1990-04-11

Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, the people from Brantville, 780 strong, are opposed to the fusion of the post offices of Brantville and Thbusintac.
The community of Brantville is francophone and wants to maintain postal service in French. Brantville has always had its own post office and rural postal service. Brantville citizens are not second class citizens. Brantville citizens do not want to be annexed to another community. Since 1970, Brantville has progressed and wants to continue in that direction. A good postal service is essential to that end. This is the message from the people of Brantville.
When I see such unilateral decisions without any kind of consultation, I wonder why it is that those of us who do not know the communities or circumstances always want to fix that which is already working.
I ask the minister, Sir, to put a stop to this nonsense that is going on in Canada Post.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, as we look forward to the traditional break in the proceedings of the House, I hope all Canadians will reflect on the universal message of hope and peace that so many religions and cultures focus on at this time of the year.
It is important for us in our multicultural tradition to recognize that this is not only the season when some of
us who are Christian celebrate the resurrection and hope of Easter, but it is also the time when our Jewish friends celebrate the hope and freedom from persecution that is represented by the Passover.
Similarly, on Friday the Sikh community will be celebrating Baisakhi. We join with them as they share their traditions of individual equality, community sharing, and peace.
Our Moslem friends will soon be celebrating the end of Ramadan.
Whatever our religious or cultural tradition, this is certainly a time for new beginnings. I encourage all Canadians to share with each other the new hope and aspirations that they derive from their own cultural and religious backgrounds.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Vancouver harbour witnessed a collision between a bulk grain carrier and a fishing trawler that led to a 40,000 litre diesel fuel spill, the largest oil spill in some 17 years.
Hundreds of marine animals, including ducks, were killed by this spill. Many more were saved, thanks only to the dedicated volunteers from the Wildlife Rescue Association and members of the Environment Youth Corps.
This accident demonstrates clearly that we must implement a ban on tanker traffic in the inlet, such as the 105,000 dead weight tonne tanker that recently loaded crude oil at the Westridge Terminal in Burnaby, until there has been a full environmental impact assessment of the risks involved from tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet.
I join with Burnaby and Vancouver Councils in calling for this long overdue environmental risk assessment before we have an even bigger oil spill that could destroy our fishery, wildlife and have a devastating impact on the B.C. environment. We must act before it is too late.

April 11, 1990


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise the House of Commons of the sudden loss of 600 textile jobs in the city of Woodstock as a result of the closure announced yesterday of the two Harvey Woods plants which have been that city's largest employer for many years.
Due to problems unrelated to either local plant management or free trade with the United States, TAG Apparel Groups Incorporated of Mississauga went into receivership on February 28. We understand that the receiver has not seen fit to accept any offers which will allow the local plants to continue in operation.
While we acknowledge that the over-all economy of southwestern Ontario is not suffering, an island of unemployment of significant degree has developed, causing untold hardships and anxiety for countless workers and their families.
We look forward to any assistance that may be forthcoming from the federal Department of Employment and Immigration through its local Canada Manpower office, using appropriate components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
At the same time, however, we call upon the government to recognize islands of acute hardship by offering financial help to local small businesses, textile or otherwise, that might be able to expand and absorb many of the recently laid-off workers.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Passenger Transport in Canada announced that it would hold public hearings.
Yesterday I wrote to the chairman of the commission, Louis Hyndman, as follows: "Allow me to tell you that I find it inequitable, discriminatory and unfair that the commission will not go to the remote areas of Quebec, such as ours, and I feel that the commission has excluded northern Quebec."
However, I would like to tell you that the way rail transport in the Abitibi, with National Transportation
Agency Decision No. 45-R-1990; passenger transport by Via from Montreal to Senneterre and La Sarre; air transport, with the departure of Air Canada; highway transport, with the Trans-Canada 117 North; and marine transport on the coast of Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay is handled is instructive and says a lot about passenger transport in Canada.
The people of Abitibi-Temiscamingue cannot legislate their geography, but they have serious reasons, based on their past and present experience, to want to live decently in the future and to be able to attend hearings where they live.
Mr. Speaker, is it possible this commission is afraid to come to Abitibi and hear from northerners?


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I make the following statement.
History was made in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories last week. The N.W.T's six aboriginal languages have been recognized as official languages in the Northwest Territories.
Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, Gwich'in, Inuktitut and Slavey, as well as English and French, now have official status in the N.W.T.
The new N.W.T. Official Languages Act recognizes the presence of aboriginal peoples, centred in the N.W.T., but also present elsewhere in Canada, as a fundamental characteristic of Canada.
It also states that the existence of aboriginal peoples, speaking aboriginal languages, makes the N.W.T. a distinct society within Canada.
By recognizing the languages of its first peoples, the N.W.T. has provided important national leadership for all of Canada.
When we accommodate our differences with respect and goodwill, we contribute to the building of a nation which truly reflects its constituent peoples; a nation which is strong and secure in its diversity and confident about its future.

..
.
w-
*
:
.c

.
! % v .
V:
>4 :
April 11, 1990


LABOUR FORCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago today the Minister of Employment and Immigration tabled a Labour Force Development Strategy, the government's plan to ensure that Canadians have the best labour market adjustment programs in the world.
Building on the success of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the Labour Force Development Strategy promotes a thoroughly national effort to improve Canadians' skills and a means by which their full potential can be realized.
Although essential to our future, this strategy will not just happen. It cannot be without the passage of Bill C-21. Without Bill C-21 the strategy is an idle thing. With Bill C-21, it is a rational plan for the 1990s, an essential part of our future prosperity.
I urge all members of the House and those in the other place to support the passage of Bill C-21.


EASTERN EUROPE
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, the success of the recent elections in eastern Europe have shown that even those who have never been exposed to participatory democracy are still eager to exercise their aspirations and dreams in a peaceful and open way. The democratic movement, which began in Poland and Hungary and which has spread throughout Eastern Europe, will soon be joined by people in the Republic of Croatia.
On April 22 and 23, Croatians will be going to the polls to participate in their first multi-party elections in over 40 years. These elections will allow the more than 20 new political organizations, representing a wide variety of political expression, to compete directly with the Communist party.
It is important that western enthusiasm and support for political change in eastern Europe be also extended to the struggle of the many communities and peoples in Yugoslavia to throw off the chains of oppression and become full partners in the democratic political process.
I am confident that all members of the House will join me in welcoming these changes in the Croation Parlia-
Oral Questions
ment and wish them a peaceful and successful transition from a one-party state into a multi-party democracy.


NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WEEK
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, National Citizenship Week will be celebrated everywhere in Canada during the week of April 15 to April 21.
It is a wonderful opportunity for every Canadian in this country, young and less young, whether we live in the Atlantic provinces, central Canada, the great north or the western provinces, and whether we come from aboriginal, French, English, other new Canadian ancestry or combinations of such, to examine this great gift which has been given to us: our country Canada and our Canadian citizenship.
This is an appropriate time for each of us to stand up and to oppose vigorously all forms of racism and bigotry, and all statements and actions which denigrate any fellow Canadian.
During the last few months T-shirts, pins, calendars and reward posters with inappropriate and insensitive slogans, quite apart from linguistic statements and activities showing intolerance, in both Quebec and in other parts of Canada have contributed significantly to the weakening of the Canadian fabric, including our qualities of generosity and tolerance.
Let us stand up for Canada for what it has become as a country and what it can be: a leader among nations.

Let us all be proud of our country and work together to make it a symbol of tolerance and generosity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
At a time when the country is experiencing great tension and division, I think it is the role and duty of all members of the government without exception to make statements encouraging dialogue and understanding among all Canadians in all regions. Therefore I ask the

April 11, 1990
Oral Questions
Prime Minister to take the opportunity to explain the controversial statement made by his environment minister last Friday to the effect that Canada will have to choose between Newfoundland and Quebec. Can the Prime Minister explain this to us?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talked about those who make statements encouraging dialogue and tolerance in Canada. Quite obviously, he is not talking about the completely unacceptable statement made by his member from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte who yesterday caused an unacceptable situation by insulting and offending a member of this government and this House. But, knowing the parliamentary spirit of my friend from Newfoundland, I am told that he quickly retracted that disgraceful comment about a member of this House.
As for the comments made by the Minister of the Environment, this is the second or third time that the Leader of the Opposition has come with the same question. I told him the other day that the minister had indeed said that, but that he also said something else which, taken in context, could only lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Minister of the Environment favours national unity and the inclusion in this country of all provinces, be it Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador. I find it deplorable under such circumstances that, despite my specific answers to the Leader of the Opposition, he persists in raising this question so as to spread misunderstanding here in the House and throughout Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to stop acting like an agent of disunity, because that is not like him. I would ask him to stop making such statements that are offensive, inaccurate and insulting to all members of this House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the tone of the Prime Minister. I gave him an opportunity to speak for a united Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I gave him an opportunity to speak for a united Canada and he missed it. His answer to me was crass politics, and I would suggest I speak on behalf of all Canadians when I say that we must deplore the tone and gist of his response today.

On November 23, 1984 the Office of the Prime Minister sent a letter to all ministers and deputy ministers which said in part:
-Ministers, not only individually but collectively as Cabinet, will continue to be the primary spokespersons for the Government of Canada.
On Monday when I asked the Prime Minister about the statement of the Minister of the Environment that "we can now imagine a scenario where English Canada will have to choose between Quebec and Newfoundland", he replied to me in part by saying: "The Minister of the Environment also said nobody thinks Newfoundland should leave Confederation".
I ask the Prime Minister exactly what did the Minister of the Environment mean, speaking for himself and I presume for the government when he used the words: "We can now imagine a scenario where English Canada will have to choose between Quebec and Newfoundland".
I invite the Prime Minister, in a spirit of unity and reconciliation, to explain those words.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition urges me to speak for a united Canada. The Meech Lake Accord proposes a united Canada, at last. Will all Liberals support the Meech Lake Accord?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gauthier:: Yes!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier says yes, and I believe him because he has been a faithful supporter in all votes in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. He knows very well that, when the people of Quebec heard the promise of the Prime Minister of Canada in 1980, they knew a no vote meant renewed federalism. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier understood, as did all Quebecers, that it meant a Constitution including Quebec, not with Quebec on the sideline.
April 11, 1990


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is therefore comforting to see in the House of Commons French- and Englishspeaking Canadians of various origins who are here because they are Canadians, who come from different regions and who represent different provinces. But they are here in the House because they are all Canadians. I think it is unacceptable that the Leader of the Opposition should be making distinctions pertaining to the integrity of citizenship. We are all Canadians, all proud to be Canadians, and the Leader of the Opposition ought to refrain from spreading discord over major national issues.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would know that, both inside and outside the House, I have always advocated a united country where we are all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is why we supported the Prime Minister's own suggestion to strike a special committee to study the companions resolution of New Brunswick Premier McKenna. I am asking the Prime Minister why he is not prepared to say, in his name and on behalf of all his Cabinet colleagues, the same thing that the New Brunswick Premier said, that as far as he is concerned it is not a matter of choice between Quebec and Newfoundland and that he is prepared to choose Canada. Why can the Prime Minister not give the same answer here?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, surely the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting that he has the slightest doubt in his mind as to whether I and all my colleagues stand for a united Canada. Surely there can be no doubt in his mind about that.
Given what my hon. friend has mentioned, it is true that in 1980 when the question was put to Quebecers: "Do you support federalism, or do you support sovereignty association", almost 50 per cent of the French speaking voters of the province of Quebec voted on the yes side. They voted for sovereignty association. They lost in that referendum. The option was either to let them be on the outside forever as losers or to try to bring the population that had voted yes, namely voted against
Oral Questions
Canada, back into a generous and open-hearted Canadian family.
After the 1981-82 experience, the members and the leaders of all parties began the Meech Lake Accord. It is true that there are members who sit on this front bench who supported the yes side in the referendum, and I am proud to have them here as members of the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: What they did in 1984 and what they did in 1988 was to say: "While we did vote yes for sovereignty association, we believe that circumstances have changed and there is now a chance for a new and a better Canada. It is true that we French Canadians who voted against Canada want to be part of a new Canada".
That is why all members of this House virtually without exception supported the Meech Lake Accord, because it brought Canadians together and it made that 40 per cent of the vote, but 50 per cent of French speaking Quebecers, feel first-class citizens of Canada.
That is why the Meech Lake Accord was such an important national statement of unity. That is why it was so important that it was supported by all three major political parties. That is why I know that my hon. friend will salute the presence in this party and perhaps in others of people who may have voted in a different way, in different circumstances, but today are doing their very best to build a brand new Canada in which they can feel first-class citizens so that we can get on with building another kind of Canada into the next century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are looking for the Prime Minister's assurance that no matter where they are from in Canada they are also first-class Canadians.
My question is for the acting Minister of Finance. The government has cut off debate on the goods and services tax. It has embarked on a propaganda campaign trying to sell the goods and services tax to Canadians when it has not been fully passed by Parliament.
I would like to know whether the acting Minister of Finance will admit to Canadians that the only reason they are trying to ram through this goods and services tax

April 11, 1990
Oral Questions
in the way they are by January 1991 is because they think Canadians might be stupid enough to forget about it in time for the next election.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that not only the Auditor General, but the precedent-setting examples in this House, as well as an all-party resolution of the finance committee of this House of Commons, quite categorically concluded in a signed statement that any matters relating to the GST should "publicize the details of the new tax".
What we are doing is following normal procedures. We are making certain that Canadians are prepared in advance of the change from the regressive federal sales tax to the fairer GST. We are progressing along those lines for the benefit of Canadians, particularly the small business sector that has to prepare now for the transition from a bad tax to a much better tax.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
An inappropriate GST ad campaign cost Canadians $800,000 in 1989. Today, just 24 hours after the third reading of the GST bill, a new multi-million dollar propaganda blitz has commenced. This blitz circumvents the parliamentary process by prejudging the scope and implementation of the GST.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Jerry Pickard: Will the minister tell this House and Canadians that the government truly respects the parliamentary process by withdrawing this brainwash campaign and allowing the Senate to fulfil its parliamentary obligations?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the member read the story in The Ottawa Citizen today written by Deborah Dowling. I told Miss Dowling this morning that there is really nothing new in the story that she printed because in the finance committee of March 13 I pointed out to the all-party committee that in mid-April a pre-registration kit containing an information booklet and a volunteer pre-registration form will be mailed to some 2 million potential registrants explaining how to pre-register for the GST
and what assistance can be provided in preparation for the new tax.
I went on to say: "The sooner one registers the sooner one can prepare for the transition".
That is what we are doing and that is what I told the committee on March 13. We are doing it so that businesses can prepare in advance, as has been a tradition of the parliamentary system in this country and in other parliamentary systems, and as the Auditor General has pointed out time and time again. We must advise Canadians, particularly the business community, in a responsible way how best to adjust to this better tax.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday in Toronto we were told the Prime Minister and the President of the United States discussed talks about talks on an acid rain proposal. On the same day the International Joint Commission issued its report on the future of the Great Lakes, a report that was extremely critical of the lack of action by successive Canadian governments. We know that Canadians want action on the environment, not just more talk.
Will the Prime Minister accept the recommendations of the International Joint Commission to stop the flow of all toxic substances into the Great Lakes, and act now on that recommendation?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the concern expressed in the report addressed to both countries. As a matter of fact both countries are moving ahead together to address the issues raised in the report. For example, we have just announced in Canada a $125 million additional plan for the Great Lakes, providing for 42 remedial action plans, 17 of them in Canada.
We have also set up the basis of what will be The Green Plan in terms of regulating all industries discharging toxics into the Great Lakes. We have also set up a priority list of substances under CEPA, according to which we will assess, in priority, the toxicity of the main toxic substances discharged in the Great Lakes. We are doing what we can, which is a lot, but never enough, and
April 11, 1990

that is why The Green Plan will complete the work we are doing.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which the minister knows was signed, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and the recommendations of the international joint commission since 1972 have all raised the issue of the Great Lakes and whether there is really going to be a future for the Great Lakes. The minister in his discussion paper on the environment says we need more discussion.
Why more discussion, I ask the minister? We need some action. The International Joint Commission has made clear recommendations, and has said that the government has not acted in face of the evidence. What commitment does the minister give to act on the Great Lakes pollution now? He knows that $25 million a year will not be sufficient. What plan does he have for the Great Lakes?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, two years ago this government strengthened the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement providing for all the new measures I just mentioned. The Green Plan, the consultation document, proposes to build up the basis of the regulation process whereby we will regulate major industries such as metal mines and smelters, power-generating plants, hazardous waste facilities, textile factories, petroleum refineries, chemical pollution plants and steel plants. We will enact national standards under CEPA. This is very ambitious, very tough and I would like the Opposition to support us when the time comes to enact those measures.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed also to the Minister of the Environment. Now that negotiations have started again with the Americans on acid rain, it is finally possible to believe that progress will be made. Is the Government going at last to face up to its responsibilities? Will the Government make the funds available to implement an action plan concerning acid rain? Funds must be
Oral Questions

-available for implementing a program on acid rain. Is the government prepared to do this now?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we all know that one of the main reasons the United States has finally decided to adopt those measures and which are now before the U.S. Congress is that Canada showed leadership and set up a program aimed at reducing its own emissions by 50 per cent. We are all aware that at least $500 million have been spent on that program. I suggest we should be proud of our efforts. We must now make sure that in the other three provinces which are not involved in the reduction plan, we can control the emissions and implement an action plan to complete this whole effort. But we have achieved the essential, because we know, on the basis of scientific reports, that with the measures already implemented and which will be completed by 1994, 14,000 Canadian lakes which had died because of sulfur oxyde will live again. As Easter Sunday is approaching, I think we should be satisfied and congragulate one another for the progress already made concerning acid rain.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment knows very well that under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act only 44 chemicals out of 30,000 are to be dealt with. The Minister of the Environment also knows that while $125 million may sound like a large sum here, it is inadequate to deal with the problem.
Since the Commission raised a very crucial question yesterday with regard to the health of millions of Canadians and Americans, what are the new measures that the minister intends to put into place to deal with this emergency?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has mentioned the 44 substances priority list. It is important to put this into perspective because the figures can be distorted if they are not put into perspective. It means, in reality, that there is a regrouping of hundreds and hundreds of substances within those 44 priority substances. Those substances happen to be the main ones, the most toxic and dangerous ones. It means that when

April 11, 1990
Oral Questions
the process of assessment is over we will be in a position to enact a whole set of new regulations to control those very important sources of pollution.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is wrong in thinking that by controlling 44 chemicals he can deal with the problem outlined by the International Joint Commission.
The commission states that there is a threat to the health of our children emanating from our exposure to persistent toxic substances, even at a very low ambient level. Therefore, we want to know what are the immediate steps that the minister has in mind in order to cope with this emergency.


Lucien Bouchard: The commission's report makes two main points. First, it mentions that we have made progress, mainly with regard to the sewage treatment facilities and the elimination of DDT and high profile chemicals like PCBs.
The hon. member rightly states that we need to know much more in terms of research and regulations. All this will be addressed in The Green Plan, because the main part of The Green Plan will be devoted to science and technology. Then we will be able to address the issue raised by the report.
Second, as far as regulations are concerned, The Green Plan is proposing a whole set of regulations. I think that we have whatever we need to address those main issues.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance).
Once again the Governor of the Bank of Canada hits hard the average Canadian and small business by increasing interest rates. Will the government stop this policy of high interest rates, and help small business progress instead of helping small business to go bankrupt?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows full well that there are various ways of lowering the interest rates.


Mr. Fontana:: Try one.


Gilles Loiselle: We could do it by pressing a button to bring them down. We would see them go up again. There are, within our economy, very strong inflationary pressures. There is great danger that if our policies are not handled properly, we could end up in a situation which the Liberals should know very well, because they put us in that particular situation in the early 1980s.
We are in a difficult situation. We are dealing with both fiscally and economically. We will continue to do that until such time as the pressures diminish and we can bring down interest rates in a way that they will stay down.


M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister should listen to the Cornell du Patronat du Quebec which is precisely recommending that the interest rates be immediately lowered. In the last Budget, the Minister of Finance forecasted a rate of 11.1 per cent for 1990. Since each time the interest rate increases by one point the deficit increases by $1.7 billion, why does the government persist in increasing the deficit and the national debt? Would it not be better to lower the interest rate so as to reduce the deficit and the national debt?


Gilles Loiselle: course it would, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member came close to giving away the answer in his question. It is obvious that we do not like high interest rates any more than he does and that we are monitoring that situation closely because we want to act responsibly. We have also done that in our Budget by cutting our expenditures so that the fiscal policy could make some capital available. But for the time being, for a little longer than what was initially planned, there are still pressures on the economy. Canadians have kept buying more than we had expected. So, we have to keep trying to contain those pressures because a reduction in the interests rates may be desirable, but it must be brought about in a responsible manner. There are not fifty ways to go about it and
April 11, 1990

there is no easy way. We fully support the policy according to which interest rates should be reduced in a responsible manner and for good.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of British Columbia announced plans to log the upper half of the Carmanah Valley.
As the Minister of the Environment knows, the all-party Standing Committee on Environment unanimously calls for the accurate and complete inventory of old growth forests on Vancouver Island, including Carmanah, and that is a legal responsibility of the federal government.
Since permanent publicly supportable decisions can only be made when the facts are put on the table, and since the B.C. government has purposely withheld the real facts on both inventory and the impact of logging in Carmanah, will the minister arrange for the completion of such an inventory and a complete impact assessment so that Carmanah and other Vancouver Island watersheds can be protected?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has noted, the decision calls first for the establishment of a park to protect the giant trees in the upper part of the valley. For this we are pleased, of course, but it also mentions that there could be logging in the other part of the valley.
The decision says that this will be done provided studies are conducted to authorize the logging. We are concerned with the other part of the decision. We should be vigilant to make sure the conclusion of the studies justifies the logging of trees. If it is not possible to log any trees there without endangering the other part of the park, then we must be very vigilant.
In terms of assessment, I have asked my department to look into the possibility of being involved. I am waiting for a report to know what the federal jurisdiction is.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of the Environment. He is aware that the Government of British Columbia has admitted that the necessary studies to determine whether or not logging in the upper half of the valley
Oral Questions
would have a negative consequence on the giant spruce at the bottom of the valley have simply not been done.
During this past 18 months, while Canadians have waited for the announcement of a decision on the Carmanah Valley, the studies have not been done. I think it is clear that Canadians expect proper environmental impact studies to be done before, not after projects.
Would the minister, who has spoken positively about the Carmanah in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada, take this opportunity to lay to rest the issue of conflict in British Columbia and announce that the necessary studies will be done now, not once logging begins?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has offered to the B.C. government to participate in the cost and operation of the study for that part of the valley. We have not received a positive answer as yet.
That is why I have asked my department to look into what the federal jurisdiction is to determine if we have ways to step in and participate in the process. When I have an answer, I will be able to report to the House.


COMPETITION BUREAU
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday we learned that the Quebec Superior Court ruled that the Competition Bureau was unconstitutional. This has the potential of rendering the Competition Bureau completely impotent. When you add this to the questions that the Canadian consumers and the business community have regarding the whole competition process, this is a great concern.
Will the government be appealing this ruling? In the interim, will the government be implementing and abiding by the rulings already made by the Competition Tribunal on this matter? If not, there is going to be a tremendous amount of chaos in the competition area.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the seriousness with which the hon. member has approached this question. On behalf of the minister, who is out of the House on government business, let me say that the government is taking this judgment very seriously, along with the Department of Justice. Departments are evaluating the implications as to what course of action will come from

April 11, 1990
Oral Questions
that. Obviously the government will have to look at it at that time. It would not be appropriate for me to say anything further.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the Minister of Energy, mergers and applications are not going to stop. In fact, they could accelerate because of the chaos that now exists.
Are the rulings that the tribunal has already made going to be implemented and abided by? There are questions dealing with Texaco and Imperial for which we must have answers. Will further questions be referred to the tribunal, or is the director of the Competition Bureau going to be the final judge on these matters? Is the government not going to deal with any of these questions at all? The government should be prepared to tell us right now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's attempt to elicit an answer from me, but he will also understand that the reasons I gave him in my first answer stand. That is obviously now on the record. I am sure the appropriate ministers are going to look at the representations he has made and will report in due course.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week, the Minister for International Trade told the House that he and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would be going to Brussels and Ireland for meetings dealing with the foreign overfishing off Newfoundland.
Can the minister tell us now if the meetings took place and with what results? In particular, did the ministers of trade and fisheries indicate to the European Economic Community that, if necessary, Canada would be prepared to follow the Harris recommendation and take
unilateral action to see that the straggling fish stocks are properly protected?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. My colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister for International Trade, had very useful discussions both with the Irish ministers who are in the chair of the Community Council on Fisheries and with Mr. Marin who is the Commissioner for the European Community on fisheries matters.
It was helpful to their presentation that the Harris report had been published, because that added authority to the Canadian claims with regard to the problems of stocks.
Discussions are continuing, but I think it is fair to say that the discussions which occurred last week were among the most positive we have had with the Community and with its member nations. In the circumstances, we did not think it was wise for Canada to take actions which would appear to be actions of unilateral threat because we think we are making progress in the discussions. That has not yet been achieved, but I can report to the House that we had more effective meetings than have been the custom in dealings with the Community and we intend to have more regular meetings frequently.
I should also make the point that in addition to those meetings involving the ministers directly involved, the Prime Minister has been very actively involved in these questions, including having pressures brought to bear upon the leaders of the member countries of the Community.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister and, while he is in such a forthcoming mood, maybe he could also indicate to us the answer to another question.
He will know that since last October, I and others have been raising the question of a fisheries aid package for plant workers and fishermen who are devastated by the current situation. He will know that during the last two weeks, his colleagues, the Minister for International Trade from St. John's West and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, have both been making the appropriate noises in the press that the announcement is imminent.
April 11, 1990

Can he tell us when the government is going to stop what amounts to a fairly cruel joke on the fishermen and plant workers who have been waiting much too long for this? Can he tell us if the package is ready or when it will be ready? Is it not true that it is sitting there just waiting for the return of the Minister for International Trade so he can get his picture in the paper and have his photo opportunity? Is that all that is hanging it up at the moment?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister for International Trade have been doing is engaging in consultations with leaders of the fishing industry, the unions, and the provincial governments that are involved to ensure that when we bring forward a package, which we hope to do fairly shortly, it will not only be an effective federal response, but it will be a position that is able to take advantage of the real interests and the jurisdictions of provincial governments which are interested in the matter.
While I am in such a forthcoming mood, Mr. Speaker, perhaps in relation to a question that was put to me by the member for Gander-Grand Falls the other day, I could quote from a letter I received from Mr. Bill Berry, the president of a-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: -fishing company in Newfoundland, who said: "Last night I caught your response on Soviet fishing-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: "-in Canadian waters in the House of Commons. We are a Newfoundland company doing large business with the East Bloc, especially the U.S.S.R. They are good business partners. I am-"


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister could send a copy of the letter across the aisle.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who said the details of the $1 billion worth of direct farm aid to grain producers in Canada would be available before Easter.
Oral Questions
Since this is the last opportunity to inform the House, can the minister give details of the program so that farmers and bankers can know specifically how the payment will be made, what it will be based on, when the cheques can be received at the farm, and approximately what each farmer will receive?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows the federal government announced its intention to provide assistance to meet the shortfall in income that has been experienced by farmers in the projected year 1990. We are engaged in discussions with the provinces at the present time. I personally met with the premier of the province of Saskatchewan. They are looking at some proposals. We have had discussions as well with the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba at the officials level. We consider this to be a very top priority.
I say to the hon. member from Nova Scotia, she will be pleased to know that meetings are either taking place today or tomorrow with respect to the fur industry on behalf of which she has made many representations, and I thank her for that. I can advise the hon. member that this is a top priority. We are working very hard on developing packages that will be adaptable to each of the respective provinces to meet that multi-dimensional need.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since the purpose of this program is to offset programs being offered by the Americans and the Europeans, who make their support programs available through their central governments, why did this government decide to shift the focus on to the provinces instead of directly approaching the problem and providing assistance directly to farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting that we should have provided $140 million such as the United States has provided in the current EEP program, the Export Enhancement Program, I would certainly take that as a representation. But we thought that the need was far more serious than that and we have offered up $500 million.

April 11, 1990
Oral Questions


TRANSPORTATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, ray question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, the Royal Commission on Passenger Transport in Canada issued its schedule of hearings in Canada. To our surprise and dismay, people in the Abitibi, Temiscamin-gue and Northern Quebec areas have once more been ignored.
Can the minister confirm in this House that the Commission will review its position and hold hearings in those remote areas for the purpose of listening to the people in the Abitibi, Temiscamingue and Northern Quebec areas on transportation matters?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, royal commissions of inquiry operate at arm's length. The government does not give them instructions. I would suggest to the hon. member that he take this opportunity to make his views known to the commission directly.


TREASURY BOARD
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. A report issued this week by Statistics Canada shows that, while the government was laying off employees in important areas such as air safety, food inspection, energy conservation and environmental research, it was hiring an army of tax promoters and collectors. Why is this government downsizing important areas of the Public Service, while hiring thousands of tax collectors ready to pick the last cents from the pockets of Canadians?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, let me set the hon. member for Ottawa West straight. The statistics published by Statistics Canada include all public servants in agencies and departments throughout the government. This is also a statistical population where Statistics Canada uses spot sampling. Those statistics are quite different from those we collect on person-years, which are controlled by the government employer, namely the President of the Treasury Board. Person-years, which are under the direct control of the employer, have indeed come down, as announced by the Hon. Minister of Finance in his
Budget. And all this without affecting in any way the safety and well-being of Canadians, Mr. Speaker.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not like Statistics Canada's figures, perhaps he would do his own accounting to the Canadian public on the cost of contracting out new hirings and old hirings.
Will the minister admit that he has been conning Canadians, that he has slashed services and turned the lives of 25,000 public servants upside down with no gain to the taxpayers?


ROBERT VAIVE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise hon. members that today is the last day at the table for one of our newest Table Officers, Mr. Robert Vaive.

Mr. Vaive began his career in the House in 1976 as a procedural clerk and since 1987 he has been acting as Deputy Principal Clerk in the Committees Directorate and the Table Research Branch.

He was recently appointed Deputy Clerk of the Saskatchewan Legislature and will be leaving soon to take up his new duties.
I am sure the House will want to join with me in wishing you, sir, all the very best in Regina. Come back and see us whenever you can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: While I have the attention of the House, please join me for refreshments in Room 216-N after the House rises today to celebrate the adjournment.
I wish all of you a very happy and wonderful Easter holiday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have a notice of a question of privilege. I will hear the hon. member now.
April 11, 1990


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because I believe a prima facie case of contempt of the House can be and must be made against the hon. member for Scarborough-Agincourt. If you so find, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the necessary motion.
All members were subjected to a contempt yesterday, and I mean contempt as described in our authority, Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, when two visitors to a gallery here, vouched for by a card signed to the Sergeant-at-Arms by the hon. member, disrupted proceedings and threw objects onto members in their places. I understand that has been confirmed by the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as evidence from talking with other people that would confirm that as well.
I refer you, Sir, and remind all members that one of the 13 categories which Maingot sets out as "acts or conduct constituting breach of privilege or contempt" is stated very clearly at page 203 of the 1982 edition. He said:
All kinds of misconduct in the presence of the House or of a committee may be treated as contempts on the ground that they partake of an affront to the dignity of the House.
Then he is more specific when he states:
Misconduct or misbehaviour in the traditional sense would include acts that disrupt or have a tendency to disrupt or interrupt the House or committees by such acts as shouting, throwing objects, waving placards.
As I said, Sir, at least two of these three things happened here yesterday, done by, among others, guests signed for by the hon. member.
The question, which I think is one of natural justice, to ask next is one which, of course, only the member can answer: Did he have any knowledge that these guests intended to so behave, when he signed for them? I submit that the already broadcast testimony of one of them-which made it clear he did not come here from a distance to observe but, rather, to make a last desperate and disruptive display of opposition to what the House was doing-indicates the hon. member owes the House at least an explanation, then an apology and, as I ask for,
Privilege
an appearance at the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I conclude by asserting that the House cannot do its work, or maintain essential dignity, if what we call "strangers" disrupt proceedings in an abusive way. In such cases, there is both a prima facie breach of privilege and a prima facie contempt. In this case the responsibility must lie with the hon. member whom I have indicated.
If the House does not, or is not given the opportunity, to assert itself on this principle which has now been called into question, then we have all failed to take appropriate steps to assert and protect our privileges. I do not relish the future and the consequences in such an event.
This House would get disreputable treatment which it had deserved, which it had tolerated before and which it had authorized by its own inaction in the present case.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we were all very upset yesterday. We all deplore incidents such as disorder in the House, with people throwing things to the floor of the House.
After the incident which took place in the opposition west gallery, I immediately asked the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms for a report on the incident as to how the people got into the gallery and who had authorized their entrance.
The Sergeant-at-Arms came to my office at about 5.30 p.m. and showed me the admission passes which were stamped with the name of the member of Scarborough- Agincourt, J. Karygiannis, MR
As Whip, I proceeded then to call the member of this caucus and asked him, first, if he had knowledge that these people were in the gallery. He said yes. I asked then if he had been aware that they were going to demonstrate. He said no.
I take the man to be an honourable person and therefore I believe that he had no knowledge that these people were going to cause a disturbance.
If we are to send something to a committee we must have a prima facie case before us. We must have evidence that damage or disorder was planned. In this case I think it would be unfair at this time, given the member's statement to me, to send such a matter to a committee of this House for examination.

April 11, 1990
Privilege
I also ask the House to give the member, whose reputation and possibly actions are being placed into doubt by some members of this House, a chance to defend himself in this House at an appropriate time. He is not here today.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you reserve on your judgment until the member has had a chance to explain to the House what happened that day. I think that would be a fair way to proceed.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene briefly in this matter.
At the outset, I want to echo the words of the Opposition House Leader in saying that we all deplore what happened in the gallery yesterday. This House is not a place for that kind of activity. We regret that some of the other spectators in the gallery were perhaps not only inconvenienced but in danger during the course of those events.
I believe it is appropriate for us to wait until the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is in the House in order that he may rise in his place to offer his own defence to the suggestion or allegation that he knowingly permitted such an event to occur.
I would, however, suggest that there is a broader issue here. Members of both the government and the opposition have the privilege of having their guests seated in special galleries. The procedures of the House and the procedures of security allow us to have our guests escorted by security people. They need not go through the metal detector. They need not go through the screening that is required of those individuals who sit in the public galleries. We might wish to examine that as a part of a broader issue.
My final point, which may be considered as a separate intervention, is that members of the government, particularly those who sit opposite the New Democratic Party benches, by actions and words last night, although not recorded in Hansard, clearly impugned the motives of members of this side of the House. I am told by other members, in particular the member for Skeena, that members of the Conservative caucus approached him and suggested that he was responsible for that occurrence.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member would accept the Chair's suggestion that if there is another issue, and there may well be, that it ought to be raised at another time.
However, we have a very specific difficulty in front of the House. I have listened very carefully to the hon. parliamentary secretary who has given us a statement of facts with which I think all hon. members are in agreement.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has put forward a qualification that the member who may or may not have been implicated in this matter is not here. At the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier this matter should at least be adjourned until our colleague can come into the House. I noticed that that suggestion met with very marked approval on both sides of the House.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan raises some matters which I think are of very acute concern to this House and to the Speaker with respect to security. I think that that might well be looked into at some appropriate time, depending on how I may ultimately rule.
The hon. member is making another point. I know that the hon. member will go along with the Speaker in resting that point, at least for the moment. He may want to raise it as a separate point at another time.
The hon. House Leader for the government wishes to rise, and I would be most prepared to hear him.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say very quickly that I concur with the recommendation of the House leader of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, that in fact until the hon. member has an opportunity to make his statement in the House we should forgo any judgment as to evidence.
I would also underline as you did, Sir, in your comments, that this reminds us of security questions because what was paper could well have been something else by virtue of the fact that we as members have the privilege of bypassing the metal detectors and other security measures for the general public when we bring in or allow guests to come in under our passes. That is something that may well have to be re-examined in view of the circumstances.
April 11, 1990


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the procedure of this matter in that the matter was raised perhaps without the member himself being forewarned or even asked about it before it was raised.
We have here a situation of procedure in which we are not asking about the member's behaviour but about the consequences of someone else's behaviour. We may, as a result of this procedure, be leaving an impression, perhaps over a number of hours, that the member had some knowledge of it, when it is a third person who has taken the action that we are talking about.
I am concerned about the procedure. Is it proper to raise this matter without having forewarned the member concerned that the matter was going to be raised and giving that member a chance to speak to it before it was raised? What we leave is an impression that the member knew about it. I think that procedure is threatening to every single member.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise a quick point.
The government House leader and the Whip for our party have both raised a concern about the metal detectors. I must say that I have some concern, which I know is shared by some of my colleagues in this corner of the House, at this matter being raised publicly in this way at this time;
Therefore it seems to me it is important that a decision be made quickly as to what is going to happen in response to it. TTie country now knows of our security arrangements here and the possible loopholes in it. I would urge the government and yourself, Sir, to deal with this matter promptly.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa-Van-ier. I think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has a very good point about a third party being involved.
With respect to the issue of security, I thought we had a Management and Members' Services Committee and a board of "eternal" economy. I still get irritated by the fact that I think both of those committees have more cobwebs around their ears than the House of Commons, in many ways.
Privilege
Be that as it may, I do take exception-and I most likely stand alone on this business-to the mention of members taking their own guests quickly to the gallery and not going through the metal detectors. That is the way it happens. A member does not send a guest for whom he has signed who can avoid the metal detector. The member has to take him personally.
With all the rules that are coming down internally around this place, hon. members are becoming less honourable because they cannot take their constituents with whom they are physically into the gallery quickly when sometimes time is of the essence.
Quite frankly, as the one little perk left around this place, I would like the Board of Internal Economy or the Management and Members' Services Committee to look at this question, not because of the problem of getting around security in the absence of a member, but to make sure that when the member is with a guest that that member takes the guest to wherever he wants to go, thereby taking responsibility for the actions of that guest. That is the key.
This business of muddying the waters with security and/or metal detectors in the absence of members is really, with respect, a red herring. My God, if we are hon. members, surely we can look after our own guests in our own gallery, when they come to this place.
I would not want the knee-jerk reaction of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, who is obviously and quite properly worried about security, to start to muddy the waters about who I take into the gallery. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, and you used to be a member yourself-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mr. Nowlan -you get long line-ups-


An Hon. Member:: What do you mean by "used to be"?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Now you are more than the first of equals.
If it applies to us, dear Sir, then you will have to take your guest from Room 16, where you have had your little lunch, and put them through the lie detector to come to sit in the Speaker's gallery, if you are going to do this thing holus-bolus.


Some Hon. Members:: Lie detector?

April 11, 1990
Privilege


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: So, beware, otherwise I will be raising another point of privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I notice the hon. government House leader is suggesting I should look around for someone to speak on my behalf, but I will let it go for the moment.
I noticed that the Board of Internal Economy was referred to as the board of "eternal" economy. That is something for which some citizens would very much compliment us for.
The incident that happened is not amusing. I think that especially for the public watching this particular exchange it does little credit to anybody in this country to use whatever subterfuge they can to come into this place, which is symbolic of our democracies, our freedoms and our liberties, and abuse them.
The incident that happened, so far as the person involved in this incident is concerned, is of course absolutely inexcusable. It was not brave. It was cowardly and sneaky. It goes against everything we believe in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has raised an absolutely legitimate point, and it was commented upon further by the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Juan de Fuca.
With respect to procedure, the fact of the matter is that under our rules, if it is a question of privilege or contempt of the House, there is an obligation that it be raised at the first opportunity. The hon. parliamentary secretary has followed that. However, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who has been very frank with us all has made a suggestion, which has been especially confirmed now by the hon. House leader of the government, that this matter should be stood down until the hon. member whose passes apparently were used has a chance to speak to the Chamber.
I am very conscious of the fact that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier as House leader of the Official Opposition had contacted the hon. member. He has stood up in this House and said that the hon. member said that he did not know that this was going to happen.
That is there in front of us, but I think it is appropriate that we invite our colleague to address us further in the matter.
Again, I say, because ultimately I am responsible for the security in this place, that I am deeply disturbed that this could happen.
I say to any other Canadians who think it is smart to pull a stunt like this, that while they break the law they abuse their privileges. If they are ever in trouble, they will be calling on all of us to protect them very rapidly.


DISTURBANCE IN GALLERIES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, we have appreciated your words, as usual.
I am hesitant to raise a related matter first raised by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, but I feel I must.
Yesterday, immediately following the incident, a number of members opposite, some of whom are here today, accused members of the New Democratic Party, as we were leaving, of having orchestrated this event. That occurred when I left the Chamber, and it apparently went on with others. Others brought to my attention this morning that as early as this morning they were being accosted, again, by a number of members from the government side who were accusing our party of being a party to this organized demonstration.
I do not raise this as a question of privilege. I do not even know if it is a point of order, quite frankly.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was very offending to all of us to be accused of doing something that we feel so strongly about in a most negative way.
I do not know if it would be appropriate for the government House leader to say something at this time. I do not want to make a big issue out of this. It is not worthy of that.
But, as I say, our party members were certainly offended. We would just as soon drop the whole matter, but I would expect some comments.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I cannot comment on whether individual members may have accused individual members of the New Democratic Party of being party to this incident.
April 11, 1990

On behalf of my party let me say there is no such accusation. At the time we did not know what happened. In fact I met my colleague, the House leader of the Liberal Party, in the middle of the floor as he was approaching the Clerk to find out what was going on.
I might say this, and I do not want to start an argument, the hon. member will recall that during that vote his members all had placards in contravention of the privilege-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What do you mean by placards?


Mr. McDermid:: Props.


Harvie Andre: If he reads the intervention of my friend, the member for Peace River, in terms of what constitutes disorder in the House, he will see that props and so on are mentioned in that.
It was not that big a deal. We did not raise a question of privilege on that or comment on it, but one can understand that in the heat of the moment on a very vital issue, when his members stood up with props, that invites the accusation that perhaps they were doing other things as well.
If it has offended, I say on behalf of my party, without qualification, we apologize if there were any intentions of blaming the hon. member for that demonstration.


John F. Brewin: You're a total jerk, Andre.


Harvie Andre: I just ask him to understand what might have motivated some of our members to think that way.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that properly ends the matter.
The hon. House leader of the government has made an absolutely clear statement that in no respect whatsoever is it the position of the government that the New Democratic Party was in any way involved in that altercation. I think that ends the matter.
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, today, Wednesday, April 11, the House will adjourn later this afternoon. I wonder whether the Government House Leader would be prepared to tell hon. members what the legislative program will be when we return on April 23 so that they can prepare for the debate on it.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention, when we return on Monday, April 23, to call Bill C-69, the expenditures reduction bill and to continue with that on Tuesday, April 24. I will be in discussions with my colleagues in terms of future business.
I might have been inclined to bring forward a message in terms of Bill C-21 for the Senate, but I understand it has gone on vacation until some time in May.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There is a rule about saying uncomplimentary things about the other place. I do not know whether that fits or not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but rise to the bait here.
I just wonder if the House leader is telling us that he will bring a message in before you, Sir, rule on the point of order before the House. We think we should wait for the Speaker to rule on the point before the minister brings in a message.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to keep us out of Room 216 too long.
No, that is not my intention, but perhaps the Chair could offer some advice, as suggested by one of my colleagues, about how one says something uncomplimentary about the other place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: I think we probably better close off this exchange which apparently I started. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for my hon. friend. He referred to the other place as being on vacation. Would the minister explain how it is possible to be on a vacation from a vacation?


Mr. Speaker:: I am glad I do not have to reserve on that question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 98 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Western Economic Diversification and the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, two copies, in both official languages, of the annual report on the administration of the Small Business Loans Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989.
If I may, I would like to add my sincere appreciation to all members of the House and to hon. senators in the other place for the speedy passage given to Bill C-56, which extends for three more years the Small Business Loans Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Harvie Andre: It is a great
pleasure for me to table in the House today, in both official languages, the Orders in Council announcing appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these orders are deemed to have been referred to the standing committees named in the appendix.



HOUSING


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, last October I had the pleasure of announcing the release for development of a second parcel of surplus federal land in the Toronto area, in an effort to address the imbalance between the supply of suitable building sites and the demand for new housing in that area.
Our commitment with both the Downsview lands and the Vaughan site is to created fully integrated communities with a broad range of incomes and to ensure by providing a mix of housing forms and types that at least 25 per cent of the 7,500 new homes would be affordable.

Today, I am pleased to announce to the House the implementation by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian agency responsible for housing development, of two new projects which will contribute to alleviate further the shortage of affordable housing both in Toronto and Vancouver. The significance of these two inititiatives lies not only in the number of housing units involved, but in the leadership they provide to others.

In the Kitsilano community of Vancouver, CMHC presently owns and operates two housing projects comprising 349 units on 16 sites-the Vancouver Terraces and Broadway Apartments. The buildings are in need of upgrading and no longer meet the changing needs of their aging occupants. Redevelopment is essential but at the same time the very word "redevelopment" has negative implications for many people. Our approach will hopefully become a model for other residential property owners.
April 11, 1990

A week ago last Friday in Vancouver, I announced the start of an in-depth and comprehensive consultation in which the residents and neighbours will be fully involved. We will endeavour to show that it is possible to plan redevelopment in a manner which is consistent with local views and which is truly sensitive to the needs of those affected.
A week ago yesterday in Toronto, I announced the details of our plans to redevelop the lands where the CMHC Toronto branch office has been located since the 1950s so as to create an additional 150 dwellings.
In Toronto and in Vancouver we are demonstrating that it is possible to make better use of our resources. In both cases the land was originally developed many years ago at very low densities and the surrounding areas now feature higher densities. It is our expectation that these initiatives will be completely self-financing and could in fact result in some return on the government's investment.
In Vancouver, we are showing how redevelopment can occur in complete sympathy with the neighbourhood, and in Toronto we will be showing the potential for public-private partnerships as we call for proposals from industry to participate with us in the redevelopment of the lands.

In Canada, we continue to be seriously concerned about the problem of affordable housing, especially in such demand driven markets as Toronto and Vancouver. Alone, the Federal Government lacks the land resources necessary to deal with the problem. However, we are looking quite closely at all the possibilities open to us to utilize our land resources to the maximum.

Recognizing that we need a concentrated effort to deal with the situation in demand driven markets, I have called upon representatives of the provincial and municipal governments to join with us in local committees to co-ordinate our efforts in addressing the concerns of affordable housing. These committees are already working on this challenge in many of the urban areas of our country, including Toronto and Vancouver.
Routine Proceedings
As well, the federal government is sponsoring a four-year program aimed at improving housing affordability and choice. That is called ACT, for Affordability and Choice Today. This program, jointly managed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Home Builders and the Canadian Housing and Renewal Associations, will provide funding to eliminate barriers to new solutions to housing needs and to reduce the costly delays in obtaining development approvals.
Because we cannot resolve housing affordability concerns alone, we have acted to build co-operation with other levels of government and private industry. We need to tear down the road blocks to the solutions and set the right examples. I believe that our recent undertakings, particularly in Vancouver and Toronto, are important steps in this direction.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, it is an indication of just how little the government has done in the field of affordable housing that the announcement that the minister has just made constitutes a major initiative for the government.

Madam Speaker, this is an indication of the poor performance of this government in the region of housing which it just announced as a major initiative.

I would applaud the government for its announcement that it is now prepared to co-operate with municipalities and the private sector in order to develop some kind of an effort in the field of affordable housing.
Unfortunately all we have heard from the government since this minister was appointed, and indeed since the government took power, has been rhetoric and very little action. Despite the promises and grand statements, as the minister repeated for the umpteenth time his initiative in the case of Downsview and Vaughan, there is no construction and there is no initiative. How many more times is the minister going to make the same announcement without some action on his part?
There are thousands of people in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and right across the country who are demanding social housing, co-operative housing, and subsidized

April 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
housing. Nonetheless, the lists of the homeless and those needing shelter continue to rise.

Madam Speaker, this Government has not really cut all the funds earmarked for housing. The lists of the homeless continue to grow. The Government still continues to ignore that fact.

There are over 1.2 million people in the country who have to devote more than 30 per cent of their revenue to lodging. That is simply unacceptable in a country as rich and prosperous as this one. The government has cut the programs for renovation, which has severely cut a number of the lowest income people in the country away from the possibility of having any kind of decent housing in which to live.
We are living through a crisis. The government is simply not responding. Yet, municipality after municipality, provincial government after provincial government across the country, cry out for national leadership and they are not getting it. Mayor Eggleton has called for a national conference on homelessness. There has been no decent response from the government. Indeed, the initiatives being taken by Mayor Eggleton are ones that should be taken by this minister and the government.
Some 20 per cent of the children of the country live in poverty. The root cause of poverty is homelessness. I ask you, Madam Speaker: what kind of a government would talk about co-operation with the private sector and non-profit organizations and yet would continue, time after time, to withdraw the funds that previous government have made available?
Leadership is more than a question of simple rhetoric and inane announcements. Leadership is action. We have seen none of it. When is the government going to begin to put money into subsidized housing, non-profit housing, and co-operative housing? When is the government going to face up to its responsibilities?
When are the government and this minister going to stop crowing about the fact that it has contributed $340 million back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, while hundreds of thousands of Canadians are homeless? There are 250,000 homeless Canadians, 80,000 homeless children in the country, and the only major announcement the government can make is that in the last five years it has given back $340 million of the money that ought to have been allocated to housing to the Consolidated Revenue Fund to make corporate grants. This is simply unacceptable.
Homelessness is the root cause of poverty. We all know that. The government has an opportunity to take a leadership role. We see an interim ministry in a caretaker government, and it is really more in sorrow than in anger that I stand here. I applaud this announcement by the minister. It is unfortunately the crumbs of an overfilled table. Canadian people have the right to expect more.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I have been in the House now for about 18 months, the same length of time the hon. minister has been Minister of State for Housing. I have watched a crisis in affordable housing develop into a chronic problem that now affects at least 30 per cent to 40 per cent of Canadians who are living poverty. They are either being driven into poverty by the high cost of housing, or because of poverty they are unable to afford adequate housing.
This was a recycled announcement. All three of these announcements have been made by the minister before. In this time of environmental consciousness it is nice to recycle things, but I really think that the Canadian public and those in difficulty in housing need more than simply recycled press announcements.
All of those announcements are totally hollow. The government has not announced anything that any other large developer in this country would be forced to do. In Toronto, they would be forced by provincial legislation to provide 25 per cent affordable housing, which is what they are going to provide. Their definition of affordable housing is $175,000 a unit. That is not affordable to the vast majority of Canadians.
In Vancouver it is the same thing. They are going to sell off part of their land in order to redevelop, increasing the density. They must get the permission of the residents, the neighbourhood and city council, the same as any other developer would have to do in Vancouver. They are doing nothing more than what is having to be done by Li Ka-shing on the Expo lands.
April 11, 1990

Yes, the minister has confirmed that the government thinks like a corporation. We are going to get a return on investment. The government is going to make a profit on trying to provide housing to people. They have not in any way committed any government money to alleviating the problem of affordability.
When I was told this morning that the minister was going to make an announcement, I sat down and made a little list of things I thought he was going to announce that I could stand up in this House and congratulate him on.
First, I thought he was going to make some announcement on dealing with the high interest rate that is killing the housing industry. There was nothing there.
Then I thought he was going to announce a restoration of moneys cut back from social housing. There was nothing there.
Then I thought, for goodness sake, at least he is going to announce that they are going to restore the 5,000 units a year committed in 1985 to co-operative housing. There was nothing there.
Then I thought he was going to announce the restoration of the RRAP, but there was nothing there.
I thought he was going to guarantee that the urban native housing program was going to build at least 1,000 units this year. There was nothing there.
Then I thought maybe he was going to announce his pet, that they were going to bring in a speculator's tax. There was nothing there. The government now says it cannot do it, but I can show it how. The same way as the government developed the clawback on senior's pensions, it can develop a clawback for developers and land flippers.
I thought certainly he must be going to announce that the government was going to provide money to municipal governments for infrastructure of sewers, roads, and sidewalks in order to allow for development, but nothing there.
Then I thought at least he was going to say the government is going to deal, not with the people who have housing that is inadequate or unaffordable but with the homeless. In fact there was nothing there.
I sit and wonder why there was a minister's statement. In his statement he says that one of the significances of
Routine Proceedings
these two initiatives lies not only in the number of dwelling units involved but in the example that they provide for others.
The example the government has provided since this member has been minister has been retreat and abandonment of its obligation to ensure housing for Canadians.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Erie and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the Caribbean Parliamentary Seminar in Barbados and Dominica from February 23 to March 5, 1990.



BILL C-57 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-57, an act to provide for the protection of integrated circuit topographies and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, with amendments.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.}



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, on June 25, 1986, the then Minister of Justice, the hon. member for St. John's West, announced a series of amendments to the Criminal Code setting out new procedures for dealing with mentally disordered persons. To date nothing has been done.
This bill is merely the draft legislation then put forward by the Minister of Justice. I am proposing it to the House as a private member's bill today so that discussion can go forward in the House and across the country and, perhaps, by putting this item on the Order Paper we will be able to get the government to act more speedily in this important matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

['Agreed.']
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the three parties and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following two motions. I will put them one at a time. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development be authorized to travel to Halifax, St. John's, Charlottetown and Moncton from April 29 to May 4, 1990; and to Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary, Vancouver and Yellowknife from May 27 to June 2, 1990, in relation to its study of a science and technology strategy, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the House give consent for the Parliamentary Secretary to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, we have also had discussions on this motion and you should find unanimous consent for it as well. I move:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel to Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, East Berlin, West Berlin and Bonn for the period April 19 to May 7, 1990, for the purpose of continuing its examination of Canada's changing role in east-west relations; and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe there is disposition in the House that when I move the following motion, it will be carried without debate:
That the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, tabled March 19, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
April 11, 1990


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier rises on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Because I had to leave the House for a few moments, Madam Speaker, I was not here during the Daily Routine of Business when the time came for committee reports. If the House agreed to revert to that item of our proceedings, perhaps I could table a report of a committee chaired by the Hon. Member for Beausejour on Bill C-53?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the House consent to revert to the presentation of committee reports?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BILL C-53 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the member for Beausejour, I would like to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-53, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arson), with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of the Ere des centres de femmes du Quebec and of the Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hebergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale who, with the help of other groups, have collected 3929 signatures on this
Routine Proceedings
petition. Those people humbly call upon the Parliament to reinstate the level of financing for the Equal Opportunities for Women Program, indexing the amount to the cost of living, and to maintain the support funds for women's groups.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 rise to present petitions in the House on behalf of my constituents of the Western Arctic.
One of these petitions is on the effect that the goods and services tax will have on skating. The petitioners consider instruction in skating to be an educational service and, therefore, ask the government to exempt skating educational expenses from the proposed goods and services tax.
This petition is from the community of Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories.
I have a number of other petitions in which the petitioners say that they feel that the goods and services tax will have an onerous burden on the cost of transportation. It will result in a cascading tax because there is already a fuel tax and a transportation tax of 10 per cent.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions so I will not go into each one of them individually.
The first one contains the signatures of 177 people who are calling on Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment, guarantee VIA sufficiency, and support and carry out its mandate to provide passenger service.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, the second petition contains a further 606 names of people who, even though third reading of the bill on the goods and services tax is passed, are still indicating their disagreement with it.
They are asking the government to cease with the proposal that shifts the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax rather than introducing real tax reform.

April 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, the third petition is of interest to many people across Canada. The petitioners are asking Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada in opposing the use of their lands for NATO and NORAD attack training and for low-level flight training in Canada.
They ask that Canada redirect NATO-NORAD funding towards enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Chibougamau, in the riding of Roberval and one from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, in the riding of Abitibi, in the province of Quebec, concerning the recommendations of the Thx Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
These communities are without question in an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners consider the Brunelle recommendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inefficient with regard to the purpose of the Northern tax benefit system. It does not encourage settlement in the North and offers no incentive to develop northern resources.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions containing the names of 300 or 400 people opposing the goods and services tax from communities across the Algoma riding, including the city of Sault Ste. Marie, the town of Bruce Mines, Elliot Lake, Blind River, Espanola, McKerrow, and Massey. There are signatures from several communities on Manitoulin Island as well: Mindemoya, Kaga-wong, Tehkummah, West Bay, Gore Bay and several other communities.
The petitioners point out that the goods and services tax will have an adverse impact on the regions of the
country, that it comes on top of some 31 new taxes already imposed on the Canadian people and that it will have an adverse impact on low income families, on tourism and on small business.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by residents of Black Lake, Thetford, Saint-Jean-de-Brebeuf, Kitchener and several other communities, who humbly pray that Parliament reject the tax on goods and services which is entirely unfair and disregards people's ability to pay.

Also, Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a further petition opposing the goods and services tax from a number of residents of British Columbia who are totally opposed to this goods and services tax because it certainly has no conscience or regard for ability to pay.
The petitioners humbly beseech Parliament to reject this whole tax idea.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I have a petition with 272 signatures from the good people of Loggieville in Miramichi, who are asking Parliament to cease and desist the action of Canada Post in closing rural post offices, thus making the citizens of those communities second class citizens in their own land. This idiocy of Canada Post must stop.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is from a number of grain farmers in Saskatchewan who are very concerned with the work that the government is doing on orderly marketing and the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.
They call upon the government to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board and to give it the same status that barley and wheat now have under the wheat board.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I have another petition with about 1,000 names from my constituency, which is a small representation of
April 11, 1990

the number of petitions I have received concerning the goods and services tax.
The petitioners are very concerned and upset that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system that currently is in place in this country which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
They call upon the government to immediately implement a fair taxation system in this country.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of tabling a number of petitions signed by Canadians across this country.

These citizens are against the goods and services tax because they believe that if it is implemented it would create economic disruption, increase taxes on average families, introduce an unprecedented level of complexity in the tax system, and impose further hardship on low-income Canadians.

They ask us to reject this new tax.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, it is said "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" and without further reference to the other place I would like to present today under Standing Order 36 a number of petitions signed by a total of 3,341 Edmontonians who continue to call on the government to junk the GST.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling 63 additional petitions bearing 1,837 signatures of citizens throughout the province of Quebec. Your petitioners humbly pray Parliament that the government reject the new goods and services tax which will create incredible hardship for people on low and modest incomes.
Routine Proceedings


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting a number of petitions. The first group has been signed by hundreds of Canadians from one end of the country to the other. They are still angry and upset by the decision to reduce VIA Rail services by half and they call upon the government to guarantee VTA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger services by upgrading the equipment and putting the system back in place.


Iain Francis Angus: The second group of petitions, Madam Speaker, is signed by 389 residents primarily in the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan. They all object to the still-proposed goods and services tax which has yet to go through the other place. I just want to thank the United Steel Workers of America, Gary's Esso Service, Consolidated Press, Dr. Vtipil, Venice Grill, Len's RV Sales, and Old Dutch Foods for their help in collecting these petitions.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions signed by many Canadians from Hamilton and Windsor, Ontario, but most particularly from the metropolitan area of Halifax, including the ridings of Halifax and Halifax West. By these petitions with over 3,000 names these people pray to Parliament that the imposition of the goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians, and particularly to those Canadians in Atlantic Canada.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions today. The first petition I have is a petition that has been circulated by small business people in my constituency. They ask that this government get rid of the goods and services tax. They say that it forces small business to carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden, and they pray that this government will reject the goods and services tax, consult with business, labour and consumer groups, and reach a consensus on reform of the tax system before implementing the GST. That is

April 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
signed by over 30 small business operators in New Westminster-Burnaby.
My second petition, Madam Speaker, is a petition that is signed by Canadians in the lower mainland area of Vancouver, British Columbia, and they are also asking for the goods and services tax to be rejected. They say that it lacks regard for a taxpayer's ability to pay and they ask this government to reject it and to reform the tax system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Dawn Black: My
third petition, Madam Speaker, is one that has been circulated by the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu of Labrador. They oppose the use of their lands for NATO-NORAD attack training and demand that the Canadian government end all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in Canada. They also oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada and, in particular, the proposed training centre at Goose Bay, Labrador. This is a petition signed by almost 100 Canadians.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. It concerns the government's decision to eliminate many of VIA Rail's existing routes and thousands of jobs across this country.
The petitioners from Thunder Bay note that Canada deserves a high quality passenger rail service, including modernized equipment throughout the network, and a rapid rail service for the corridor, that rail passenger service is the safest and most environmentally friendly mode of travel, that annual subsidies from the Government of Canada are not disproportionate to subsidies for other modes of transport, that many rural communities rely exclusively on rail passenger service, and that the tourism industry relies on rail transportation services. These petitioners pray that Parliament will restore rail passenger service to its full integrity throughout this country.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36. I have the honour and privilege to present two groups of petitions, one from the town of Paris, Ontario, in my constituency, which was collected by the staff, customers, and operators of the Elappy Time Video store in Paris, Ontario.
This petition severely criticizes the government for the GST and calls upon this House to force the government to withdraw the GST as it is a regressive form of taxation, and put in its place a more progressive income tax regime.
The other group of petitions contains names of citizens from all over Ontario, mainly southwestern Ontario, who also beseech the House of Commons to force the government to withdraw the GST in favour of a more equitable tax system.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, like so many of my colleagues before me, I have the pleasure and duty of presenting several petitions from citizens who are opposed to the goods and services tax. These petitions bear the signatures of hundreds of Manitobans, including many who reside in my constituency of Winnipeg-St. James. These petitions cite the usual criticisms of the GST, including its regressivity and the fact that it will be a burden on millions and millions of Canadian taxpayers. While I recognize that the GST passed third reading in this House just yesterday, I think that millions of Canadians will never say die with respect to the GST. To quote that famous Yankee: "It's not over until it's over".


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, signed by about 300 people from different parts of Canada- Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan-who support Canada's aboriginal people in the traditional use of their lands and seek new Canadian initiatives for peace through common security and disarmament rather than NATO-NORAD preparation for low-level, deep-strike attacks.
Therefore, they demand that the Canadian government end all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in Canada. They especially oppose the establishment of
April 11, 1990

NATO operations in Canada, including the proposed tactical fighter and weapons training centre at Goose Bay, Labrador.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I have a second petition signed by several hundred residents of my constituency in northern Saskatchewan. These people are very much aware that the goods and services tax will fall even more heavily on northern residents than on Canadians in other parts of the country due to their higher cost of living. Therefore, they call on the government to withdraw that tax and to introduce a fair taxation system based on ability to pay.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I have a third petition, also from residents of northern Saskatchewan. These people are calling on the government to reject the proposals of the task force on northern benefits which would take away the tax benefits from approximately 150 communities in Saskatchewan. They call on the government to introduce a tax benefit system that recognizes the higher cost of living in northern Saskatchewan and to implement a tax system which will recognize those costs and to implement that immediately.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present from my riding another petition which refers to the proposed goods and services tax. Had it not been for the procedures of the House, I would have had the opportunity to present these petitions sooner.
The people who are represented in these petitions from all parts of my riding ask that the government withdraw this tax. They believe, in the words of an octogenarian from my riding, that it will have a very bad effect on our economy, lead to a recession, and will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many of the consumers in my riding.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from over 2,000 people, primarily from Victoria, on the subject of the GST.
The petition urges Parliament to reject the GST. The message, while too late for the House of Commons on this round, is still a viable issue for the other House of
Routine Proceedings
Parliament. I present these petitions to the House in the hope that the government will finally listen.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of the citizens of Canada to present a number of petitions on the goods and services tax.
They point out that the goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because it lacks regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay. They call upon Parliament to reject the current proposals and to put in place tax reform which is valid for all people of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of residents of my constituency, Kamloops, Clearwater, Barrier, Logan Lake, Chase, Savona, and a number of other communities as well.
They also point out their concerns regarding the proposed goods and services tax and presumably are now asking Parliament to oppose this tax once it comes back from the Upper House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my second petition refers to the number of children living in poverty in Canada. The petitioners point out that the number of these children is actually increasing and call upon the government of Canada to negotiate with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 213, 237, 248, and 249.


Mr. Boudria: April 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
1.	Were copies of the book Safety Sense on the Road by Heward Grafftey and its French version Security en tele sur la route purchased by the government and, if so (a) at what price (b) at what time (c) for what purpose?
2.	Was government assistance provided for the preparation of the book and, if so, to what persons?


Albert Glen Cooper: See attached.
I am informed as follows:
1. DEPARTMENT	NUMBER OF COPIES	COST	DATE OF PURCHASE	PURPOSE	2.National Health & Welfare	8,600 English 5,100 French	$41,100.00	Fall of 1988	To promote safe driving for employees.	NoNational Revenue "fixation	11 English 11 French	130.90	March 30, 1989	For reference purposes in Departmental libraries.	NoCustoms & Excise	25 English 25 French	297.50	February 21, 1989	For reference purposes in Departmental libraries.	NoNational Capital Commission	50 English 50 French	385.00	November 16, 1989	For training and promotional campaign on safe driving.	NoTransport Canada	14,000 English 6,000 French	60,000.00	December 1989	In response to a request from the Roads and Transport Association of Canada so that organization could distribute to high school students during the National Transportation Week, a publication which it felt to be unique to "aid in the objectives of National Transportation Week".	NoTreasury Board	40 English 40 French	476.00	July 1989	For distribution, one copy in each language, to departments to determine if it could serve as a preventative tool for their employees and their safety and health committees.	No
All other departments have submitted a nil response to this question.


Mr. Harvard: Does the government intend to take any action in the environmental assessment of the proposed gold mine in Shoal Lake and, if so, what action?


Lucien Bouchard: Yes, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is applying the Environmental Assessment and Review Process to the proposal. In addition, if there is a requirement for an approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Department of Transport will also apply the process.
Ontario has designated the project under its Environmental Assessment Act. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada are both providing input to the provincial process. Moreover, Environment Canada officials will participate actively in Ontario's public hearing process and will also ensure that the project meets the requirements of the federal Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations.


Mr. Milliken: Are there any companies in which Petro Canada currently holds securities and, if so (a) what is the name of each such company (b) what number of securities does Petro Canada hold in each one?
April 11, 1990

Routine Proceedings


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
(a) & (b) The attached list shows the securities which Petro-Canada currently holds.	
PETRO-CANADA INC. - EQUITY INVESTMENTS (b)	
(a)	No. of
Company	shares
Alberta Products Pipeline Ltd.	3,500
Canstar Oil Sands Ltd.	50
Downhole Systems Technology Canada Inc.	183,000
Fundy Energy Inc.	4,904
Harvey's Oil Ltd.	4,581
Hibernia Management & Development Company Ltd. International de Services Industriels	5,000
et Scientifique, S.A.	216,000
Jiffy Lube Inc.	49
Joseph Elie Inc.	499
Kenmac Energy Inc.	4,900
Les Huiles Desroches Inc.	2,951
Les Huiles du Royaume Inc.	500
Les Huiles Lamontagne Inc.	1,049
Les Huiles Town & Country Inc.	520
Les Petroles De La Mauricie (Canada) Inc.	212,799
Les Petroles Saint-Jean-Sur Richelieu Inc.	2,444
Les Petroles Sherbrooke Inc.	90,441
Les Petroles Vosco (Canada) Ltee.	7,711
MacGillivray Fuels Limited	4,900
Marchand Petroleum (Canada) Inc.	14,309
Montreal Pipeline Limited	6,440
Northward Development Ltd.	170
Pacific Northern Gas Ltd.	300,000
Panarctic Oils Ltd.	3,700,206
Peace Pipeline Ltd.	42,354
Petro Sud-Ouest Inc.	108,878
Petro-Canada Centre Inc.	50
Petro-Canada Centre Finance Inc.	1
Petrogas Processing Ltd.	113,458
Petrole M. Miron Inc.	229,094
Petrole Chaleurs (1981) Inc.	332,929
Redwater Water Disposal Co. Ltd.	311
Sedpex Inc.	50
Sulconam Inc.	15,236
Sydco Fuels Limited	1,517
Syncrude Canada Ltd.	1,700
TransNorthern Pipeline Ltd.	7,004
Westcoast Energy Inc.	18,548,850
Westcoast Energy Inc. (Special Warrants)	2,343,000
West Nova Inc.	964,084
288564 Alberta Ltd.	1
Camduff Gas Limited	400
Cheyenne Petroleum Corp. (NPL)	597
(a)	(b) No. of
Company	shares
Dreco Energy Services Ltd.	128
East Coast Spill Response Inc.	1
House of Brougham Limited	98
Manhattan Continental Dev. Corp.	160
Oil Spill Response Limited	20
Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.	1
Polar Gas Engineering Services Ltd.	23,570
Rimbey Pipe Line Co. Ltd.	2,598
Sultran Ltd.	40,000
Toronto Credits Limited	100
204383 Enterprises Inc.	10
346877 Ontario Limited	1
PETRO-CANADA (a)	(b) No. of
Corporation	shares
Canertech Inc.	1
Petro-Canada Inc.	4,216,011
Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation	1


Mr. Keyes: Is the government aware of a retirement group inside Canada Post known as the Heritage Club and, if so (a) what is the ratio between members of the club who are management retirees and those who were regular employees of Canada Post (b) is there a board of directors of the club and, if so, are they paid and, if so, by whom (c) who pays the cost of club events?


Harvie Andre: (a) Actually, there is 21,428 members to the Heritage Club. The breakdown is as follows:
Active members (25 years or more of service) 1,466 Retirees 19,962
At this time, it is not possible to determine the proportion of members who are management or other.
(b) Heritage Club does not have a Board of Directors. However, there is an Executive Committee of 4 unpaid members.
c) Canada Post Corporation pays for periodical ceremonies designed to recognize employees and/or retirees with long service records.

April 11, 1990
Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of ministerial statements Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.
Is there debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House is ready for the question. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, may I say to all staff of the House of Commons, the pages, the table officers, the Speaker's office, the members of the House, a very good Easter, and may we call it 6.15 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May I extend my own best wishes to everyone and to our public. Maybe all of us will hope that it is the Wednesday before Easter more often.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I just want to join with my colleagues and say that we have gone through some tough days and we look forward to a more pleasant House when we return.
May I use this occasion before we recess to say that some days ago I was accused of making some disparaging remarks about the Speaker. I did make those remarks. I apologize.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do thank the hon. member for Kamloops. It is very much appreciated and I realize that sometimes things are said in a moment of debate. His gesture today is very much appreciated.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-13, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Ukranian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

It being 4.18 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 23, 1990, at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 23, 1990