Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):

Mr. Speaker, since this country has a deficit in pulp and paper machinery and processes, and since we have had expressions of interest in this technology from the U.S.S.R., Italy, and China, will the Minister assure this House that everything will be done to clear away the administrative obstructions to enable the marketing of this technology by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians?

Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that whatever we are able to do, that is the Government particularly in the sense of dealing with CPDL, will be done. However, should the case have to be resolved in the courts we would encourage the Crown agency to proceed in that fashion as well.

I want to ask the Government once again whether it feels the response to the obscene video that was prepared by officers in the RCMP, which is basically a fine or counselling, is an appropriate response. If not, will the Government do what the Liberal Party suggested a year and a half ago, and that is to have an independent assessment of the situation of sexual harassment which has been ongoing in the RCMP?

Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, an investigation has been completed. There is still the possibility of disciplinary action being taken against the individuals involved. That will be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, a single question.

July 14, 1988

Business of the House THE ECONOMY

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday in Windsor the Commissioner of Development indicated that several auto parts firms are seriously considering moving to the United States because of the appreciation of the value of the Canadian dollar, presaging the kind of thing that can happen particularly under free trade arrangements.

When will the Minister of Finance take action to do something about the interests rates which are elevating the value of the dollar, disadvantaging Canadian manufacturers in continuing their operations in Canada, and encouraging them to move to the United States at the cost of Canadian jobs?

Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Hon. Member would look at the level of interest rates today relative to the United States and compare that interest rate spread to any time during the past eight or nine years, he will find that that is not out of line. My understanding is that the average for that period was about 1.40 per cent. The spread now is between 1.50 per cent and 1.60 per cent for the last number of months. We are in the same sort of ballpark as we have been.

I think that if people are looking at moving out of the country, there are other reasons. I would also caution the Hon. Member that, in the discussions that I have had with a number of manufacturers, they feel that they can be quite competitive at this level of the Canadian dollar because there are number of other considerations in the competitive position besides simply the level of the Canadian dollar.

Mr. McCurdy:

Why should they have to?

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the House Leader for a statement of the business he intends to call for the coming week.

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, as the Order Paper as of today has outlined, we will again be proceeding this afternoon with Bill C-129, the Air Canada Act, followed by Bill C-121, the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear and certain Acts in consequence thereof; followed by Bill C-110, third reading of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal; followed by Bill C-103, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; followed by Bill C-126, consideration of report stage of the Bretton Woods Bill; followed by Bill C-82, the lobbyists Bill; followed by Bill C-30, report stage of the

National Parks Act and Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario.

Mr. Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, I note the Government said nothing about whether it intends to deal with the question of abortion either through the motion it has on the Order Paper or otherwise. I ask this not in any confrontational way but to seek clarification in terms of the operation of the House and because of the great interest in the how the Government will deal with this subject on the part of the public.

As the Government House Leader will recall, the Deputy Government House Leader said last week when I asked this question that he intended to call the Government's motion on abortion on Monday with a view to enabling any procedural issues to be argued and ruled on by the Speaker. Then it was well known and understood that the Government would call a motion for formal debate, if I am not mistaken Thursday of this week, today. Then on Monday morning I, and I presume my NDP counterpart, received a telephone message hours before the House was to open saying that the Government was not going to call the motion. The Deputy Government House Leader later said to the press and to myself that, in effect, the matter was going back to the government caucus.

I go through this because I want to provide an explanation as to why I am asking the question and also to make clear that contrary to what was said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in Question Period, there was no obstruction on the part of the Official Opposition preventing the Government from calling this matter for debate or bringing this matter for debate. In fact, we do not have the authority or ability to obstruct even if we wanted to because the Government controls absolutely the use of government time and designates what measures will be discussed.

I repeat, I am not raising this in a confrontational way. I think, however, that I should try to clear the air on this subject so as to give the Government a chance to clear the air because of the perplexity on the part of many people over what has happened on this subject this week as well as the interest of the public at large in having some clarification.

Mr. Mazankowski:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Clearly it had been our intention, and it still is our intention, to bring forth the resolution to have the abortion issue debated. One of the reasons there was reluctance to proceed was that clearly both opposition Parties served notice that they would fight this issue on procedural grounds. That is a fact because in a preliminary way they clearly served notice that this would be fought on procedural grounds.

Having regard to that fact, the Deputy Government House Leader is in the process of organizing a meeting with House

July 14, 1988

Leaders. He is out of Ottawa today, but he will be around tomorrow. He hopes to meet with House Leaders to talk about this issue in more detail, to see if once again we can get some consensus and some understanding as to how we might proceed so that we do not have to get involved in a procedural wrangle. Quite frankly, we have always tried to approach important issues of this nature on a consensus point of view, particularly if there has to be some modification of the Standing Orders. We would hope that we could illicit that same kind of cooperation from both opposition Parties. That is the spirit in which the Deputy House Leader will be approaching, once again, the House Leaders of the two opposition Parties.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that when the motion was first put on the Order Paper, it was very clearly a highly irregular motion. I think it is the first time in history that it has ever been put on the Order Paper in that form.

Naturally, all Parliamentarians want to ensure that it would be procedurally acceptable. In our humble evaluation, since it had no precedent, since it went against the Standing Orders in so many different ways, we felt that this was an inappropriate way for the Government to deal with this issue. If the Government wants to deal with the issue in the form of a motion, I suggest that motions can be put that are procedurally acceptable, or legislation can be introduced that is also procedurally acceptable.

I want to make it very clear that the Opposition does not control the business in the House of Commons. The Government introduces Bills or motions and proceeds, and we respond. I want to make that point, because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is trying to give the impression that we are somehow stopping this advance.

While I am on my feet, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Earlier in the week the Deputy House Leader indicated that tax reform was now being considered for debate prior to the summer recess. I noticed that the Deputy Prime Minister did not mention that in his outline presented today. Can he either confirm that that is on the agenda or indicate whether that is off the list of legislation that the Government wishes passed prior to the summer recess?

Mr. Mazankowski:

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the first part of the NDP House Leader's remarks, if I could take his remarks as an invitation to once again seek a consensus as to how we might proceed with an abortion resolution, I would be very pleased about that. I am sure the Deputy Government House Leader will want to explore that with him and with the opposition House Leader of the Liberal Party.

Second, with regards to the tax reform measures, I have simply outlined what I consider to be the order of business until next Thursday. I understand that there have been some discussions between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and/or his representatives, and representatives of the critics of

Business of the House

the other two Parties, about the prospect of moving the tax reform legislation ahead. Hopefully, if we could arrive at some parameters of time to move it into committee so that the committee study could be proceeded with, that would be in the best interests of all Members of this House. Naturally, we will be exploring that, and I suspect that the Deputy Government House Leader will be exploring that with his counterparts when they meet, hopefully tomorrow.

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) what has been a surprise to many, and that is the disappearance from the Order Paper of Bill C-79. I am talking about amendments to the Elections Act. There is an understanding between Parties that we want to plug the loopholes that allow one to drive a truckload of unreported election expenses-

All expenses have to be reported.

Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

I thought there was an agreement. There is already a proposal that has been arrived at by an ad hoc committee of the three Parties. There is a letter that has been sent by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) to which this Party also subscribes. Can we have the assurance that these loopholes in the Elections Act will be plugged before we go into a national election? We would like to know what is happening with Bill C-79.

Mr. Mazankowski:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member has raised that. On May 3 I wrote to both House Leaders of the two opposition Parties and I set out a proposal, including a new definition of election expenses which would be incorporated consistent with the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. This proposition was turned down by the other two Parties. We are still prepared. I outlined eight different conditions, and I refer the Hon. Member to the letter.