have had longer except for the obstruction on the other side, and the denigration on the other side, and the destructive tactics on the other side. But we are going to have 17 conferences now, and then 17 more, and then 17 more.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. It has now been about two weeks since we had the emergency debate here on the British fur labelling proposal. A number of Members on the government side, as well as from the Opposition, spoke on this matter and expressed their concern.
Given the concerns, given the number of jobs at stake, could the Minister tell the House what specific steps his Government has taken to convey the results of that debate to British parliamentarians and, in general, our concern here?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to that question yesterday. It was posed by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming. There have indeed been representations made to the Prime Minister of Great Britain by the Prime Minister, and also representations made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Definitely, this issue will be raised during the bilateral discussions that the Prime Minister will have with Prime Minister Thatcher.
I should also indicate that I think there are consultations going on among the House Leaders right at this very moment about the possibility of this House moving a unanimous resolution that would reflect the spirit of the debate that took place a week ago. I hope that the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party would see fit to agree with this resolution so that it can be endorsed unanimously by all Members of the House. I think that that would send a very strong signal.


POSSIBILITY OF RETALIATORY MEASURES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think that while the strong words that we have heard will be of some comfort to trappers and to the 105,000 members of the fur industry, they will not really address the problem. Strong words without strong actions are meaningless.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, in addition to diplomatic expressions of concern, what specific options or retaliatory measures he is proposing to the British Government should it undertake this labelling?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, here again we are hearing some implied suggestions that there should be other actions taken. Perhaps the Hon. Member, if she is serious, would outline what the position of her Party is. The other day we heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party say that rather than defending our oceans, in particular in the north, we should engage in diplomatic rhetoric. It is quite a different position from what the Hon. Member is implying today.


We are taking very strong and vigorous action with regard to the representations that are being made. I call again on the Hon. Member and members of her Party to support the resolution that is being proposed by the Government and, hopefully, supported by the Liberals. I think that the unanimous support of such a resolution by the House of Commons would be the very strong united signal that we need to help in the bargaining process.


APARTHEID
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Today is the twelfth anniversary of the Soweto uprising when police opened fire on students in South Africa's biggest ghetto.
Will the Minister recognize that there is absolutely no end to repression in South Africa and, in the words of many, it must now be treated as nothing less than a terrorist state? Will the Minister agree to act on South Africa, to match the Prime Minister's rhetoric with the sort of measures that have been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition? Will the Government finally agree to call back permanently Canada's Ambassador and impose full economic sanctions on this terrorist state?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the country knows-certainly the House knows-of the actions that have been taken in the last three or four years by the Government, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to put pressure upon and to try to exert influence upon South Africa with respect to its apartheid policy.
I might point out to the hon. gentleman that his Government was in power for eight years out of those twelve, this being the twelfth anniversary of that event. Yet I cannot think of one single action his Government took or anything that it said during that time about the situation in South Africa, certainly nothing comparable to the actions of the last two or three years.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PRESS FOR ECONOMIC BOYCOTT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot take refuge in the past. A succession of events took place, as well as an escalation of violence that has not been accepted anywhere in the world. The commitments that have been made by the Prime Minister are quite clear. He said that if there was no progress he would end diplomatic relations with South Africa. He has been paying only lip-service thus far.
Oral Questions
I want to know from the Minister if the Prime Minister is going to use the summit in Toronto to raise the matter, and to impress upon the Prime Minister of Britain and the President of the United States to act in concert and, indeed, to boycott South Africa effectively?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the actions taken by Canada and the leadership that Canada has provided have been amply proved by the recognition accorded to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who was made the Chairman of the Commonwealth Group of Ministers acting in this matter. The Prime Minister's position has been recognized by the leaders of Zimbabwe and the front line States. The record is excellent.
We are now reviewing, and will continue to review, what is happening in South Africa and what our next steps should be, what can be most helpful, and what can be most useful to accomplish our objective which is to encourage South Africa to abolish the apartheid system and to treat its black citizens on an equal basis with all the rest of its citizens, of course the minority of whom are white citizens who have full privileges.


TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As he knows, the Prime Minister as the host to the summit conference beginning Sunday has naturally expressed our pride in the Canadian traditions of democracy and free speech. Yet the Metro Toronto police have arrested a dozen students who were protesting peacefully at the University of Toronto overnight against the foreign and economic policies of the summit seven.
They have forbidden a peaceful protest march to use College Street, Yonge Street, King Street and University Street, all of which streets are outside the summit security area. They have forbidden organizers of a permitted rally in Queen's Park to use tables for literature, or chairs, or portable toilets.
My question therefore to the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Will he ask the Prime Minister to use his good offices with the Metro Toronto police so that, according to custom, the Metro police will enable the protesters to carry on a normal, peaceful protest on the streets of Toronto?


Hon. Janies Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that I have kept in touch with security matters for this conference. I receive daily briefings on it. Indeed, I am attending in Toronto tomorrow for a further review. I will certainly be prepared to bring the matter up, and ask them to review the matter for me. But I am certainly not prepared to make any commitments. However, we will look at it.


Oral Questions CITIZEN'S RIGHTS


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Will he on behalf of the Prime Minister declare publicly that the people of Toronto are free to exercise their normal right of free and peaceful public protest on the streets of Toronto outside the summit security area?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that the precautions we are taking for this economic summit are commensurate with the risks as perceived by our intelligence. While we have no specific threats at this time in any respect, I said before and I will say again that there is a high level of risk. We must be very careful and make sure that nothing untoward happens which would damage the reputation of Canada, not to say the lives of the people involved.


PENSIONS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Over 50,000 British pensioners live in Canada, and some 6,000 Canadian pensioners are currently residing in Britain. The lack of a social security agreement between our two countries, however, means that their pensions remain frozen at the amount set when persons moved out of their own country. No adjustment is allowed for cost of living increases.
Can the Minister tell the House what, if any, progress has been made to secure a social security agreement between our two countries so that the pensions of these important citizens will begin to reflect the yearly cost of living increases?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we are very much interested in getting an agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom. There are approximately 76,000 people who would be eligible for it.
I should mention that when the Government came into office we had six such agreements. We now have approximately 18.
I can tell the House that, as early as October 9, 1984, we made contact with the United Kingdom in order that an agreement could be reached. I cannot go through all the details other than to say that in 1986 Canada and Australia joined in an effort to convey to the U.K. Government that an agreement was absolutely necessary, keeping in mind that there is an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States.
As recently as January of this year when I met with the Right Hon. John Moore I made this case again, and we will do so further.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE SYSTEM
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, before time runs out, I would like to put a question to the Solicitor General. It concerns the announcements he made yesterday regarding parole.
The Solicitor General is trying to hoodwink Canadians into believing that something is being done to address the very serious problems in our criminal justice system. Rather than introducing legislation to deal in a comprehensive fashion with parole and sentencing in Canada, the Solicitor General is announcing proposals that will not affect the over 12,000 inmates who are presently in federal penitentiaries, and will not take effect for four or five years.
If the Solicitor General is truly concerned about the criminal justice system, and if the Conservative Government truly wants to take action, why are we not dealing with legislation rather than mere proposals?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Government, this Government believes in consultation with the provinces, our provincial colleagues, with the member groups out there who are interested in this, and consultation with the standing committee.
We intend to proceed with that. It is my expectation and hope that following that consultation I will be able to introduce some legislation this summer.
I do not consider that that is an unreasonable period of time.


PENITENTIARY INMATES REQUIRING PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense and the Solicitor General knows it. This Government has been in office for four years and we have not had any meaningful reform to the criminal justice system.
When is the Solicitor General going to address some of the immediate problems in federal penitentiaries? For example, last year in Ontario alone 280 federal inmates were referred for psychiatric assessment. The system was only able to accommodate 118.
If the Solicitor General is truly concerned about public safety, will he today commit the necessary resources in order to ensure that all federal inmates who require psychiatric assessment and treatment will receive that treatment before


they are released into society in order to ensure that society is duly protected?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member again, as I did yesterday before the standing committee, that I asked the new Commissioner of Correctional Services of Canada to look into this on an urgent basis.
I wish to reassure the Hon. Member that indeed I am concerned about the safety of Canadians, because presently 60 per cent of the people incarcerated in our system are there for crimes against persons. That is why we are concerned about the safety of Canadians. We are acting to do something about it, which is something the former Government never addressed its mind to.


PENSIONS
Mary Collins: 
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we have been working diligently at every level to get an agreement. An agreement with the U.K. Government is absolutely essential, and it should be done. That is why we joined with Australia, for example.
We will again examine what the Hon. Member has stated, and see what other methods we could use, even with direct intervention, if that is possible, in order to see if we can get an agreement.
The Hon. Member is absolutely correct in showing the concern that she has. I just wish the Liberals sometimes would too.


PRIVILEGE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege today in relation to the contents of Hansard on June 14, 1988. I draw the attention of
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
the House to pages 16427 and 16428 of Hansard in which you will recall, Sir, that my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) concerning the Department of Public Works.
As recorded in Hansard in reply to the question the Prime Minister stated: ".. . members of the Opposition in the Liberal Party have been doing is slander Mr. LaSalle and saying that he is guilty without... evidence... " Upon further questioning by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who asked: "Who said that?", Hansard records the Prime Minister as replying: "Boudria", meaning myself.
In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Citation 320 states that the word "slander" and "slanderous" aimed at an Hon. Member is inappropriate and has been ruled unparliamentary by previous Speakers, namely, on August 8, 1960, as reported at page 7777 of Hansard.
On occasion I will ask questions in the House which are perhaps tough, and I will acknowledge that I do ask questions of the Government, as is, I believe, the role of every Member of the House to do. In asking those questions, I in no way slandered anyone, in my humble belief, and if it is the opinion of Members of the House that I have done so, even if it were true, which it is not, it could not be said in the House of Commons under the rules that this House has set for itself. If any Hon. Member, other than the Prime Minister were to make such a statement, he would be asked to withdraw, as is appropriate.
I would like to submit that no lesser behaviour should be acceptable from the Prime Minister. I now call upon the Speaker to request at the earliest opportunity that the Prime Minister withdraw these unfortunate remarks.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to my hon. friend's point of privilege, the first comment I wish to make is that if, in fact, there had been slander, and I will address that in a minute, it is obviously no point of privilege. But if my hon. friend was so aggrieved, one might note that the Hansard he is referring to is for Tuesday, and it is now Thursday-


Mr. Speaker:: I must apologize to Hon. Members. 1 should have made this clear to the Hon. Minister of State. The matter was brought to me earlier, not today, but yesterday, as soon as Hansard was in the hands of Members. I agreed with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that it would be heard today. I requested him to put it over until today because I had other obligations later yesterday afternoon.
I apologize to the Minister of State because I did not bring that to his attention, and I should have.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is fine. But one would wonder if it might not have been more appropriate to let everyone


Business of the House
know in order that this matter could have been dealt with by all concerned.
The most important thing is that while my friend may wish to suggest that the shoe fits and he will wear it, there is no specific reference to my hon. friend. He may want to associate himself with the word "slanderous", and based on past practice I think that would be appropriate-


Don Boudria: You cannot even say that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There is no specific reference. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) named no specific person. He named the entire Liberal Party, which I think is appropriate. He did not name the Hon. Member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Turn the page.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is afterwards.


Mr. Rossi:: Even if he is the Prime Minister he is not allowed to use that kind of language here.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Get up and speak to it.
[ Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to put in my grain of salt on this point of order which touches upon the privilege of one of my colleagues, specially since I was present when the events took place, and since I saw with my own eyes the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) make accusations, and given that along with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), as the record will show-the Leader of the Opposition and myself asked the Prime Minister on two occasions who he was referring to.
When the Prime Minister said, and that is also on the record in the official report:

What the Liberal Party has been doing is: "slander Mr. La Salle and saying that he is guilty without any evidence being brought forward". When we heard this, of course we were not happy because it is not true.
Second, we wanted to make sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would say exactly what he meant, so our Leader is quoted as saying: "Who said that?" The Prime Minister further continued by saying:
This has been said by Liberals in the House of Commons, and that is a
disgraceful way to do it.
Then the Leader of the Opposition again asked, and I shouted too: "Who said that?" Then the Prime Minister is quoted in Hansard as saying: "Boudria". I know of only one Boudria in the House of Commons and he is sitting right here. He does not have the habit of slandering people.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that on the very day of the incident I personally checked the videotaped recording of the debate in the House and it is clear, if Your Honour would care to look at the videotape, the electronic Hansard, that from his seat the Prime Minister accused the Hon. Member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell by name, which by the way is unparliamentary: "Boudria" he said, calling him by his name!
So then, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for the sake of maintaining order in this House and to ensure that proper respect is shown towards all Hon. Members, Your Honour has no other choice but to ask the Prime Minister to take the first opportunity to withdraw the disgraceful and unparliamentary words he used and to apologize to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take the matter under advisement. Again, I apologize not only to the Minister of State but to other Members who may have been caught a little unawares by my bringing this matter. However, I want to make very clear that it was brought this morning rather than earlier, at my request and through the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I will examine the matter and report back to the House.
I might add that the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is unable to be here at the moment, but I hope that my remarks are extended to him and it may be that he wishes to address the Chair further.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would ask the Deputy Government House Leader if he would be kind enough to let us know what business the Government intends to bring before the House in the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that today we will continue the debate on the motion to extend the sittings. I would hope that the NDP will let us proceed through Routine Proceedings and get to that piece of business. The House will know that yesterday we wasted an entire day without doing any business whatsoever. I would like to think that we can make some progress today.
Tomorrow we will continue debate on the Government's response to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-55, the Immigration Act. I believe there is an understanding among


the Parties that debate on all matters with respect to Bill C-55 will be completed tomorrow.
On Monday we will either continue the debate to extend the sittings or commence the free trade debate, Bill C-130.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Government House Leader has indicated the business for the next few days. There was some suggestion that we might, at an early date, get to the legislation amending the National Transportation Act concerning the disabled. There has been some discussion among the critics and the Parties. I thought this was coming quite soon. Could he give us an indication when the Government will move on that?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to indicate to the Member that we have been discussing various items of business with a hope that the House could proceed to do business. Unfortunately, my hon. friend has been introducing Bills and his Party has been calling for votes about whether or not he should be allowed to introduce the Bills. That blew all of yesterday.
If we can get through today and pass a motion to extend the sittings, I give my hon. friend the undertaking that that and other Bills are very high on our list of priorities. I would say to him, however, that in order to do business we have to get through Routine Proceedings. We have to get through those proceedings without dilatory motions and votes.
My hon. friend is the captain of that particular ship, under today's circumstances, the Routine Proceedings being constructed the way they are. If we get through Routine Proceedings today and get this motion passed, we will be on to Business of the House.
Yesterday my hon. friend's Party delayed him from introducing his own Bills. It was rather tragic, because one likes to think that the House Leader of a Party has his Party behind him and will stand with him when he wants to introduce one of his own Private Members' Bills. But that did not happen yesterday. That may very well be the case today.
When my hon. friend has his team with him and can get us through Routine Proceedings, we will proceed to Business of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think there must be some mistake. First, I want to say that my caucus, by definition, is behind me on these matters. I want to make it perfectly clear that if the Deputy Government House Leader wishes to bring forward the Bill that would see amendments to the National Transportation Act to assist the disabled of Canada, we would pass that very quickly, perhaps within minutes. However, when Orders of the Day indicate there is no intention, at least today, of introducing that particular legislation or other good pieces of legislation, then one is less than interested in indicating some co-operation.
Business of the House
I want to indicate clearly that when that appears on the Order Paper he can count on at least one Party in the House moving expeditiously. That will be the New Democratic Party.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I and my Party do not want to play politics with amendments to the National Transportation Act for the disabled. If the motion to extend the sittings passes before six o'clock tonight, that item of business will be called immediately thereafter and we will need one short speech to introduce it and it will have second reading debate tonight.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am glad to hear that both gentlemen would like to expedite things, but could you tell us why the clock shows the hour to be 6.15? Is someone trying to expedite matters in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: I probably should explain to Hon. Members that once again the clocks have been moving more rapidly than time itself. I wanted to comment earlier that after the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) rose on his question and received his answer, the clock registered that the entire exchange had taken an hour and a half.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, there is a Bill that we in the New Democratic Party are very interested in expediting. I did not hear the Deputy Government House Leader deal with it. It is Bill C-82 dealing with lobbying, which has been promised for three years now. It was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on an urgent basis. We have had first reading of the Bill. We are prepared to expedite that Bill because we believe, with the Prime Minister, that it is an urgent Bill and should be dealt with. I am waiting to find out when Bill C-82 will be brought for second reading.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend inadvertently referred to it as the Bill on lobbying. I believe Bill C-82 is the conflict of interest Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Lobbyists.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Lobbyists Registration Act? That is at report stage. Yes, Bill C-82 is at report stage. It is on a list of Bills that we have agreed are priority Bills. Once we pass the motion to extend the hours and then move past the free trade legislation to the legislation we have agreed is priority legislation, legislation in which a great deal of time has been invested by Members of all Parties, we will debate it. It is on that priority list of legislation.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy House Leader a further question on Business of the House. A few moments ago, when addressing the legislation that will be brought forward for tomorrow's agenda, the Minister mentioned Bill C-55, and I believe he intimated that there was unanimous agreement to the passage of Bill C-55 through all stages. If that is the case, I would ask the Deputy House Leader to clarify the situation, because I know that on our side, there was no consent to do that. It was


Privilege-Mr. Orlikow
our understanding that Bill C-55 was being brought forward tomorrow and that Members of Parliament would address it and participate in the debate, but there was no agreement given by the Liberal caucus to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) that we would agree to passage through all stages tomorrow.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have my notes still, and the wording I used was, "I believe that there is an understanding among the Parties that the debate will be completed Friday". If that is not the case, then I think I am still covered by my words. If I had had a firm understanding, I would have said that there is a firm understanding, but those are the words I used.
This Bill has been before the Elouse for some time. There was considerable debate on it at second reading stage and considerable time was spent on it in committee. The Senate delayed it for a long, long time. I would hope that my hon. friend would see his way clear to help the Government complete its consideration of the Senate amendments so that this very important legislation could be passed.


Sergio Marchi: In response to my hon. friend's comments, there is no agenda on this side of the House to prolong the debate any longer than is necessary. One of the problems with the way this Bill has been brought forward has been the mad rush in the last number of days to bring upon the House an inordinate number of Bills.
Bill C-55 has had a roller-coaster ride. It has been introduced one day, yanked off the list for the next three or four days, and then put back on the list. I would suggest that a number of Members from all sides would like to address themselves to the Senate amendments to Bill C-55. It is not simply a question of prolonging debate. The fact is that the debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-55 has not taken a long time.
Tomorrow, if Members of Parliament wish to address themselves to Bill C-55, we would like to give them the opportunity to do so, as opposed simply to saying that there is an understanding that the debate will end tomorrow.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of proceedings in and decisions made by the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-129 this morning. The committee began its consideration of the Bill on Tuesday. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) appeared before the committee and made a presentation. We had an opportunity to question him.
On Tuesday, the Chairman of the committee asked Hon. Members who wished to submit a list of names of possible witnesses who would be invited to appear before the committee to bring that list this morning. I came to the meeting this morning with a relatively short list of witnesses including people representing the unions, the workers of Air Canada, several academics who are expert in the field of transportation and some people from-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member is a very experienced Member in this place and is expressing a complaint. I do not think the Chair needs to have a long list of all the witnesses he or anyone else would propose, but I would like to know what exactly it is that happened which goes to the question of privilege, which of course is something happening which makes it impossible for the Hon. Member to carry on his duties as a Member of Parliament, keeping in mind that we have a long-standing rule and many judgments indicating that unless it is something extraordinary indeed, the committee is master of its own destiny. Keeping that in mind, I would ask the Hon. Member to focus very carefully on his exact point.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman ruled, and the committee accepted his decision, that all the witnesses, some suggested by me and some suggested by the Liberal member from Cape Breton, be heard in one day. I suggest that that ruling breaches my privileges, and I have several citations from Beauchesne's which I think confirm my view.
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, says in Citation 77 on page 24 the following:
Witnesses before committees share the same privilege of freedom of speech as Members.
I would ask you to consider whether the restricting of evidence of those to be called before the committee to one day is not an abridgement of their freedom of speech. They will certainly not get the same consideration nor time that would occur if normal scheduling were allowed.
I would also ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that the constriction on our ability to question these witnesses also constitutes an abridgement of our freedom of speech. Citation 55 on page 20 of Beauchesne's reads:
-"that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament".
This suggests that the members of the majority should not suppress the free speech of the members of the minority. I suggest that to insist that all witnesses be heard on one day and that the clause-by-clause discussion be completed in one day breaches my privileges and those of other Members of Parliament.
[ Translation]


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended the meeting of the legislative committee on Bill C-129 concerning the privatization of Air


Canada. Representations were made by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), by the Member representing the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North (Mr. Orlikow) and also by the government. And in all three cases, the list of witnesses presented was not retained in its entirety. The Parties present gave their consent and the assistant to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was there. I cannot see how the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North can have been denied his rights. The committee felt that a certain number of witnesses should be heard and therefore decided to have four sessions to hear witnesses during the same day, which is the same, Mr. Speaker, as having one committee sit during four days.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). What he said has a great deal of validity, and it is a cause for concern to me.
Your Honour will recall that we had a debate recently about what was considered notice on second reading of Bill C-129. Since completion of second reading, it has gone to committee. A meeting was called for Monday to set up the committee. I was unable to be at the meeting, but my assistant was there and was told that the Minister was going to appear before the committee the next day. The committee had not even been formed but evidently the Government had made its opinion known to the chairman and set it up so that the Minister was going to be there the following day. It is a pleasure to have the Minister there at any time, but I think the Government should be a little more careful and not schedule meetings until the committee is formed.
The meeting to which the Hon. Member refers was at eight o'clock this morning. I was coming back from my constituency and unable to be there for the meeting, but as it turns out, all the witnesses are now scheduled for next Tuesday. One of the witnesses to whom I was speaking is very upset. He feels his rights are being violated because he cannot be there on a certain day and he cannot be a witness on Bill C-129.
There has to be a fair way of dealing with this without infringing on the democratic process.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say to Hon. Members that I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting this as a question of privilege. However, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who has been here for many years and contributed much to this place, in putting his procedural argument, brought up one quote from Beauchesne's which I want to look at very carefully. If I feel it is necessary I will return to the Chamber, but I want to emphasize again that there is a very fundamental rule in this place that unless it is something extraordinary indeed, it is not for the Chair to interfere with the majority decision of a committee.
We will now move on to other matters.
Introduction of Bills