1990-01-24

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the progress that the world has made in the area of political rapprochement over the last eight months appears to have stalled in the Soviet region of Azerbaijan. It is regrettable that the spirit of glasnost, the openness and acceptance of other ideologies, religions, values and peoples seem to have failed to bloom in a territory where ethnic differences have escalated to frightening levels.
Conflict is leading to oppression, violation of human rights and murder of ethnic Armenians in Azerbaijan. In this context, the military intervention of the Soviet Union, regrettable as any military intervention is, might in fact cause a stay in such conflict.
We call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seek assurances from the Soviet Government that the Soviet Union will seek a peaceful resolution to local difficulties, a solution which will protect the human and political rights of all Soviet citizens in Azerbaijan and that such a solution strive for the goals of peace and stability, making future Soviet military intervention unnecessary.


NATIONAL ILLITERACY STRATEGY
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, nearly one in five Canadians cannot read and close to one-third of all high school students in Canada drop out before graduation. An illiterate adult will earn 42 per cent less than a high school graduate during his or
her lifetime. Those statistics point to the alarming human and economic toll illiteracy is taking in Canada.
Over one year ago the federal government launched the National Literacy Strategy to help address this very serious problem. This strategy focuses on both remedial help for illiterate adults and the promotion of reading among children. Working with the provinces, businesses, labour and volunteer organizations, we are providing Canadians who have a literacy problem with the assistance that they need.
Mr. Speaker, 1990 has been designated by the United Nations as International Literacy Year, and thanks to the National Literacy Strategy millions of Canadians are being given an opportunity to participate more fully in our society.


LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on a new set of circumstances for the Liberal Party of Canada.
As we all know, the Liberals looked high and low but they could not find a western leadership candidate. The member for Winnipeg South Centre wanted badly to run, but he could not get the megabucks needed to run for the leadership of that party.
Now that the Liberals have publicly stated that they will be flip-flopping on the trade deal, the rest of the candidates are in a bit of a flap over western support.
To the rescue sails the member for LaSalle-Emard. Much like you would advertise for a used car when you need one, this leadership candidate is advertising in Vancouver papers for Liberal supporters. This notion has a lot of possibilities. Will the Liberals be offering membership on a buy one get one free basis? Is there room for commission sales people to earn some extra income?
This seems like a very unusual development. Evidently the Liberals had to try something. Their policies certainly do not garner new members.

January 24, 1990
The Liberals are just full of surprises. After seeing this new advertising ploy, we are all looking forward to the day when the Liberals start recruiting on game shows.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a recently leaked cabinet report revealed that the introduction of legislation to create a central environmental assessment body for the review of all federal policy initiatives is being stalled.
Why is our government hesitating at a time when Canadians and international organizations are calling for stronger action on the environment?
The cancellation of VIA Rail service is a perfect example of federal government policy' decisions which will seriously impact on the environment. The government has promised Canadians over and over again since 1984 that it will introduce this environmental legislation. Where is it?
The people are calling on the government to live up to its commitment. The environment is a priority for Canadians and must be a priority for the House as well.


CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND THE GST
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of weeks the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been using a recorded telephone message to urge Canadians to call their member of Parliament and object to the goods and services tax.
My staff and I take the time to answer each of these calls and explain what the GST is, why it must be introduced and what its impact will be on the caller and the Canadian economy.
When these people hear that a visible, 7 per cent GST will replace a hidden, obsolete and regressive 13.5 per cent tax, when we tell them that we must have the courage to take specific measures to clean up our public finances and reduce the debt and the deficit, and when they realize that this sales tax reform is essential to maintaining our social programs, they are very supportive and tell us to keep up the good work.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to stop using scare tactics in their telephone campaign, especially where senior citizens are concerned. If it has any guts at all, the Federation should be able to make its point directly, not through other people as it is doing now. And it would be making a far more useful contribution to the debate.


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Superior Court has ruled in favour of Daniel Saint-Hilaire, the Quebec track and field trainer, who summarized the ruling handed down by Judge Yvan Macerola as follows:
First, he said: It has been successfully argued that any athlete may take legal recourse against the Canadian federation in a provincial court.
Second: From now on, sports federations will have to publish the criteria they use to select athletes and trainers for international sports competitions.
Before this ruling, the three trainers for jumping events selected by the Canadian association were all from Toronto. The Canadian federation determine, over a beer, who will be selected, and we saw what happened to Denis Julien from Abitibi-Temiscamingue and a number of other athletes and trainers in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, justice has finally been done. Three cheers for Daniel Saint-Hilaire and many thanks to Judge Yvan Macerola for his intelligence and skill!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on November 28, 1989, Mr. Yih-Sheh Leo, a Canadian citizen of Taiwanese origin, was upon his entry into Taiwan arrested by the police, jailed, beaten and denied bail. To date he still remains in jail.
Mr. Leo was initially charged with illegal entry and sentenced to 10 months in jail. He was subsequently charged with sedition, a charge that carries a maximum
January 24, 1990

penalty of 10 years. I have learned from his wife, Mrs. Leo, that his trial date has not as of yet been set.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs first, to increase representations on behalf of Mr. Leo through appropriate channels; second, to ensure that a Canadian representative is present at his trial; and, third, to impress upon the officials of Taiwan that in light of our increase in commercial relations with them we expect at a minimum a respect for the fundamental rights of our citizens.
Finally, all members of our party urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if all else fails, to intervene directly with the appropriate authorities and secure the release and safe and speedy return of Mr. Leo to Canada.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are encouraged to see Bank of Canada Governor John Crow hinting that he may be easing up on his high interest rate policies. Last week Mr. Crow allowed the bank rate to drop by 29 basis points to 12.14 per cent, hopefully the beginning of a trend.
We all know that Mr. Crow has been keeping interest rates high to fight inflation. We also know that inflation has been dropping steadily since last summer.
Mr. Crow, you have done a good job. Now ease up.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that there is no crisis in Atlantic Canada. There is a crisis caused by mismanagement of the northern cod resource and by government financial hand-outs to corporations which have exhibited absolutely no sense of responsibility to communities, plant workers and fishermen. The question will not be resolved by fiddling with quotas while the cod stocks disappear.
The coal miner's canary is sick in the Atlantic provinces and near death in Newfoundland. We need a Marshall type plan to fill in while the cod stocks rebuild.
There is municipal infrastructure work that needs doing in every community in Atlantic Canada. Programs announced by the government providing for a year by year decline in cod stocks and the redirection of government spending are not good enough.
Give the fish a chance. Get out of the water. Work on land. We cannot wait for the next election. Act now to fight the crisis.


NORTHERN TAX GUIDE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, for the third year in a row, the general tax guide is being mailed to northern residents without the northern tax guide or form. As in past years, taxpayers in the north cannot do tax planning as they are kept in the dark about when they can expect to receive the guide and claim their tax benefits.
For trappers who work in the bush and other workers in the bush who only come into town every two months, this is an extra trip. Individuals who want to file their returns early in order to get back the money the government owes them have to wait until next year until Revenue Canada gets around to them.
The minister promised a simplified tax system. Is this the simplified system we can expect, a system that costs twice as much, takes twice as long and is double the trouble?
I call on the minister to ensure that the northern benefit tax guide and forms are sent immediately to eligible residents and to ensure that next year they are included in the general tax guide.


TOBACCO SMOKING
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, on this designated Weedless Wednesday it seems appropriate to review some of the statistics relating to tobacco smoking.
As an incentive to encourage ourselves, our friends and our loved ones to avoid the smoking habit like the plague, we note that fully one-quarter of all adult deaths occur as a result of smoking. Some 35,000 deaths annually are attributed to tobacco. Of 100,000 15 year

January 24, 1990
Oral Questions
olds who currently smoke, 18,000 will be killed through the use of tobacco by the age of 70.
As a physician who has witnessed the tragedy and agony of smoking related illnesses and deaths, I want to commend our government for the progress made. We note with encouragement that the percentage of teenagers using tobacco dropped from 25 to 20 per cent last year. I am hopeful that the government's continuing efforts will result in a substantial drop in illness and deaths related to smoking.
Most of our government workers now enjoy a smoke-free environment, and what better gift can we give those within our own families than a smoke-free home environment. We applaud the many Canadians who have successfully kicked the habit and offer encouragement and support to those who are attempting to do so. The results are well worth the struggle.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this government's support of the OSLO oil sands megaproject in northern Alberta is criticized, and rightly so, by those who take global warming seriously. Each barrel of oil thus produced will release four to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a barrel of conventional oil. The oil industry also criticizes the oil sands megaproject on economic grounds.
However the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources continues to defend the oil sands project which will cost taxpayers a fortune. He thinks it is necessary for energy security. He is wrong. Douglas Stoneman, senior vice-president of Shell Canada, told the energy committee that the OSLO oil sands project is not necessary for energy security. Mr. Stoneman added that subsidizing conventional technology for an uneconomic project is simply a burden to the taxpayers.
We say to the minister: "Don't aggravate the climate warming problem. Come to your senses at last and practise sustainable development."



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The independence of our judiciary has been fundamental to our parliamentary system since the Settlement Act of 1700.
That independence of judges was reconfirmed by two Acts of the Union Government of this country in 1843 and in 1867. Sections 96, 99 and 100 of the British North America Act, reconfirmed in 1982 by the Constitution Act, established completely the independence of judges in Canada. The rule is clear. Members of a government, members of the cabinet, cannot pick up the telephone and call a judge about a case that is being considered by that judge.
The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport did just that. He has now confessed that yesterday he did indeed telephone Mr. Justice Macerola of the Quebec Superior Court about a case then under consideration by that judge just before the judge was due to render a judgment.
Has the Prime Minister, in these circumstances, asked for and has he received the resignation of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport has been and continues to be a very honourable member of this House of Commons with a very substantial respect for its traditions. Because of his respect for that and his great regard for the independence of the judiciary he communicated with me and offered to submit his resignation, and I accepted it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know that that weighs on the Prime Minister's mind, and I am satisfied with that particular response.
Earlier today two of his ministers, one being the minister of industry, said that the rule only applies to criminal cases and not civil cases, that there was no
January 24, 1990

evidence that the minister of state called to influence the outcome of the judge's decision and certainly he did not try to gain a benefit in any way. That was the minister of industry's comment.
| Translation]
The Minister of State (Finance) said: "I would have done the same, in the circumstances."

On March 12, 1976, Prime Minister Trudeau laid out the rule clearly for members of a government, I believe. Mr. Trudeau rose in the Elouse of Commons and said, as reported at page 11771 of Hansard for March 12, 1976:
- in future no member of the cabinet may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities, except through the Minister of Justice, his duly authorized officials or counsel acting for him-
Will the Prime Minister communicate to the ministers I have cited and any others the rule set forth for members of the government, and will he tell the House whether the rule and guideline set forth by Mr. Trudeau in 1976 still applies to his administration?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend refers to some historical precedents. There is indeed reference in Hansard to a call made by the then President of the Treasury Board, I believe, Mr. Chretien, to a judge which was referred to in an inquiry. There was a call made by Mr. Drury to a judge.
The Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec investigated and indicated that it was a grave breach of convention and propriety. Notwithstanding that, I understand that the Prime Minister of the day indicated, and I quote from page 11771 of Hansard of March 12, 1976:
But the associate chief justice clearly was of the view that the call
from the Minister of Public Works did not warrant formal protest.
A minister of the Crown had called a judge of the Quebec Superior Court. The Prime Minister then went on and said:
I do not excuse the minister's lapse of judgment in this matter. I
sympathize with his good intentions, but I do not condone what he
did.
Then the Prime Minister said, notwithstanding what took place:
Oral Questions
-I have come to the conclusion that I should not accept his resignation.
We had a situation where ministers of the Crown communicated with judges and the then Prime Minister decided that he should not accept their resignations.
I have come to the conclusion, a minister of the Crown having in good faith communicated with a judge, that I will accept his resignation because I believe that that is part of the finest traditions of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has in no way commented on the statements made by his two ministers.
To be fair, Associate Chief Justice Deschenes examined the issue involving Mr. Chretien and two other ministers at the time and found that they had been satisfactorily dealt with, so the Prime Minister is not fairly quoting from Mr. Deschenes' reply. Frankly, I do not think there is any reciprocal evidence that is valid before this House of Commons.
I want to ask the Prime Minister one further question. Now that he has accepted the minister's resignation from New Zealand, has he recalled the minister since he no longer has any role to play at the Commonwealth Games?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McKnight:: What's your continuing function, Turner? Still drawing a salary?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps given the gravity of the matter that is being discussed, members, including ministers, on both sides could refrain from comment unless they have the floor. The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend refers to the report by Mr. Justice Deschesnes. Page 11777 of Hansard for March 12, 1976 reads as follows:
Mr. Justice Aronovitch has provided me with the following
description of the event which he has authorized me to transmit to
you:
Some time in October 1971, Mr. Jean Chretien, whom I did not (and still do not) know, telephoned to find out when I would render judgment. He identified himself to me, not as a cabinet minister, but

January 24, 1990
Oral Questions
as a member of Parliament interested in the people in his riding or constituency where apparently the petitioner was operating.
Those are the facts that took place.


John Napier Turner: Table the whole letter.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, table it.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The reference to that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. I would just point out to him that I believe that most members of the House, if not all, would agree that irrespective of those precedents with which we may or may not agree, the action of the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport was the proper one.
This is why today I said in a communication which I would be happy to table that I accept his resignation with a genuine sense of sadness. His communication with the court was clearly motivated, not by any desire for gain or favour but rather in the clear belief that he was acting in the best interests of the Canadian sporting fraternity. That he should have offered to resign in these circumstances is an indication of the high regard in which he holds both Parliament and his responsibilities as a minister.
I believe the action of the young Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport is a great tribute to his character. I salute him for it, and I know all members of the House will.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian fishermen do not want to be retrained. They want to fish and they want to know why this government is giving this year, in 1990, not only cod quotas to France but also red-fish quotas to the Soviet Union and to several other foreign countries and Greenland halibut quotas to several foreign countries, all within Canada's 200-mile zone licensed by this government.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans aware that in the plant which is closing in Trepassey in the minister's riding they process mostly flatfish, things like Greenland halibut, not codfish, and that in Gaultois in the hon.
member's riding where the plant is closing they process all red-fish, not one ounce of codfish.
We want to know why this government has agreed in 1990 to give to the Soviet Union, in zones 3-N and 3-0 on the east coast of Newfoundland within 12 miles of our shore, the entire east coast, the NAFO quota, 10,900 tonnes of red-fish, and to give Canadians 300 tonnes less than what the Soviet Union is getting. Canadians want to know why.
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, the member for Gander-Grand Falls knows full well that Canadians are welcome to all of the fish stocks within our Canadian 200-mile economic zone that they can harvest on a first priority basis and that fish outside the 12-mile limit do not belong to Canada but are entrusted to our use only when we can use them.
The hon. member is again crying wolf, and as was so aptly pointed out the other day in The Chronicle-Herald:
Meanwhile, Mr. Baker's habit of reducing complex problems to the
single issue of foreign fishing is neither credible nor useful-no matter
how much people in his riding are suffering.
This industry has enough real problems, without inventing new
ones.
That is the opinion of The Chronicle-Herald, and that is the opinion of many Atlantic Canadians.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that this minister probably believes that because it is called "red-fish" it belongs to the Soviet Union; and that because it is called the Greenland halibut it belongs to Greenland; and that American plaice belongs to the United States. There is one fish name that belongs to this cabinet; it is called yellow-tail flounder.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: It has not a fillet of sole in it.
I want to ask the minister this about zones 2G and 2H, which as you know, Mr. Speaker, the majority of which lie on the Labrador coast. It is the Hamilton Banks, the spawning ground for our northern cod. All of it lies within the 200 mile zone. Why has this government allocated a foreign quota of codfish which increased 11,400 tonnes for this year, up 1,000 tonnes to foreign nations and the Canadian quota down 1,000 tonnes to
January 24, 1990

8,600 tonnes, with a footnote which states: "For bilateral commitments"?
What bilateral commitments does the minister have in mind? The chief bilateral commitment is to the people of Canada. Why is this minister giving favouritism toward the foreigners?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can engage in his fishy business on and on as he always does. But, as I will show in a moment, it is the Liberal party that is very much floundering around on this issue. This government has Canadianized the Canadian fishery and reduced foreign quotas within our waters to very low levels compared to what they were under the Liberal government.
In fact, we have ended some 25,000 tonnes of fishing effort on our primary codstocks by the European Community and France as a result of conscious decisions taken by this government.
It is passing strange that the hon. member's colleague from Halifax would urge me strenuously this week to allow an American fishing vessel to be allowed to fish in replacement of a Canadian vessel on codstocks off Newfoundland. Yet this member has the hypocrisy to condemn this government when he should be looking at himself and his colleagues in the face in the mirror.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the resignation which was the honourable course of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport in light of the many precedents which were established by Messrs. Chretien, La-londe, Drury and Munro in this House.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will clarify whether or not it is the policy of this government, and particularly of this Prime Minister, that it is essential to establish firm, unequivocal standards relative to the absolute independence of the judiciary of Canada and absolute restraint from any kind of involvement or intervention by ministers of the Crown with any court anywhere in the country.
Oral Questions
Those were the words of the now Secretary of State for External Affairs which resulted in the clear statement by the then Prime Minister Trudeau with respect to policy in this area.
Is the policy statement by Prime Minister Trudeau of March 12, 1976, with respect to this matter still in effect for his government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have difficulty understanding the question because my hon. friend refers to precedent. The fact is that Mr. Chretien, in 1971, communicated with a judge and did not resign. Mr. Drury, in 1976, communicated with a judge and did not resign. Mr. Kaplan, then Solicitor General, in 1982, wrote to a judge and did not resign.
We have guidelines that indicate that no minister may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacity, except the Minister of Justice.
The fact is that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport communicated with a judge, even though he sought neither gain nor favour nor personal advantage of any kind, having been asked to make the intervention on behalf of the Canadian sporting fraternity as international games were opening up in New Zealand and a difficult matter had to be resolved. Even with those extenuating circumstances he did communicate with a judge. I believe that was a violation of the guidelines, as a result of which I accepted his resignation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated that the minister was asked for his intervention by the Canadian sporting fraternity, specifically, presumably, by the Canadian Track and Field Association. The minister made a similar statement.
However, in view of the fact that I spoke this morning with the lawyer for the Canadian Track and Field Association who stated categorically that neither she nor her partner had made any request whatsoever for intervention by the minister, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would reconsider that statement and in fact agree that no such request was made whatsoever.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the minister has resigned. Yet the NDP, this not being good enough, continue to harass and ask me for

January 24, 1990
Oral Questions
explanations that are completely irrelevant to the subject.
Surely the hon. member is not alleging that the minister did anything with a criminal intent or sought to take personal advantage of anything. There was a technical violation of the guidelines and the minister resigned.
This should have been a precedent that was enforced throughout the 1970s; it apparently was not.
I think the minister in resigning did the honourable thing, which is completely consistent with the very impressive reputation he has acquired across Canada and the very brilliant future he has in store.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In 1976, Prime Minister Trudeau announced guidelines for contacts between members of the judiciary and members of Parliament and ministers. I again ask the Prime Minister: Are these strict guidelines still in effect with him and his government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about precedents. It is well known that in 1971, the Hon. Jean Chretien made a phone call directly to a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec. He did not resign. The Hon. Bud Drury in 1976 intervened directly with a Quebec Superior Court judge and he did not resign. The Hon. Robert Kaplan, then Solicitor General, wrote to a judge in 1982 and he did not resign. The Hon. Jean Charest intervened on behalf of the sports community because of the New Zealand Games. He did not intervene for personal reasons. Technically he violated the regulation. He was honourable enough to resign. That is something that should have been done in other circumstances by others in the past.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns this government's woeful response to the crisis in the Atlantic fishery.
The Prime Minister over and over again has promised generous assistance for those communities hard hit by the downturn in the Atlantic fisheries. But all we seem to get is empty rhetoric.
We hear from the Minister for International Trade that it will be old programs recycled and new money.
We hear from the minister opposite who is responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency that it will indeed be recycled money from recycled programs. The same program that is expected to give the funds is a program called ACOA which was severely crippled by the axe of this government last spring.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Why does the Prime Minister insist on robbing Peter to pay Paul instead of finding the money necessary to address this very serious crisis caused by his government's own mismanagement in the Atlantic fishery?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, it has approved some 7,000 projects in Atlantic Canada with some $600 million from the federal government which leveraged $1.6 billion to create 18,000 new jobs in Atlantic Canada. That is the kind of co-operation that Atlantic Canada has been getting from this government. I think that is the kind of co-operation Atlantic Canada wants.
My hon. friend refers to the fishery. There has been $130 million put forward already. There are initiatives internationally and nationally to deal with what is a grave crisis in the Atlantic fishery-I have acknowledged that many times.
Yesterday, as Premier McKenna indicated in an interview in New Brunswick, there is no crisis in the Atlantic Canadian economy. There are areas of strong growth. Premier McKenna, whose province led all Canadian provinces in investment growth last year, wants to do it again this year.
I suppose what he is too polite to say is that the only problem that could occur in New Brunswick is the bad-mouthing from the Liberal members of Parliament which could have a negative effect on investment intentions in Atlantic Canada.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the Prime Minister. It is pretty incredible that he is getting up on his feet and talking about all the good work that has come out of the ACOA program. If it
January 24, 1990

was so good, why did it fall under the government's axe last spring? Why did it stretch the ACOA program from five to seven years, effectively cutting it by 20 per cent?
Will the Prime Minister now give us and the people of Atlantic Canada an assurance that the ACOA fund will not once again be attacked and ravaged by this government? Will he also give us an assurance that the additional funding necessary will be found to address the crisis in the Atlantic economy caused by this government's absolute and utter neglect?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, unemployment is a pretty good barometer to show how well an economy is doing. Unemployment in Newfoundland since we were sworn in has gone down 7 per cent from where we took it from the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Unemployment in Nova Scotia has gone down 4 per cent and unemployment in New Brunswick has gone down 3 per cent.
Regional development programs under the last Liberal government averaged $185 million a year. That was increased in our first mandate to an average of $285 million. This mandate it is $425 million, an increase of 51 per cent. That is the kind of contribution we are making to Atlantic Canada.
It is, I am sure, depressing for Atlantic Canadians to see that they send members who do not even recognize the good areas of economic growth in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador. There are areas of difficulty. We are working to improve them, but the hon. member should stop being a gloomster and a doomster and try a little nation-building for once.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. We have learned that Mr. Tessier, the president of Marine Industries, suggested a three-point
Oral Questions
plan to the minister: namely, that the federal government share the accumulated losses with the Government of Quebec, that the contracts on hand be reviewed on a new basis and that the federal government ensure the future of the shipyards beyond 1992.
Mr. Speaker, we already know that the minister has already rejected these three proposals. Does he have other solutions to put forward? Is there another plan to save the disappearing shipbuilding industry in Quebec?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in a letter to Mr. Tessier and in conversations with Mr. Tremblay, the minister in the Quebec government with responsibility for MIL, we are certainly willing to enter into discussions with him to find ways in which we can be of assistance to MIL in view of its circumstances and the doubt cast on its long-term future.
We understand that, commiserate with it they are willing to participate in discussions. I will be meeting with Minister Tremblay on Friday to extend those discussions. We will see if we can find a solution.
I do not think it is useful to try to negotiate publicly, through the press or through holding demonstrations of various sorts, but we certainly are going to be co-operating with the Quebec government and MIL.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost in the past five years and we have almost no shipbuilding industry anymore anymore because of this government's laisser faire policies. About 2,000 jobs still remain. Will you act immediately to save the shipbuilding industry and these 2,000 jobs or will you continue to talk and, as usual, everything will disappear in Quebec?


Harvie Andre: Mr.Speaker, as evidenced by the over 1.5 million new jobs created by this government in the last five years, jobs are very much of interest to us. There is a surplus of capacity in the shipbuilding industry. The

January 24, 1990
Oral Questions
member for LaSalle-Emard, who is in the shipping business, is having all his ships built in Brazil.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Harvie Andre: That is one of the things that we are having to deal with, but we are wrestling with that problem and will address it.


WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Finance.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance can explain this to the Elouse. On December 19, when he tabled a notice of Ways and Means in the House related to the goods and services tax, a very important part of that Ways and Means Motion was an increase in the surtax for wealthy Canadians, and an increase in the large corporations tax, which would have resulted in an increase in tax for those people of some $400 million per year. Can he explain why in the motion we concurred in yesterday these two items are mysteriously missing? They went up in a puff of smoke. They are no longer there.
I want to ask the minister quite bluntly, did he deliberately omit those two items in the Ways and Means Motion we passed yesterday? Can he explain why he has decided to omit this tax increase for his wealthy friends in this country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to hear this hon. member, who has been in this House for a number of years now, spread stories which he knows are not true. He knows that my assistant spoke directly to his assistant and told him clearly why those particular pieces of legislation were not covered in the Ways and Means Motion.
The proposal of December 19 still stands. The income tax amendments from the last budget are still before the Senate. As soon as those items are passed the amendments that I referred to in the December 19 statement on the large corporations tax and the high income surtax will be made the subject of new legislation.
He knows that. He knows perfectly well that he was told that by his assistant. Yet he deliberately fosters these untrue stories in order to confuse people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There has been a serious allegation made by the minister. It amounts to an allegation of untruth on the part of the hon. member. I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the statement that I have made. But I will say, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that the hon. member's staff was advised of the information that I just expressed to the House today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the press yesterday it was said, and I quote: "The minister's spokesman, John Fieldhouse, later said, 'The measures will be included in amendments to a tax bill currently in the Senate'."
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to explain how he can give the Senate the new prerogative of amending a tax bill which is a bill to increase taxes on individuals and increase taxes on corporations. How can he give them that prerogative?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is blatant mischief-making on the part of the hon. member. I made it quite clear in my statement on December 19 and I just made it very clear two minutes ago that the large corporation tax amendments I announced on December 19 will come to pass, if passed by this House. The increase in the high income surtax that I announced on December 19, if passed by this House will come to pass.
I would appreciate it, and I think Canadians would appreciate it, if their members of Parliament would not do the things that-now the hon. member is waving about a piece of paper, a newspaper report.
Would the hon. member check with his assistant to whom my assistant spoke and to whom he gave the

January 24, 1990

precise information? Would he explain to the House why he persists in leading people astray by misleading statements?


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Pdlt Corporation.
In 1986, the Canadian government advised Canada Post Corporation that it was reducing the subsidies for air transport services. Canada Post never informed the northern regions of these cuts and since 1986 has never increased its rates for commercial shipments of food and medicine to these northern regions.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Can the minister tell me why Canada Post Corporation did not increase its postal rates in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 for northern regions?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicates, there has been a reduction in the postal subsidy for northern rates. The subsidy has been reduced by $1 million a year.
For the first two or three years the post office was able to make up those reductions by various efficiency gains. Those efficiency gains are no longer possible. Thus adjustments were made this year.
As a result of discussions and representations by the hon. member and others, there has been a 5 per cent decrease in the announced rates and a freeze on those rates for the next year while the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development undertakes an investigation to see how in fact the needs of northerners can be looked after, while at the same time respecting the fact that we have a $30 billion deficit to deal with.


OLDER WORKER ASSISTANCE
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour.
Oral Questions
Last week the minister announced that $13.1 million had been allocated to assist some 216 laid-off workers in Quebec in specific industries who may be eligible for assistance under the Program for Older Worker Assistance. Given that there have been a multitude of closings across this country, can the minister today give a detailed breakdown of the moneys from the Program for Older Worker Assistance that have been allocated to all other provinces, industries and companies?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not have at my disposal all the details sought by the hon. member of the Opposition, but I can tell him that so far federal and provincial committees in three provinces have dealt with lay-offs in each of the provinces. We are now looking into 49 lay-offs affecting 1,200 people, older workers, whom we will help with POWA, and I will be pleased to send him details of what has been spent up to now.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, during the briefings that I had with Labour Canada, and all through the process on the bill when it was going through the House, one of the things that was stipulated was that the numbers would not play a specific role.
Can the minister assure us that in a small community where there are 5 to 10 or 15 to 20 workers laid off, something which would have an impact equal to some areas of Canada where 200 or 300 workers are laid off, that these people will be treated in the same manner?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm for my colleague that POWA has indeed been designed with the necessary flexibility to help workers 55 and older in communities and places with smaller populations.
In co-operation again with the provincial committees, we adopted rules requiring that the number of unemployed or laid-off people be proportional to the population involved in the same kind of activity in each municipality.
So far, each of these committees in each of the three provinces has performed admirably, to the satisfaction of provincial and federal authorities.

January 24, 1990
Oral Questions


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister or to the acting Minister of Energy.
A number of companies have indicated their intention to use the free trade agreement to challenge a recent decision by the National Energy Board refusing a number of gas exports to the United States.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what action his government will take if these challenges are successful. What will he do to defend the board whose powers are under attack as as result of the trade deal that this government signed?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the House well knows the rules with respect to hypothetical questions. Naturally, the hon. member would not expect me to answer a question based upon any hypothesis, particularly one as improbable as that.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.
As we all know, the board is publicly conducting a review of the cost benefit analysis. We also know that the U.S. government is lobbying this government behind the scenes.
The question I want to ask the minister is this. What assurances has this government offered the American government with regard to the powers of the National Energy Board? Will the board's upcoming policy review be an independent and meaningful review, or is it really a foregone conclusion?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the review is independent. It is meaningful. It is Canadian.
If the hon. member is suggesting that some other countries are making Canadian policy on these questions, then she should in the first place have the courage to state that directly and in the second know that she is wrong.


COMINCO
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The federal government invested $79 million in Com-inco so that the company could upgrade its smelter in Trail, B.C. At the time Cominco said that the main supplier of the zinc to the smelter would be the Sullivan Mine in Kimberley, B.C.
Last Thursday Cominco announced that the mine would be shutting down in two weeks at a cost of 865 jobs to Kimberley. Cominco has refused to give the people of Kimberley a satisfactory explanation for destroying their community.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. Will his government, as one of the major shareholders in Cominco, demand that the company come clean with the people of Kimberley as to why they are now out of work while the people of Alaska will be benefiting from the shutdown?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, that mine has been there for a considerable period of time. It has been mined for years and years. They have simply reached the stage where the high cost of operating an old mine at deep depths, with lower quality ores and so on has simply made it uneconomic.
The New Democratic Party, which claims that it is looking forward, has a basic policy in all of these questions: No change. Even if you run out of ore, it would keep the mine open with people apparently digging material that is not worth the cost of operating the mine.
As is always the case, this government is very concerned about the workers. This government will bring to bear all of those safety-net provisions that are available that help those four million Canadians who change work every year in this country.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. This mine made over $9 million in profit last year. It was used for getting the loan that the federal government put forward. What is the Prime Minister going to do for this community? This is a single-industry town that requires
January 24, 1990

assistance. What is the Prime Minister going to do to alleviate the devastation that they have created in Kimberley, British Columbia?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in reply to the hon. member's initial question, this is not a unique event in Canada. This is a mining country, where mines run out of ore and have to be shut down; or prices change. As a result of that experience, there are a large number of adjustment programs in place, a safety net, if you will, which will be brought to bear to help the workers who are affected by this quite natural event. At the end of their lifetime mines shut down and cannot be kept operating if they are no longer economic.


COMMUNICATIONS
Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In last Tuesday's edition, the newspapers Le Soleil and Le Droit reported that Quebec had obtained only 2.2 per cent of all research contracts awarded since April 1989 by the Department of Communications, that is only $122,000 out of a total of $5.5 million. Furthermore, if we consider the total number of research contracts awarded by the federal government, Quebec, which has nearly one-quarter of Canada's population, received only 10 per cent of $158 million worth of contracts awarded in Canada. What explanation does the Minister have for this situation and what action does the government intend to take to ensure that Quebec receives its fair share of federal research contracts?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, when he mentioned 2.2 per cent in his article yesterday, columnist Michel Vastel was referring to a small fraction of the Department of Communications' research and development efforts. He was considering only those contracts that are awarded through the Department of Supply and Services. He did not include contracts, grants and contributions made directly by my Department. In fact, 33 per cent of the Department of
Point of Order
Communications' expenditures and investments in the field of research and development go to Quebec.


AIR SAFETY
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since December, there have been three tragic air accidents in the region, which caused the death of five people. It seems that bad weather was responsible.

Is the Prime Minister or any of his ministers aware that since October 1 weather information at Ottawa Airport is now collected by a private contractor, by employees who have one-quarter the training of environment staff who formerly did the work, that the information gets sent to Toronto then back to Gatineau where pilots have to get it by phone from Transport Canada employees who have four higher priority jobs?
Does the minister think that this absolute mess is good enough when people's lives are at stake, or will he call an immediate inquiry to ensure that further lives are not in danger?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would allow me to answer this question. All of us in this House obviously share in the sorrow that always accompanies such tragic accidents.
However, it would be wrong to say today or at this particular moment that this accident or any other near-misses that the hon. member refers to had anything to do with weather conditions. An inquiry is obviously under way and it will be determined what the cause of this accident was.
I can tell the hon. member that the weather services which Environment Canada provides for Transport Canada and its flying constituency have been significantly improved over the last little while. We will have to await the outcome of the investigation.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the Ways and Means Motion that was tabled on Monday, January 22 and concurred in yesterday. As a result of Standing Order 83, no one in the House was able at that time to debate the motion or

January 24, 1990
Point of Order
provide any amendments to the motion. In a sense, no one could even add any commentary. It was simply dealt with in the usual way.
Having now examined the process, to me there appears to be a veiy serious irregularity regarding the motion. I raise this point of order today to ask the Chair to determine whether or not it would be appropriate at this point to permit a bill to proceed which will be based on this motion.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the motion proposes that a good and services tax of 7 per cent be imposed after 1990 and that the tax be as set out as the motion indicated in two documents. One of these documents was tabled in the House just over a month ago. The other document referred to as a goods and services technical paper was issued by the Minister of Finance on August 8.
Members, most of whom I am sure went to the Journals Branch this morning to get a copy of this technical paper, discovered as I did that such a document has never been tabled in this House. It is not a sessional paper. As I am not privy to all the papers issued by the Minister of Finance in the period of the summer, I can only guess as to which technical paper the Ways and Means Motion refers to.
The process of passing motions which refer to documents that are not before this House-motions, I might add, which can result in the passage of bills imposing taxes-causes members serious concern. It raises some important questions.
The first question it raises is the general question as to whether the government is establishing new parliamentary and constitutional traditions. It used to be that money bills had to originate in the House of Commons. Now, we have budgets which originate in press conferences and tax bills which are founded, at least in part, in documents that have been released through the press. This question was raised in the House following the budget fiasco last April, and I must say, if my memory serves me, the Chair has yet to offer an opinion on that question.
The second more troubling question relates to the implications of what the House Mil be enabled to do to a bill which flows from a Ways and Means Motion based on a non-parliamentary document.
The twenty-first edition of Erskine May cautions that amendments to tax bills must not exceed the scope, increase the amount or extend the incidence of any charge upon the people defined by the terms of the ways and means resolutions by which the provisions proposed to be amended are authorized. It is further offered that when a tax is imposed in a bill which is less than a ways and means resolution that amendments are in order in committee on the bill to increase the tax up to the limit laid down by the ways and means resolution. This becomes very critical at this point. The technical paper referred to by the Minister of Finance in his motion that was adopted yesterday by this House referred to a 9 per cent goods and services tax. Does this mean that the House, or a committee of the House, can increase the tax up to 9 per cent, as reflected in the document referred to in the Ways and Means Motion?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I simply ask that you review this general question and rule on whether the adoption of yesterday's motion has breached parliamentary tradition as we know it in the House of Commons, rule on whether it has established a very dangerous precedent in reference to documents that have never been tabled before this House, and to rule on whether it throws into question the rights of the House over tax issues generally.
Finally, I would ask that you consider whether this imposes a very uncertain scope around this goods and services tax bill and the amendments that the House will be empowered to consider during the process of debate and the consideration of changes to the act.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to check on the accuracy of what the hon. member for Kamloops has just said. The documents tabled on December 19 following my statement show that the clear intention of the Government of Canada was to reduce the rate that was set out in the technical paper from 9 per cent to 7 per cent. Nothing could be clearer than that both in my statement as well as in the documents that were tabled in the House.
January 24, 1990

My understanding had been that the technical paper itself was tabled in this House, but I cannot be absolutely sure of that. I have asked my staff to check on that. As soon as I have that information for you I can advise you.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member for Kamloops and members of his staff in giving the Chair notice of this complex point. I also appreciate the minister staying behind for the argument and I appreciate that he has asked for some time to respond.
I will hear the minister further on this matter if that happens today or at some appropriate point. I should tell the hon. member for Kamloops and the minister that knowing about the complexity of the argument, it was my intention to reserve judgment until I could fully consider the argument and the implications that flow thereof, but to make sure that I would rule on the point before second reading. I want to give the hon. member for Kamloops that assurance.
If the hon. Minister of Finance wants some time to address the Chair further on this, I think that that would be agreed by all parties, but I am going to need some time to consider it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 51 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Routine Proceedings



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, two reports by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board: The Suspense File and Definition of Disability under the Canada Pension Plan.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Further to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, I should advise hon. members that the government has moved for introduction and first reading of the bill in question.
I am going to put introduction and first reading of the bill to the House, but it must be clearly understood that I will rule on the argument raised by the hon. member for Kamloops before second reading begins. Is that clearly understood?


Mr. Gauthier:: By tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not in a position to say when it will be. What I am saying is that I am going to need time to consider it. I want the hon. member for Kamloops to clearly understand that except for this procedure-


Mr. Benjamin:: Before any stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I have examined the procedure very carefully and I think that I am proceeding properly in introducing the bill for first reading. But what I am saying is that, that having been done, nothing further will proceed until I have made the ruling.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I seek clarification. I will follow your decision, naturally, but to seek further clarification, if in your ruling you deem it to have been inappropriate for the Minister of Finance to proceed, with the assumption that he had proceeded incorrectly with his Ways and

January 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Means motion, what status then would the bill have, if you rule that what we are doing today is, in a sense, inadmissible?


Mr. Speaker:: The same question of course reverts back to what status would the notice have? I have made it quite clear to hon. members that the argument has been well argued, obviously well researched, and is complex. I need time to consider it and I am sure the hon. member will understand that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Before any stage of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Regina East has a point of view here, but I have made a ruling and I think that the ruling is appropriate.
I want to assure all hon. members that the matter will be considered seriously and will be ruled on after this stage and before second reading.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief concern with the point that is under discussion and that is Standing Order 83(4) which states:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to
bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
Now, as I understood the argument of the hon. member for Kamloops, the problem with the motion is that it was too vague. How is Your Honour going to be able to determine whether or not this bill, in the words of the rule, is based on the notice, if in fact the motion is so vague that we cannot determine whether the bill is based on it? I think it puts Your Honour in an extremely difficult position, with respect, between now and second reading.
I would suggest that the appropriate course would be to await Your Honour's ruling to determine the limits of the motion, and then if Your Honour determines that the motion is in order and what its limits are, in other words, are one or both of the technical papers referred to in the motion included, then we can determine whether or not the bill is in order. But it is going to be virtually impossible to do that until Your Honour's ruling comes down on that first point.
I suggest there are two issues here and, with respect, I would suggest that the first reading of this bill be deferred until we have received the word from Your Honour on the validity of the minister's notice of motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member, but I think that it is appropriate to go ahead with the introduction and first reading of the bill. I shall carefully consider not only the position of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands but, as I have indicated, also the position
of the hon. member for Kamloops, and of course if the hon. minister wishes to address me further.



AN ACT TO AMEND THE EXCISE TAX ACT, THE CRIMINAL CODE, THE CUSTOMS ACT, THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, THE EXCISE ACT, AND THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE STATISTICS ACT AND THE TAX COURT OF CANADA ACT

Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Thrift, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act, and the Tax Court of Canada Act.


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.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the bill be read the first time and printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division.
Andre	(Division No. 171)
 YEAS Members Attewell
Beatty	Belsher
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Bourgault	Boyer
Brightwell	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Chartrand
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clifford
Cole	Collins
Cook	Cooper
Corbett	Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)	Darling
DeBlois	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Domm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Fee	Ferland
Fretz	Gerin
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Guilbault	
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hogue
Holtmann	Homing
Hudon	Hughes
James	Jelinek
Joncas	Kempling
Koury	Langlois
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone	Marin

January 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Martin (Lincoln)	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	Merrithew
Monteith	Nicholson
Nowlan	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plamondon
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reimer	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
St-Ju lien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thacker	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Tbmer (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	White
Wilbee	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek -
Assiniboia)	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard	Worthy-115


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I missed the vote. Had I been here, I would have voted nay.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Introduction of Private Members' Bills. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that in order to provide ample opportunity for all members to vote that my colleagues and friends in the Liberal party would provide at least a 30-minute bell to call on members who might not be here already.



AN ACT RESPECTING MAGNA CARTA DAY

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce a bill respecting Magna Carta Day.
++NAYS
Members


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried. On a point of order, the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence.
January 24, 1990

++NAYS
Members
nil/aucun


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, point of order. I have already taken part in such a debate several times. I would just like to reiterate what I have already said: I find this a very bad precedent that we are setting in our political system, a political institution of British origin.

I think it is a bad move to have voted to give permission to a member to introduce a bill for first reading. I understand the reason it was done. I am not questioning their reason, I cannot question it, but I think it is a bad precedent. It is very bad, in our British parliamentary system, to vote to give permission to a member to introduce a bill because some day there will be bills that may not be acceptable to a lot of people and we could use this precedent, and those that were created before, to stop a member from even considering the possibility of discussing something that may be absolutely unacceptable to some members of the House.
I, as one who believes in freedom of thought and freedom of discussion, believes that a member should not require permission to present any bill for first reading. I think that there are other ways of doing what they are trying to do today. I leave it to them to decide how to do it, but I object very much and I will always object to having a vote in order to decide whether we will give permission to a member to introduce a bill for first reading, not in the British parliamentary system.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, I have listened to my hon. colleague's intervention and I appreciate the point that he is making. He said that he thought it was inappropriate that members not permit the introduction of a bill at the first stage. Yet, I recall that he just voted against the introduction of a bill at first stage, the goods and services bill.
Routine Proceedings
Perhaps he was referring to the private members' bills only, but I am somewhat confused as to the point he was making since he voted against first reading a few moments ago.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. I said that I object to such a vote on private members' bills and I thank my hon. colleague very much for obliging me to clarify my statement. Yes, that has always been my position in the House of Commons concerning private members' bills. As for government bills, that is another matter, and I thank the hon. member for clarifying the situation.
As a matter of fact, a few minutes ago I had a long discussion with the officers of the table to make sure that I have been consistent with the past because, as you know, I am getting old and I may lack some memory. But I have been consistent. I have always stood the way I just did for private members' bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops has a few minutes to explain the bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a few moments to explain the intent of the bill. This bill, as hon. members would recognize, refers back to 1215 when King John, a very arrogant and insensitive king, had imposed a very horrible tax time and time again on the people. The people spoke up and objected to these excessive levels of taxation that King John had introduced.
It is for that reason, particularly in light of today's discussion, that I introduce this private members' bill to declare June 15, which was the day the Magna Carta was declared in 1215, as an appropriate gesture. I appreciate that with these bells the Liberals have at least assisted the New Democratic Party in sending a message to this government, that it too is imposing a dastardly, mean, cruel tax on the people of this country and it time that we send the government a very clear message.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just as the people said they would not stand for it during the time of King John, we are saying that the people of Canada will not stand for it at this time either.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: that bill be read the first time and be printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
where the voting is close or there is any disagreement. But the precedents we set in this Chamber can, on another occasion, be extremely important.
For a member to stand in his place and vote twice would be a very dangerous precedent. In the calling for the yeas I heard the member from Regina's name called at an appropriate time. When you called the nays, I heard the same member called the second time. I do not think that kind of precedent can be allowed to remain on the books. It is totally inappropriate in this Chamber for members to vote twice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the hon. government Whip.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is not one of those very tense situations in the House of Commons


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I know that the hon. new leader of the New Democratic Party has announced that from now on the New Democrats intend to be the real official opposition. I do not know if-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: Now that you are enjoying the first part I hope you will enjoy the last part.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: I hope she did not mean that she was to become the official opposition through trickery or otherwise by having some members voting twice on both sides of the issue.
Therefore, I suggest to you that if the hon. member has voted for and against the motion that would be quite unique in the annals of the British parliamentary system. If that is the way the New Democrats intend to run their affairs in this new leadership I would like to be on notice so we will know how to behave in the future.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden and I object to the non-point of order raised by the member who just spoke. I want to say to you, Sir, in the chair, that I did not rise on the first vote.
I will admit I lifted my backside from the chair an inch.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then I decided no. I don't know why I have to vote with my House Leader all the time. More importantly, the point is, I did not vote. Mr. Speaker, you and I have been here the same number of years. I have always risen and bowed to the Chair at full length-yours and mine-and I did not do that. I did not rise on the first vote. I am always respectful of the clerks at the table
Alt house
Black
Butland
Fulton
Hovdebo
Laporte
Mitchell
Nystrom
Riis
January 24, 1990

and I think they were in a little hurry to get the vote counted. I did not vote the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, the hon. member's vote will be registered with the nays.
Point of order, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, through you the House might be interested in knowing that the great charter, the Magna Carta, has just been brought to the Diefen-baker law library in Saskatoon for public display. It is just to show, as we have shown today, that things really have not changed much in 900 years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think I will voice the frustrations of many of us in this House toward the NDPs tricks and silliness today. The opposition day that the New Democrats would have had today will probably be lost if they do not stop playing games with the Parliament of Canada. I would implore them to be serious and to get to the Orders of the Day. Today an opposition day dealing with environmental matters and we would like to speak about environmental matters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend and hon. colleague, a parliamentarian whom I have respected over the years in terms of his observation as to what is going on today, let us be very clear, we are very concerned about the Magna Carta and the importance that it has been in the history of the western world.
Today this government introduced the bill concerning the 7 per cent goods and services tax. We are sending the government a message on behalf of the people of Canada. The Canadian people do not want this tax to proceed. That is what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, while I understand that the Liberals might not like it, I want to make it very clear that they are co-operating with the Conservative government. They are not sending a message against the goods
Routine Proceedings
and services tax today. That is what the Liberal Party of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Churchill on a point of order.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I think we all have our serious moments and our light moments in the House. But I do not think that the Whip of the Liberal party can get up and accuse us of stalling the House or not using our legitimate rights.
I remember when his party had a rat pack. They had no qualms whatsoever about jumping on desks, running after ministers and acting in a very inane manner.
The problem the Liberals have today is that same group is unavailable in the House. They are seeking the leadership. So the Liberal Whip is getting up in this House and complaining that the New Democratic Party has stolen the leadership of the House.
He is complaining that we are controlling the House and we are using that control of the House to oppose the government. That is our right. We are happy to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for a short rebuttal and then I will recognize the hon. member for Halifax West.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to rebut anything. I just want to state the facts. They are that today this House has a Standing Order that states: "Projected Order of Business". Members of the NDP had an opposition day granted to them by the rules of this House. They are indeed breaking every rule in the book by playing tricks on this House and they are-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has been very kind.
I would like to recognize the hon. member for Halifax West on a short point of order.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my statement on this point of order short. I want to assure members of the House the point that I raise is vital to the operation of this House.
There is no more serious responsibility on members of the House of Commons than to cast their votes on vital issues of the day. In registering their vote on any of these issues that are presented to the House of Commons there is a matter of honour involved. Every time a member votes, he votes in the representation of his

January 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings
constituency. Together, we all represent the people of Canada.
I distinctly witnessed in this House members responding to a division by yeas and nays. When the vote was actually taken, that is to say pursuant to Standing Order 45, there were no negative votes registered.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do have a couple more bills to introduce for the hon. member for Kamloops, if I may. If there is still time, we will get a few more points of orders in.
This means that obviously in this House people deceived the members of this House in their manner of voting, the most important function that a member of the House of Commons can perform.
We have before us a deception, people who voted nay then turned around and voted the other way. They are deceiving the House. They are destroying the very foundations of this institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If you would cool it a little bit, I would like to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East on a point of order.


Ms. Mitchell:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is on a point of privilege that I rise.
I am sure that you, in listening to the last speaker, realize that he was really infringing on the privileges of all women parliamentarians in this place. He referred, as some members are wont to do, as members of this House being "he". He completely excluded all members of Parliament who happen to be of the female sex. I would ask that he withdraw his statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the hon. member for Halifax West realizes that. I know that as a great colleague in this House he will do the same.


Howard Edward Crosby: I certainly recognize the presence in this House of Commons of men and women, but let me remind the member that honour is the same for both sexes. I am talking about the honour of the members of this House, not the sex.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AN ACT TO AMEND THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT (LEASES FOR LOW-RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS)

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce a bill, an act to amend the National Housing Act (leases for low-rental housing projects).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope we are checking the voting record to make sure that members only voted once because I think for the second time in my 11 years in Parliament we really have something going on here this afternoon that is very, very unfortunate for the democratic system. To attempt to vote twice in this Chamber or in a ballot box in a general election is totally unacceptable; totally unacceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to ask the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair whether he is opposed or in favour of this bill.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was really quite clear that I stood fully erect against the vote. I thought that was pretty clear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is all I wanted to know.
I declare the motion carried.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just wondered due to the interest of my colleagues in this House for environmental matters-I take this seriously-would you seek unanimous consent to proceed to Orders of the Day?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker. First, on the request from the Liberal Whip and Deputy House Leader we are certainly not going to give the government one more day to impose the GST. For five minutes we would have an Opposition Day. If we gave today as an Opposition Day that would give the government one more day to make it easier to pass the GST.
I asked for the floor because the Government Whip rose and complained about the antics of the Liberals and various members of the New Democratic Party.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you do that one of the worst nights we ever spent in the House of Commons was when certain Conservative members stormed in and put the Deputy Speaker at threat. I believe the Government Whip was one of those members.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to hear the hon. member for Churchill finish his remarks, please.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative members in opposition in those days did that, they took a physical, aggressive act against the Chair of this House. Nothing can be more against the whole principle of Parliament than that.
For the Conservatives to get up at this time and complain because we may perform a little antic which is not threatening to the Chair, and certainly not threatening to this institution, something to protect the people of Canada, there is a heck of a difference. I would think that before we have any challenges by the Government Whip, he should think back to his own actions and the actions of his colleagues.
He will argue that he felt strongly about that bill. He will argue that the Tory members had a right to charge the Chair, raising their fists, shaking their fists, because they felt strongly about a piece of legislation.
We are not threatening the Chair. But we do feel strongly against this legislation and we will use every legitimate means we have to fight it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to clean up this item today. The hon. member for Kamloops has an opportunity to say a few words about his bill and then I can put it for second reading.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the way you decided that some members points of orders can be accepted at any time, while other members calls for privilege are not accepted. There seems to be quite an editing processing going on here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the hon. member going to speak on his bill?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the point of this bill being introduced today is twofold. First, it looks like the New Democratic Party is the only party sending a clear message to the government today that to proceed with the goods and services tax is an inappropriate act and flies in the face of 80 per cent of the people of Canada. That is one of the points.


Mr. Arseneault:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If you want to recognize the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down because I do think that a point of order or point of privilege ought to be heard. I am prepared to sit down and complete my remarks in a moment.

January 24, 1990
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will just say that the hon. member will not have time to complete his remarks if he wants to get this put through. Otherwise, I will recognize the hon. member from Restigouche- Chaleur.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. It seems as if a wrong impression is being given. I want it categorically stated to the Canadian people that the Liberal party is against the GST. Today we were supposed to debate environmental matters. The NDP has always claimed a monopoly on that. Now we know words are cheap over there. We have the monopoly on the environment. We are the party of the environment, not the NDP.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I want to register a point of privilege. I rose on several occasions to stand in this House to register my point of order. You chose to ignore me. I rose on a point of privilege that I understand takes precedence over points of order, and you still refused to hear me, Mr. Speaker.
I first and foremost wish to register my complaint at not being recognized on my point of privilege.
The second point is on the point of order that I wish to present to you and to this House. I first would like you to rule on my point of privilege, that you did not hear me, while I understand that points of privilege take precedence over points of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not hear the hon. member because there was too much noise. If he does not complete his remarks right now, I will call it six o'clock.


Douglas Jung: Mr. Speaker, the remark I wish to make is that we have seen this government choose every means available to it to push through legislation. This government has used closure more than any other government. At times it has ripped up the Standing Orders in order to allow the free trade agreement to go through. It is the job of the opposition to use every means available-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.
Therefore, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 25,1990