1982-02-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On January 30 in Vancouver the Liberal cabinet representative had to leave the "Poland for the Polish" rally before the adopted message of the meeting could be given to him. He had to leave to attend the Vancouver Canucks hockey game. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the House receive and adopt the message of that day which asks the rhetorical question: "Is it wise to continue trading, including trading in foodstuffs, with a junta which violates every edict of the Helsinki Accords by building the Iron Curtain higher and stronger than it has ever been around Poland; moreover, is it wise to continue trade with a junta that has nothing in common with the spirit of the Canadian Constitution and its article we hold dear-namely. Peace, Order and Good Government-that is, responsible government? Is it wise to trust such a junta and expect the exported food to reach the people of Poland?"


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Some members of the New Democratic Party have been creating the illusion that they would not change the Crow rate if they were in government. Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan is quoted in the January, 1982, edition of Business Life as saying:
I think it is clear that the railways should get additional compensation for the grain they carry. Whether they get it from other resources of the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company which they got as part of the bargain, or whether they should get it from the Government of Canada, or whether they should get it from the shippers or some combination thereof, is perhaps what the bargaining is all about... but the perception of our government really is that the farmers ought to keep the benefit of the Crow rate.
If we want to address the issue of who is to pay the additional compensation to the railways, we are prepared to address that issue.
Therefore, since it is clear that the policy of the NDP is not to keep the Crowsnest Pass rate, I move, seconded by the hon. member from Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the NDP commit itself immediately to full public support of Liberal attempts to change the Crowsnest Pass rate so its public position reflects its real position, which is to abandon the Crow rate.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that unemployment in Canada has reached the point of crisis, and considering that economic forecasters feel that the unemployment rate could reach as high as 10 per cent in the coming months, with no indication of government action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Minister of Finance stop beating around the bush by saying that he is considering representations from Canadian business and industry and immediately introduce new measures which would assist in bringing Canada out of economic oblivion and create better employment opportunity for Canadians who have lost all hope and trust in their government.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 10, 1982


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an important and urgent matter. Considering that the conversion program launched by the Domtar Company in Donnacona, Quebec, will eliminate 125 jobs out of 600, while remaining eligible under the federal-provincial assistance program for the pulp and paper industry; and considering that 57,000 jobs have already been lost in Quebec in one month alone, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That the House urge the government to provide a guarantee that federal funds will not be used to worsen the current unemployment crisis in Quebec and throughout Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: I am really proud that my fan club is in good form on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has refused twice this week to retract statements he made about the black population of South Africa, and in view of the fact that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has denounced his colleague's statements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael):
That the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition make a statement to this House on whether he plans to follow the example of his predecessor, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, when he expelled the previous member for Moncton, Mr. Len Jones, for making similar remarks.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Every person who has ever purchased an automobile knows that when that automobile is driven off the lot it has depreciated by 10 per cent to 20 per cent. Indeed, in the first year the value of a new automobile, in most cases, depreciates at least 30 per cent, if not more. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House condemn the reduction in the first year capital cost allowance with respect to automobiles as totally inappropriate as it fails to recognize true depreciation and reality, is unfair, and particularly damages our ailing automobile industry.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the RCMP security service was acting under the direction of top Liberal policy advisers, cabinet ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Whereas the continuing harassment of the RCMP is completely demoralizing the finest police force in the world-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Liberal government come clean and admit to the country that not only were they aware of the activities of the RCMP security service, but they ordered them, and that the Solicitor General be directed by this House to release immediately the 33 documents requested by the RCMP defence lawyer which are essential fora full and fair hearing of the 17 RCMP members now charged.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 10, 1982



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. On November 28, 1981, Canada's external affairs minister announced the suspension of a six-year, $21 million project in Haiti, and according to reports the entire operation was a sorry mess of wholesale waste, local corruption and featherbedding, all funded by the Canadian taxpayer. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That an immediate and thorough audit of CIDA's operations, especially as they apply to the Haitian project, as well as other specific large-scale Cl DA programs, be carried out by Canada's Auditor General with a view to determining their viability and over-all value to the people in the country in which aid is being provided.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PARLIAMENT HILL


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 43. On October 24, 1979, I asked the then Conservative minister of national health and welfare that a model daycare centre be established on Parliament Hill to demonstrate the need for daycare in the workplace across Canada. We have also urged the federal government to establish a national daycare policy and expand start-up funds for new centres. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House congratulate the House of Commons daycare employees' committee and Madam Speaker for their persistence in establishing the Parliament Hill daycare centre announced today, and ask that until further spaces are available priority be given to employees to use this centre with adequate subsidies, and that a higher fee for executive staff and MPs be established; in addition, that the Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!
-of National Health and Welfare immediately take aggressive leadership to expand affordable daycare centres nationally.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are against kids.
5.0.	43



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, to meet the shortage of skilled workers in Canada and reduce unemployment levels, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the federal government give serious consideration to the examination of shortening the training periods for apprenticeship programs in Canada, much along the same lines as practised in many European apprenticeship programs.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker,
I rise seeking the attention of all hon. members on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously yesterday that Ontario municipalities cannot impose a mandatory retirement age of 60 on firefighters, even if it has been negotiated into their collective agreement; and in view of the fact this case is almost identical to the case of Captain Ross Stevenson, which I have been raising in this House for the past year, an Air Canada pilot forced to retire because of the collective agreement between the Canadian Airline Pilot's Association and Air Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy):
That the Minister of Transport introduce an order in council ordering Air Canada to reinstate Captain Ross Stevenson to his original position of airline pilot with Air Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HOUSING


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. Interest rates are rising again and many home owners who must renew their mortgages this year will face extreme hardship. Those who cannot rearrange

February 10, 1982
their budget to accommodate this increase will lose their homes. Since Canadians are being faced with massive payment increases over which they have no control, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the National Housing Act be amended to include a provision for a mortgage insurance fund which would protect home owners against the uncertainties of major increases in their mortgage payments when their mortgages come up for renewal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: Cosgrove said no.



FINANCE


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and public importance. The November, 1982, termination of the moratorium on taxation of northern benefit allowances is a recipe for short-term industrial chaos in Canada's mining industry and for the long-term demise of family and community life for workers in many northern resource centres.
In spite of serious warnings by both mine labour and management about the inadequacy of a one-year transition period to deal with two or three-year agreements and adjustment to an as yet undefined regime of general northern assistance, the consistent and continuing refusal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to meet with Steelworker Union officials on this subject is both incomprehensible and irresponsible. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House demand that the Minister of Finance stop hiding and immediately agree to meet with United Steelworker representatives on this issue in response to their urgent requests of several months' standing.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Consumers' Association of Canada has called the Liberal budget "outrageously unfair" to senior citizens, and the association's pension consultant, Thomas Delaney, has estimated that between 200,000 and 400,000 senior citizens will be hurt by the budget.
The minister has earned the trust of many senior citizens. Is she planning to betray their trust by allowing pensioners' income to be reduced? Specifically, has she also asked the Minister of Finance to reinstate the $1,000 pension deduction for pensioners contributing to an RRSP?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that in several articles-she mentioned only one-published recently in the English Canadian press, in which the impression was given that Canadian pensioners would be adversely affected by the budget, one or two examples were given of pensioners with very high incomes who, though they were over sixty-five, were still working and receiving a salary or some kind of income, and who also were still contributing to a registered retirement savings plan. Obviously, they happen to be in the upper socioeconomic levels of our society, and their earnings are much higher this year, they will have to pay more taxes just like any other Canadian. There is nothing unfair about this at all. I can assure the House that all Canadian pensioners are benefiting from the MacEachen budget, because of the high rate of indexation being applied to all pensions.


CALCULATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has told the House in her answer, as I understand it, that the income of pensioners will not be reduced under the budget. I would therefore ask her why John Arthur, the president of the Canadian Pensions Conference, said that her own officials say that the proposal to tax health care benefits would disqualify many pensioners from receiving supplementary pensions such as the guaranteed income supplement. The minister's own officials are telling people in the pension field that pensions will be reduced. Is it true that the minister is refusing to take health care benefits into the calculation of taxable income in defiance of the budget of the Minister of Finance?
February 10, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I do not have a clue as to why Mr. John Arthur supposedly said that to my colleague. I met him yesterday in the elevator. He did not say anything to me. He had a big smile.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Met him in the elevator!


Miss MacDonald:: That is the only place he will meet her!


Monique Bégin: The hon. member should ask him. What I know for a fact is that all senior citizens in Canada who need help are total or partial beneficiaries of the GI supplement. The supplement costs the country a fortune. We consider it to be a right for all those over the age of 65 who are in need. Our objective as a government is to bring all of them above the poverty line. This is their right, and the supplement should not go to those who do not need it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INVESTMENTS IN REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is too bad she can only meet Mr. Arthur in the elevator. He appeared before our Conservative task force on the budget, here on Parliament Hill, to give us that information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The minister has continually criticized the private sector for not contributing enough toward pension incomes. Since pension funds are designed to pay only part of a pensioner's income, many Canadians borrow money each year to invest in an RRSP, as the minister knows. The average amount of money borrowed by Canadians to invest in an RRSP is about $2,215. Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare support the plan to tax the interest paid on funds borrowed to purchase an RRSP, thus reducing the opportunity for Canadians to provide for their own future, because that is the inevitable result? Does she support that plan?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, if 1 told the hon. member that I am taking a stand on the point she just raised, she would accuse me of failing to respect the opinion of the House. The hon. member knows perfectly well that this general budget proposal was referred by the Minister of Finance on December 18, I believe, to a parliamentary committee for consideration. Where pension reform is concerned, the hon. member does not seem to realize that RRSPs are an instrument used by taxpayers to accumulate pensions if they happen to be among those
Oral Questions
who can afford to invest $3,500 or $5,000 every year. Most Canadians cannot, and therefore cannot take advantage of RRSPs. The budget is taking the aggregate of tax privileges and trying to introduce an element of fairness, and I shall always support this principle.


EDUCATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The minister will know that he is paying $1.8 billion to the provincial governments this year for post-secondary education. In answer to a question on February 3 from the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that her cash payments to the provinces for the three health programs for which she is responsible will be increased next year by 13.4 per cent. Will the minister's cash payments to the provinces, now at $1.8 billion, be increased by 13.4 per cent?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for bringing a very important subject to the floor of the House. It provides me with an opportunity to remind hon. members that, at the recent first ministers' conference, the Prime Minister made an offer to the provinces that we would extend for the next two years the provisions under which funds are transferred in the block form to the provinces, for post-secondary education purposes, increasing in the vicinity of just over 12 per cent in each of those years, provided that the provinces undertake that they do not during that time diminish the percentage of the cost of post-secondary education which they are paying out of their own funds.
Unfortunately, we have a very sad situation in this country. We have a serious problem in relation to post-secondary education because most of the provinces, year after year, have been decreasing the percentage of the cost of post-secondary education that they pay, while the federal government has year by year been increasing its percentage. For instance, in the hon. member's province of Ontario, the portion that the provincial government of Ontario pays-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I remind the House that we are in favour of short questions and short answers.


LEVEL OF FUNDING
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the minister then is confirming that he paid the provinces this year $1,825 billion and he will be increasing that by a percentage which is the same percentage as required under the Established Programs Financing Act for 1982-83. Will he confirm that, and will he confirm that there will be no diminution during the next fiscal year, in his estimates, of the

February 10, 1982
Oral Questions
amount of money that is required under the existing and Established Programs Financing Act to be paid to the provinces designated for post-secondary education?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member must remember that the transfer from the federal government to the provinces for post-secondary education is made up of two components, tax points made available for that purpose by specific agreement, and cash payments.


An hon. Member:: Yes or no?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am not confirming the exact figures that the hon. member may be using for one portion of that over-all payment, but I would be happy to provide those figures to him after question period, or at his convenience.
1 think the important thing for the hon. member to remember, and I count on him for his support, in the improvement of post-secondary education in this country, is that we are prepared to do our part and increase our portion as we have been increasing it year by year. However, it is time for some of the provinces, such as Ontario, to stop cheating the students and universities by paying less than their share.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, if I can get the attention of the Prime Minister 1 would draw to his attention that many suggestions have been made for stimulating the Canadian economy. So far the government has said no to them all. There is also a need for approximately 220,000 housing units this year and, according to the figures which were released in the last few days, there will be a shortfall of approximately 70,000 badly needed units. Considering that the provision of these units would not only meet housing needs but would also provide between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs in home appliances, construction and the forest industry, why does the government not move in this very sensible direction?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, there are, of course, a great many demands for government spending, one of which is housing. That is why there was an attempt to satisfy, in part, this demand through some provisions in the budget.
As the hon. member will remember, I indicated in the House a couple of days ago the many areas where, almost on a weekly basis, the government is announcing spending programs to help the various sections of the economy.


An hon. Member:: How about Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One week it is western transportation, another week it is the forest industry in northern New Brunswick. Just a few days ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a joint scheme with Ontario to keep jobs in northern Ontario. I will provide the hon. member with a list, if he wants. The government has many current programs for creating jobs. It is not sufficient for the hon. member opposite simply to stand up and say that there is a need here and a particular need there-why do we not spend more money? The answer to that, of course, is that, in the over-all reality, to spend more money we have to increase our deficit again which is already very large and therefore risk impairing the battle against inflation.


PERCENTAGE OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT DEVOTED TO HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister, considering that spending in this area does not involve money leaving Canada but involves meeting a shortfall in housing needs which would not be inflationary in that respect, and considering that the cumulative deficits of all governments in Canada, federal and provincial, make it clear that, as a percentage of our gross national product, Canada is not putting more in this sector than most other industrialized countries, at a time when we have more than a million unemployed why does the government not move very clearly in this direction? It would, as I stated, provide 100,000 to 150,000 additional jobs, and also meet the serious housing crisis.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes the point that if we take together the provincial surpluses and deficits and the federal deficit, the percentage is not as great, but he is addressing the federal government, which has a very large deficit-something in the area of $10 billion-and to that extent we are far from attempting to balance our budget. We are injecting money into the economy at a very substantial rate, and all the various schemes I have been referring to are creating jobs.
The hon. member has a good idea: put unemployed workers to work building houses. The question is that we need a fund of capital to pay for the building of those houses. That fund of capital can come either from withdrawing capital from other worth-while projects, or from printing money, which is inflationary, or it can come from increasing the deficit, which is also inflationary. That is why, no matter how valuable the ideas put forward by many members of this House, including many on this side, if they involve massive new funding they will not in the long run create new jobs. They will create inflation. Inflation will mean that interest rates will go up and, if interest rates go up, that will be seen with opprobrium by the hon. member opposite.
February 10, 1982


TAXATION OF BANKS' PROFITS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there is one sector of the economy the Prime Minister left out, and in this respect I ask him to reply with the same seriousness with which he has addressed the first two questions. Considering that the one set of institutions in this country which has benefited from high interest rates is the banks, which had record profits in 1981, would the Prime Minister tell the House why a special tax on the banks, which would bring their tax level up to what other corporations pay, is not imposed by the government in order to get the money to provide the jobs to produce houses? This precise approach would not be inflationary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the particular question of high interest rates let me repeat to the hon. member what 1 have said, 1 believe, a few times before. If inflation is running at about 12 per cent, which it is now, I do not think we can realistically expect Canadians generally, or the hon. member in particular, to lend money at much less than 13 per cent or 14 per cent. That is why there is a higher interest rate than there would be if inflation were lower.


John Edward Broadbent: I am talking about bank profits.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand. That is the second point. The hon. member should let me finish the first point. I want him to understand, first, that it is not that the banks are artificially saying, "We are going to make a lot of money and we will lend money but only at 15 per cent or 16 per cent" or whatever it is.


John Edward Broadbent: Twenty-one per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The margin between inflation and the bank rate today is no larger than it traditionally has been.


John Edward Broadbent: You are wrong.


Mr. Deans:: Twenty-one per cent.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa had a chance to ask his question. I believe he should allow the Right Hon. Prime Minister to answer it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not talking about the particular rate of a particular bank to a particular consumer who may be a high risk, or who may be in a position where he is borrowing for purposes which do not guarantee the return. I am talking about the general bank rate. I repeat that the reason the bank rate is high is that inflation is high. That is why we believe that the way to bring interest rates down is to bring inflation down. If we can bring inflation down to 7 per cent or 8 per cent, then interest rates will fall because a great spread will not be required.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Tax the banks and invest the money.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just a final word on the banks. The Minister of Finance has dealt with that question before. He has indicated that over all-and I am not an apologist for the banks-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am trying to remember the statistics the Minister of Finance put forward. If we look at bank profits over a period of time we see that they are not now out of line with what they traditionally have been. If the banks are making very high profits, then they should pay very high income tax.


John Edward Broadbent: That is the point.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are paying high income tax.


Madam Speaker:: Order!


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister will know that hon. members on all sides of this House have been receiving letters, telephone calls and complaints about the government's pitiful approach toward aid for urea formaldehyde foam insulation victims. Indeed, home owner groups in major centres across the country are holding meetings to condemn the government's woefully inadequate drop-in-the-bucket and too-late approach. In view of this negative nation-wide reaction, will the minister reconsider much more meaningful compensation to many of those whose homes are absolutely worthless?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has a different line of information from the one I have. On the contrary, I have received a number of positive responses to the very important and significant contribution of the Canadian government toward helping the victims of this product.
As the hon. member mentioned, some people are having meetings. They are having meetings to inform home owners of the programs available and to try to get more money from the government. I do not blame them for this, but I want to point out to the hon. member that, rather than criticizing the government for what we have done so far, he should join with me in trying to convince the provinces to take their share of responsibility and to put an amount of money equal to what we have provided on the table. That amount is $110 million.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I am sure the government's program has met with the complete satisfaction of the minister's campaign manager. This is one issue he cannot slough off onto the provinces.
14858

February 10, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT REMOVAL COST BE TAX DEDUCTIBLE
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Many home owners are being forced to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to remove the foam for health reasons and at their own expense. Will the Minister of Finance at least consider as an interim measure the cost of removing the foam as income tax deductible since it was, I repeat, this government which created the UFFI mess in the first place?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that this is a tax measure, of course it would have to be considered in the budgetary context.

[ Translation]


UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION-DEGREE OF FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The minister has informed us several times that he was waiting for the findings of a study to determine whether the federal government was responsible for the UFFI problem.
Since the minister has agreed to pay subsidies, perhaps he could inform us whether he agrees it is the federal government's responsibility? And since he is asking the provinces to provide assistance, to what extent is the federal government responsible?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, these questions certainly reflect the complete ignorance or stupidity of the hon. member who is asking them.
We have always maintained that the Canadian government does not admit any legal responsibility in this matter. In view of the extent of the problems being encountered by some home owners who are sick as a result of having this product installed in their homes, we have decided, on humanitarian grounds, to take action and assist them on the basis of our responsibility for national health. That is why we have budgeted $110 million for the owners of the homes in question.
We would have liked to see the provinces do the same, expecially the province of Quebec, where it is clear that many home owners were taken in by contractors licensed by the provincial authorities to instal the foam, when the work was poorly done because of the lack of effective control by the provincial authorities.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I'm not as stupid as some people-
The minister has told us several times that he was waiting for a board or committee report, that he had asked for an expertise to be made, and that on the basis of this report he would be able to confirm whether the government did or did not have a responsibility.
We know that the federal government approved the product. Whether it was properly installed is another matter. The fact remains that the product was approved by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Today, the minister has agreed to pay a less than adequate part of the costs that home owners are now being forced to incur. With due respect, I simply want to ask the minister where the responsibility of the federal government lies? If he wants to wash his hands of the whole thing, let him come right out and say so.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member reads the legislation we pass in Parliament, he would realize that there is such a thing as the Hazardous Products Act and under that act-


Roch La Salle: Is the government responsible, yes or no?


André Ouellet: The hon. member is getting a little upset. I may remind him that under the Harzardous Products Act, when the government declares a product to be hazardous, the manufacturers of the product have the right to appeal the decision. And that is what they did.
As the hon. member is probably aware, we set up a review board under this act, and the board is working on a report that it should be bringing in shortly.


Roch La Salle: Are you responsible or are you not?


André Ouellet: The hon. member wants to know whether we think we are responsible or not. We have always said that we were not responsible, but nevertheless, we have offered up to $5,000 per owner of a home affected by this product, irrespective of the fact whether the government is responsible or not. I think the government is already doing quite a bit for these people.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: programs specifically to alleviate the position of automotive workers in the Niagara Peninsula?


An hon. Member:: That is a good question!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am awfully glad that the hon. member did not send me a letter.
Let me point out that in the Niagara Peninsula there are several programs which are helpful to laid-off workers. Perhaps the most important one is the announcement which was made just a few weeks ago by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the designation of the auto parts industry for assistance under the ILAP program. That program provides an extensive number of investment credits to those communities that are hard hit, as well as outlines a number of labour adjustment measures we are prepared to apply in that area.
In addition, the hon. member will perhaps have noted that we have spent close to $3 million of job-creation funds in the Niagara Peninsula over the past year, and that we have added substantial dollars to those communities that are hard hit by the lay-off situation. We will try to provide as much service as we can, and we hope to stay in close contact with the hon. member so that he can help his constituents.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister knows that medicare is in trouble. Last week she claimed to be looking for allies to save it. 1 hope that she has more luck in her own caucus when it comes to saving medicare than she seems to be having when it comes to saving the Canadian economy.
The minister has often lamented that she is in an all or nothing position-having either to tolerate the erosion of medicare or to withdraw federal funding altogether, a move which might have risky consequences.
Would the minister consider amending the appropriate legislation, to provide for a graduated withholding of federal funds from delinquent provinces according to the degree in which they deviated from national standards, as recommended by the Parliamentary Task Force on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements?
[ Translation]
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Yes, Madam Speaker, the work of the Breau committee was particularly interesting. My department has examined its report and has taken it into account when preparing
Oral Questions
the document which will be submitted to my provincial counterparts, as I had promised at our very first meeting, to clarify the present financing of medicare. 1 am afraid that the hon. member did not understand my reply last week as to whether I can or refuse to do anything at present. Fiscal arrangements for medicare mention five basic conditions, including universality or accessibility to everyone, but we now have to clarify these conditions in the next five-year agreement so as to strengthen medicare.


TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the minister has not answered my question. 1 asked her whether in the upcoming fiscal arrangements she would consider a mechanism for the graduated withholding of federal funding, so that she would not be in the position that it seems to me she often hides behind, that is to say, that she must either withdraw all the money or do nothing about medicare. What is her position on the suggestion of the task force that there be a mechanism for graduated withholding? That is the question to which 1 want an answer.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member has just inquired about my position on the Breau report recommendations. As 1 have just told him, we have read this report with interest and it contains some excellent suggestions. What the hon. member has just mentioned is one of the recommendations which we are now considering in preparing the document that will be submitted to the provinces.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. As the fall of the Canadian dollar from par with the United States dollar to 92.5 cents American in 1962 was the beginning of ten years of great prosperity and high employment, because exports were stimulated in a great many products that we had been buying from outside that began to be produced in Canada, I ask the Prime Minister if he would seriously, very seriously, consider doing two things, for the good of the country? The first is to lower interest rates to an acceptable level; and second, to use the resultant drop in the value of the Canadian dollar to stimulate the Canadian economy in the same very effective manner that has been done in the past. If he would like it, I would be very glad to explain to him later just exactly how that was done, in the hope that it might be repeated now.

February 10, 1982
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct to a degree when he refers to the fall in the dollar in the early 1960s having been the cause of the surge in our export successes. I think he is perhaps overly modest when he neglects to mention another factor which had a say in that success: it was that the hon. member was then the minister responsible for trade and exports.
I certainly am prepared to take advice from an expert, Madam Speaker. I just want to point out to him that the current situation has produced somewhat the same result. As he knows, the fall in the Canadian dollar has resulted in one of our largest trade surpluses last year. That, I would think, is explicable by the same two factors. We have a lower dollar which encourages exports, and we have a very good trade minister. In so far as how we could use those advantages now and in the future is concerned, I am certainly anxious to entertain any suggestions from the hon. member on how we could improve the situation.
I must briefly point out, Madam Speaker, that 1 doubt whether deliberately devaluing the Canadian dollar further would have the added advantages that he suggests. The Canadian dollar is devalued now compared to the American. I think the incentive for export is there, and I think we would all welcome am even greater success in the export field than we registered last year under the present minister of commerce. I am sure he and 1 would be very anxious to entertain suggestions from the hon. member.


SMALL BUSINESS
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. From coast to coast across the land there are legions of employees who have had their paycheques attacked by the November 12 budget levy increase of 250 per cent on the standby allowance for personal use of cars. Could the minister tell us what he has done to have this threshold returned to a more realistic level which can be managed within the practical limits of business without increasing the paper burden upon the Canadian community?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, as members of the opposition usually do, the hon. member is singling out a specific proposal in the November 12 budget to indicate that millions of Canadians have suffered a cut in their paycheques because of the tax on company cars. The hon. member should go further and consider the impact, for instance, of the lower marginal tax rate on the paycheques of every Canadian. He would then realize that most paycheques were higher in January than at the end of 1981.


EFFECT OF BUDGET PROVISION
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, the minister totally fails to realize that what was a pre-budget deduction of $90 is now a post-budget deduction of $225, and that this can only be covered by increasing and grossing up the income of these employees, which will put them into higher taxation brackets. Thus, what he says is not completely true. What has happened to the minister's attack on paper burden? Would the minister not agree that this item alone in the November 12 budget wipes out five years of magnificent effort on the part of the paper burden committee of his department?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting that I do not understand what impact the increases proposed in the last budget are having and that they are putting taxpayers in higher tax brackets, it is because he does not understand himself the impact of a lower marginal tax rate. As for a decrease in the paper burden, I share the concern of the hon. member, and with what is left of my staff in the Small Businesses secretariat, I continue to monitor any increase or decrease in the government paper burden, to examine the forms issued by other departments and even, in some cases, to have some of them eliminated or simplified.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Reagan administration indicated that it approves of the decision made by the FCC in October to allow Canadian and American domestic satellites to be used for transporter communications. Also it indicated that all it is awaiting is the Government of Canada to make up its mind. What is the government's policy?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the Reagan administration, through the department of the Secretary of State, informed us on January 8 of this year, a few weeks ago, of the decision of the FCC. Of course we have been aware of the decision of the FCC through published reports in the press. If there will be transporter use of satellite facilities, we want to ensure that these facilities are used by Canadian telecommunication carriers that will be assured, as a result of negotiations with the Americans, that they obtain a fair share of the traffic on those facilities and a fair share of the revenues resulting therefrom.
February 10, 1982


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, is the minister anticipating that the government will be able to reach an agreement with the United States government which would allow the two governments to go jointly before Intelsat at its meeting this fall? That would require a decision being made by early summer.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, 1 point out to the hon. member that there already is an excellent system of telecommunications between Canada and the United States which meets the needs and requirements of the users and was negotiated basically by the private sector on both sides of the border, that is, the telephone companies themselves. The ideal situation is that telecommunication carriers will be able to come to terms with their counterparts in the United States. We prefer as an initial step that an agreement be reached at this level instead of having the government intervene.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Recently, especially since the last federal-provincial conference, it seems that the Quebec government has been saying that it will lose $675 million on fiscal transfers. Perhaps the minister could inform us whether these figures are accurate and if not, what the real situation is with respect to fiscal transfers to the province of Quebec, and also whether it is true, and I think it is, that the province will benefit from the new fiscal transfers under the five-year plan ending in 1986?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, very briefly, 1 should like to point out to the hon. member that when Premier Levesque was adding up his figures, he forgot a major component of federal participation in financing established programs, namely, tax point transfers. I may add that if the hon. member compares the five-year period that has just ended with the next five years, he will see that Quebec will be receiving $13.5 billion more in terms of equalization payments and financing of established programs. With $13.5 billion over five years, the province of Quebec will be doing very nicely.
Oral Questions


THE ADMINISTRATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister shown or discussed the contents of any confidential cabinet documents with any members of the Liberal caucus who are not sworn of the Privy Council?


Monique Bégin: No, certainly not, Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: I thank the minister for putting that on the public record, where it will stand.


INQUIRY RESPECTING NEW JOB-CREATION PROGRAM
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can he confirm or deny information which has been circulated by his Quebec colleagues that the government is considering a new job-creation program which was not announced, contained, or provided for in his budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and as I stated in the House, the government is prepared to consider targeted and innovative projects which are intended to produce growth and investment. That is the extent to which I will go at the present time.


INFORMATION CIRCULATED BY QUEBEC MEMBERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister either deliberately or accidentally missed the specific point of the question. He will know there has been information circulated by his Quebec colleagues that a specific program relating to job creation is under consideration by his ministry now. Will he confirm or deny that information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by a specific program. If he uses the word in its proper sense, the answer is no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION

February 10, 1982


SECURITY CERTIFICATE BANNING REFUGEE FROM EL SALVADOR
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the minister knows, he has found Victor Manuel Regalado Brito to be a refugee from El Salvador according to the Geneva Convention on Protection of Refugees, but in fact the minister and the Solicitor General previously issued a security certificate prohibiting Mr. Regalado from staying in Canada on the basis of accusations and evidence withheld from Mr. Regalado. Since this may be the first use of a security certificate based upon secret evidence to bar a refugee from Canada, will the minister consider either withdrawing the certificate or releasing the evidence on which it rests?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the use of a Section 39 certificate is a very serious and very important matter which is not undertaken lightly. It is based upon evidence supplied to myself and to the Solicitor General concerning the activities of individuals which are detrimental to the security and best interests of this country. We have only used that certificate in very rare occurrences over the past several years. We must, in these circumstances, obviously protect the source of that information as it is really essential to the security of the country.
As I have indicated in the case of Mr. Regalado, he also undertook application as a refugee and he has been found as such. I have indicated to him-and I will be writing to the people who are advocating his case-that in the circumstances we will give him some time to find an alternative refuge or haven in a third country, so that he will not be required to return to El Salvador. But we feel that it is not in the best interests of the country that he stay in Canada, and I think we would want to maintain that decision in the best interests of all Canadians.
an alternative place to go, and that we would delay the impending deportation order to accomplish this.
I should point out that, to the best of my information, the hearing on the deportation was not to be held until today, but because of the application of the Section 39 certificate it is virtually an automatic decision. However, we have indicated to Mr. Regalado, through his lawyers and others, that he will have that opportunity, and I think, under the circumstances, and considering Mr. Regalado's behaviour is not in the best interests of this country, that we are being very fair to him in this situation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents and others. The purpose of the petition is to persuade the government that the budget is regressive and will lead to total economic disaster. The nature of the petition, signed by 1,268 taxpayers, is to demand that the budget be completely withdrawn and that a new Minister of Finance be appointed. The petitioners hope in your examination of this petition that you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency of their plea and allow its reading in the House.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, this might be a new type of case. There may be legal questions to be resolved and, as the minister has said, we are under an obligation not to deport Mr. Regalado to a country where his life would be in danger, or to another country that would send him back to El Salvador. Therefore, is the minister willing to give Mr. Regalado time before being sent away to pursue any legal remedies that be open to him through the courts?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 have just told the hon. member that because of the circumstances of this case we have indicated that we would not send Mr. Regalado back to El Salvador, or even to the United States, which has a policy of not accepting refugees from that country and of sending them back. We have indicated that we would give him third country access and Mr. Regalado would have the opportunity to secure


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of some of my constituents. That petition is signed by 228 citizens of the riding of Saint-Michel and calls to the attention of the government their lack of postal service. The signatories are asking the government to take whatever steps are necessary to give them the home delivery service they are entitled to. The petitioners trust that you will deem their petition receivable, Madam Speaker, and that you will recognize the urgent and desperate nature of their request.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Canada. The petition contains 4,518 signatures, names and addresses of Canadians who are opposed to
February 10, 1982

the radiation experiments on dogs currently planned by the Department of National Defence.
Mr. WILSON-SOVIET UNION-UKRAINIAN PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker,
1 have the great honour to present a petition on behalf of 10,871 Canadians from coast to coast who are concerned about the very serious condition of seven Ukrainian prisoners of conscience who are now in prison in the Soviet Union.
This petition calls on the government to use every effort and every means at its disposal to persuade the Soviet government to free these seven people and return them to a normal life in the Ukraine.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills.
February 5, 1982-The Minister of State (Finance)-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds".
Madam Speaker:: Does the House give the hon. minister leave to introduce the bill?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I gave you notice yesterday, as you will recall, that I would raise a point of order respecting the bill for which ways and means motions had just been passed at that point.
I rise now before the Chair is even seized with the bill by reason of the existence of a previous ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux which indicated, on a point of order very similar to the one that I intend to raise, that the proper time for raising the point was not at second reading but at first reading.
It is very difficult for the Chair to follow my point of order unless the Chair is seized with the bill. Mr. Speaker Lamou-reux's ruling is capable of two interpretations, the first being that it would be more appropriate to raise the point after first reading and before second reading. The other interpretation is that Mr. Speaker Lamoureux meant the point must be raised at first reading, which is exactly the point we are at now.
I would suggest, in order that the Chair is seized with the bill and can follow a rather complex but important argument in terms of the future consideration of legislation by the House, that the bill be seized by the Chair, and if it is necessary to go to first reading for that purpose, then we will do that. If necessary, we could go to first reading for that purpose, subject to the caveat that when the Chair is seized
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
with the bill and when I explain my point of order, should the decision be reached that it should have been raised prior to first reading, then the argument will be applicable at that point in time.


Madam Speaker:: We can accept that suggestion if the House agrees. 1 am aware of some rulings even of Mr. Speaker Jerome where he did say that certain points of order would have been better heard at first reading rather than at second reading. However, it all depends on what the point of order is.
I cannot judge at this point whether I should hear it now or later. I expect the House would agree that the point of order be raised. At any rate, the hon. member can get up at any time and raise a point of order. I believe the hon. member is suggesting that we go to first reading and then he would submit a point of order. Is that my understanding of what the hon. member has just said?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, that is correct, Madam Speaker, subject to the understanding-and undoubtedly the Chair would want to take the point that 1 raised under consideration before ruling-that the Chair accepts the submission of the point of order as though it had been made prior to actual first reading.
I might for the sake of the record read Journals for January 26, 1971. On page 285 the Speaker on that occasion was referring to a similar argument, and said:
When those bills came before the Flouse for first reading I entered a caveat about them and gave hon. members an opportunity of expressing their views.
At any rate, some of these bills were refused by the Chair. I think it is trite to suggest that the Chair enter that caveat that I suggest here in this particular instance.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, whether we agree or not, you have the discretion to decide either way, and if my learned friend feels that he must raise his point of order now in view of a previous ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, he should do so. We cannot anticipate what his point of order is going to be, and so our consent is irrelevant. If he feels he has a good case, he should argue it now, and if he does not, we should proceed with other business.


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member is referring to a ruling by one of my predecessors, which could not be made until the Chair had read the bill in question. I assume that the point of order to be raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would require me to read the bill first. Obviously, at this stage it is impossible for me to have read the bill. However, as I said earlier, it all depends on the point of order he intends to raise. I cannot in advance say yes, I give you permission to raise a point of order if it is inappropriate. But if I have to read the bill, I can understand why he is entering this caveat on the approval of the bill at first reading.

February 10, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-93, to amend the Statute Law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authorities for the raising of funds.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it would be helpful if the Chair were to be provided with a copy of the bill as I go through my submission.
The title of the bill is "An act to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds". Having looked at the bill. Madam Speaker, I would submit it is offensive to the rights of the House. Further, I believe the groundwork is being steadily laid for the removal, without the permission of the House and without any rule changes, of substantial House debating rights. We regard these developments with the greatest of alarm and look to the Chair for protection of our long established rights in this connection.
The bill, Madam Speaker, actually contains three separate legislative proposals. If the Chair will refer to the bill, Part I is the borrowing authority 1982-83. There are two additional parts to the bill. Part II consists of amendments to the Excise Tax Act, and Part III is the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. which is really an amendment to Bill C-57 of this session, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas.
As much as I might wish that the House have the opportunity to discuss three separate bills, I do not wish to argue that Parts II and III, both relating to the Excise Tax Act, could not be considered in one bill. I do contend very strongly, however, that the lumping in of the borrowing bill which is not, like the other two, a Ways and Means bill, is a very substantial invasion of our rights and removes opportunities for debate and consideration that were formerly open to us.
I do not wish to be unreasonable in my argument, and I will not argue that a Ways and Means motion can never be combined in a bill with other types of legislative enactments related consequentially to it. However, in this case the linkage between the parts is extremely slight, and the ability of some draftsmen to write a long title which seems to emphasize vague similarities between the parts cannot, in my submission, be allowed to over-rule every other procedural consideration.
1 hope you will note in passing, Madam Speaker, that the long title of this bill does not even refer to the excise tax, and a similar title in future could be used to include every single bill arising from a budget. In fact, I believe a marked contraction
of debating opportunities through the use of omnibus bills is a specific part of this government's legislative strategy and I have direct evidence of this, which I will come to.
The budget, Madam Speaker, generally produces a series of budget bills which have been subject to some consolidation. The Income Tax Act amendments and the income tax application rules amendments arise from separate ways and means motions and no one objects to a combined bill. The Excise Act and Excise Tax Act are combined along with taxes essentially of an excise tax nature. There is nothing wrong with that. The Customs Tariff Act amendments have generally stood alone. It sometimes happens that a tax bill includes consequential amendments to other statutes, and I will come to that.
The important point is that even with these acceptable consolidations we have always had three set budget bills, to which a fourth has now been added. We can debate the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Customs Tariff bill. The fourth has been the borrowing bill which, in these days of deficit Financing, has given the House the opportunity to focus on the government's borrowing policy as a critical element of the government's economic policies.
I want to note briefly the evolution of the borrowing bill as a separate item of legislation. As members know, it was traditionally part of a supply bill but in 1975 the Speaker accepted objections to the borrowing clause being inserted in the supply bill because that bill could no longer be debated. By agreement in subsequent years the clause was left in the supply bill with the proviso that a day's debate be allowed in Committee of the Whole to enable the borrowing clause to be debated. This was done in the 1976-77 session and in 1977-78, although in one case, the 1977-78 session, the borrowing clause was made into a part of the income tax bill, C-l 1. It should be noted that this slipped through without any comment, but it is a very doubtful precedent because the practice was not confirmed by a ruling, was not accepted as a definite precedent in your ruling, Madam Speaker, of January 19, 1981, and, most important, has been superseded by the practice subsequently adopted in the last three administrations.
For the session 1978-79, there was a separate borrowing authority bill, Bill C-7. In 1979, there was a separate borrowing authority bill, Bill C-10. So far this session there have been two borrowing authority bills, C-30 and C-59. However significant some members opposite might feel the income tax bill, C-22, from five years ago to be, I hope Madam Speaker will keep in mind there are four times as many precedents for a separate bill.
In each of these four cases in which a separate borrowing bill was introduced, the bill was not dealt with in the Committee of the Whole but was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. This has enabled us to call witnesses and hear evidence respecting government debt financing policies. If we combine the borrowing bill with the excise bill, we will lose either the right to discuss borrowing in the standing committee, or the right to deal with excise taxes in the Committee of the Whole. I contend that it is an abuse of
February 10, 1982

procedure to combine bills in such a way as to give the House an either/or choice between two established rights.
I would like to turn to the question of combining Ways and Means bills with bills introduced in the normal way. Although this can cause difficulties in deciding on the type of committee treatment the bill receives, there can be no reasonable objection to the practice if the one part is consequentially linked to the other. It would clearly be a waste of time to go through the entire legislative process for a second bill if the principle and details it contains have been specifically dealt with in the main legislation.
I believe this view is founded on the same principles as those implicit in your ruling of last January 19. After ruling that the borrowing aspects of Bill C-54 had to be struck from the bill because of inadequate notice, Your Honour said:
1 should make clear to members that I have no quarrel with the practice of combining in the same bill taxation matters based on Ways and Means motions with other matters, provided that the provisions of Standing Order 42(1) are fulfilled and notice properly given. Precedents to that effect can be found at page 42 of the Journals for October 20, 1978, relating to Bill C-10, and page 114 of the Journals for 1976 relating to Bill C-22.
Madam Speaker, this comment was made in reply to some of the arguments raised concerning Bill C-54, and did not say that Bill C-54 was acceptable in every fashion except the question of notice. It said that it was not an acceptable argument to say that Ways and Means bills could never be combined with others. In fact, I have examined both the bills cited by Your Honour on January 11, and I believe that the nature of the bills supports my contention that consequential combinations are natural and acceptable, but that it does not follow that any combination is acceptable no matter what the diversity of objective or the difference in traditional treatment.
Bill C-10 of the 1978-79 session introduced the child tax credit. Part I, consisting of amendments to the Income Tax Act, set out in detail the provisions of the new child tax credit. Part II, an amendment to the Family Allowances Act, made provisions for amounts to be paid under the act during 1979. It was a purely transitional amendment and it would have been absurd to put it in a separate bill.
The other example cited by Your Honour was Bill C-22 of the 1976-77 session. The main part of the bill was an amendment to the Income Tax Act. It ran to 77 clauses. The income tax application rules took in a further seven clauses. A third section, Part III, was titled "Other Acts and Consequential Amendments" and consisted of three clauses relating to the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. The schedule contained other acts consequentially affected.
These reasonable instances of a combination of Ways and Means bills with consequential amendments to other statutes cannot be taken, in my submission, to support the proposition that any one of the traditional tax bills, derived exclusively from Ways and Means motions, as they are supposed to be, can be combined with any other type of government legislation. This must lead to a confusion of debate, a curtailment of
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
long-established rights and an elimination of opportunities given under the rules of hearings in standing committees.
As an opposition we are frequently told that if we want new opportunities to argue or amend, we will have to work to change the rules. I think of petitions and motions under Standing Order 43, for example. The same must apply to the government. If our rights are to be encroached upon in the name of streamlining Parliament, it must be after the adoption by the House of new rules, not by a steady rolling back of the right of debate and inquiry without the slightest recourse to precedent, practice or custom.
What we have here is a continuation of the government's practice of surreptitiously closing off and guillotining debate, not through the open invocation of Standing Order 75 or pure closure, but by means of a constant testing of the House and of the Chair with new legislative combinations. If one step works, then the government goes a little further the next time. We are moving with slow and steady stealth in a direction the government dares not openly avow or openly pursue.
The House knows that the problem of omnibus bills has arisen before. Thus far, Speakers have expressed doubts but have been reluctant to say that the point of confrontation has been reached. In 1971, on January 26, at page 285 of the Journals, Speaker Lamoureux said:
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital "O" and a capital "B". But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
A moment afterwards, in that same ruling, Speaker Lamoureux said:
At the same point it is much easier for the government to go back to the legislative mill to where bills are prepared, to the judicial luminaries of the Department of Justice for the consideration of Parliament. If I may say so, 1 think that even those very learned gentlemen should take into account that this is an aspect of a matter that is of interest to all hon. members, of interest 1 am sure to the government, and certainly of interest to the Chair, namely that there must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
Where do we stop, Madam Speaker? I suggest that the time to stop is now. In this instance, we have the potential loss of a major economic debate, simply through the casual combination of two measures. We have a long title which could easily encompass every budget bill that is ever put forward; one big bill instead of three or four.
Hon. members might be tempted to think that too much is being made of this point. I would like to close my remarks on this point of order by citing a remark from the debate on the point of order on Bill C-54 last January. I always take the government House leader at his word, and I have no doubt of his sincerity on that occasion. On January 16, 1981, as reported at page 6281 of Hansard, he said:
__I believe that, in practice, the members of the House are far from being
penalized by this procedure. First of all, they were given reasonable notice, second, they will have time to debate this matter, and third, which should please

February 10, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
everyone, this will avoid the need for the House to consider separate bills which can be dealt with together, which is not irregular or abnormal and which could perhaps become a more usual practice in the future for combining related provisions.
The House is here for the exact purpose of considering separate legislative items through a process of three readings. The government would have us look more and more at unholy and illogical combinations to enable it to exercise more control over hon. members' right of debate, amendment and committee consideration. We will resist this planned elimination of hard-won rights with all of our strength. We appeal to the Chair for an exercise of your authority, Madam Speaker, on behalf of those rights, and on behalf of all hon. members who collectively possess those rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is nothing new in the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I think that each time an omnibus bill has been introduced by the government in this House, a member of the opposition has raised a point of order to complain about this practice and to try to do away with a custom, a practice and a right which are well-established and well-recognized.
The same grounds are consistently put forth, whether to the effect that this infringes on the rights of hon. members to discuss separate bills or that certain members would prefer considering a bill in a standing committee of the House rather than in Committee of the Whole, and the opinions expressed in this regard vary according to those who argue these points of order. Some of the members maintain that a more comprehensive examination is possible in Committee of the Whole because each clause is analysed on the floor of the House and the members have every opportunity to discuss not just the various parts of the bill, but also all of the clauses successively. In any case, as the government House leader, I have no alternative, Madam Speaker, but to refer to this well-established practice which I mentioned a few moments ago and with which you are certainly quite familiar. If I may, I will simply identify various well-known bills of the past 25 years which included different provisions and constituted omnibus bills and which were accepted as valid by the Speaker of the House after they had been discussed under points of order.
The House will recall the National Defence Act of 1953, the Criminal Code amendments of 1968-69, the Government Organization Bill of 1970-71, the Western Grain Stabilization Act of 1971, the Crimes of Violence Bill of 1976 and the Arms Control Bill of 1977, to mention just a few. Your predecessors, Madam Speaker, namely, Mr. Speaker Jerome and Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, were asked to consider the arguments raised by members of the opposition and they studied the matter in depth and recognized in each instance that until a formal parliamentary reform has been completed, they had their
hands tied by what must bind this institution, namely, the Standing Orders, parliamentary practice and precedents. In this case, I respectfully submit that my learned colleague has put forth absolutely no new argument that could justify a reversal of this very stringent jurisprudence, this well-established practice, to force the government to break up legislation, supposedly to allow the opposition to debate certain bills separately and make a more detailed study of such bills. I submit that this is not a valid point anyway, because for the detailed discussion of either an omnibus or a separate bill, opposition members under the Standing Orders are under no time limit unless the government requests clause by clause discussion in Committee of the Whole. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the legislation that has just been introduced includes an aspect allowing the government to borrow certain sums of money and other measures to levy imposts or taxes. The connection between the three measures is that they are all tax measures, which justifies their being linked and combined together. With that obvious connection it seems to me that there is no basis either in our Standing Orders, practices or precedents, for the hon. member opposite to suggest that this legislation or any future one should be divided, because everyone knows that a bill will be introduced shortly on energy security, and I wonder if the aim is not to prepare the ground for fighting that other legislation dealing with energy measures. I can refer to it because there has been a draft bill published on the issue. If they want to raise this point anew, they will be true to norm, Madam Speaker, they will be consistent with themselves, because to my knowledge, it very seldom happens that an omnibus bill is not met by points of order. But this will not improve their case as long as there is no proper change in our rules.
Madam Speaker, 1 mentioned earlier Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and Mr. Speaker Jerome. I would like to refer you to an omnibus bill on which Mr. Speaker Jerome had to analyse a similar point of order and he based his decision on a previous one by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. This means that with one quote 1 can bring the views of both Speakers and spare you a list or accumulation of the numerous precedents in which those Speakers were involved and where they favoured the government's view. But first let me respond to the point of fact raised by my learned colleague from Yukon, who argued in particular that if you do not separate this legislation we would be penalized and would not be able to go before the Standing Committee of this House on the borrowing authority aspect, since the other provisions implied the levy of taxes and would therefore be studied in Committee of the Whole.
That argument cannot stand. Madam Speaker, for the mere reason that since 1953 the borrowing authority bill has always included a clause dealing with income tax and in the last 25 years, this bill has never been deferred to a standing committee of the House. Such an argument is not justified because indeed what is called the borrowing authority bill or the legislation
February 10, 1982

authorizing the government to borrow a certain sum has always included a note or a clause dealing with income tax making it necessary to deal with it in Committee of the Whole and consequently this practice is not something new since it has existed for well over 25 years and there is no more substance in this argument than in the others. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux' quotation is taken from the House of Commons Debates of May 11, 1977, on page 5,522. It is interesting to note that the bill about which a point of order was raised was an omnibus bill entitled:
Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
It was asked at that time that the bill be divided because it was an omnibus bill. Flere is what Speaker Jerome said about that bill, referring to Speaker Lamoureux. The Speaker noted that "the same situation has arisen several times in the past with all the same arguments having been made". Fie referred to two rulings by his predecessor, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, one on January 26, 1971, having to do with the government reorganization bill, and the second on January 23, 1969, which dealt again with an omnibus bill relating to the Criminal Code. These rulings were discussed earlier; I mentioned them.
Referring to the decision of former Speaker Lamoureux, Mr. Jerome stated:
His decision is crystal clear, and there can be no doubt that a motion containing two or more substantive provisions is quite distinct from a procedural motion or a motion which is generally described as having only the effect of dealing with the progress of a bill. The practice in respect of substantive motions has never been extended to those motions which relate to the progress of a bill. The use of the omnibus amending bill is well enshrined in our practices, and I really can find no reason to set aside my predecessor's very clear and sound reasoning, or the practice. Nor can I find any authority which would support an order of the Chair at this second reading stage that the bill be divided.
I should emphasize as well that the remedy sought by the hon. member is not to divide the bill according to the separate statutes to be amended but by subject matter.
He then goes into the specifics of the matter raised at that time. I think, Madam Speaker, that you had those precedents and that parliamentary practice in mind the last time you had to rule on a bill which this government attempted to introduce in the House of Commons, which included borrowing authority for the government plus certain taxation bills and which you did not accept at that time for procedural reasons. At the time you said that the government ought to have given a different notice for the borrowing authority aspect of the bill. I remember that very well. We had to divide the bill for the specific reason of default of notice.
I am sure once again, Madam Speaker, that you had all the practice clearly in mind when you stated in Hansard on January 19, 1981, as reported at page 6319:
I should make clear to members that t have no quarrel with the practice of combining in the same bill taxation matters based on Ways and Means motions with other matters, provided that the provisions of Standing Order 42(1) are
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
fulfilled and notice properly given. Precedents to that effect can be found at page 42-
End of quotation.

Madam Speaker, when you stated that at this same time last year you had no misgiving and that you wanted it to be quite clear to members on both sides of the House that you saw no difficulty whatsoever in authorizing the introduction of income tax measures within a bill dealing with any other matter, hence within a bill providing authority to borrow certain sums, in my opinion, there is no doubt that you were quite aware of that parliamentary practice and I entirely agree with you for the sake of consistency and coherence in rulings as well as in the development of parliamentary practice, and I feel that it would be quite strange, not to say shocking, that we should break away from that well-established practice. It would be inconsistent with any rule, practice and precedent. Once again,
I listened closely to what the hon. member for Yukon was saying, but there were no new facts, no new arguments concerning similar points of order raised in the past which would allow you to depart from a principle which you explicitly stated on January 19, 1981, and consequently from such a compelling and obvious parliamentary practice.
I am not sure, but I think at one point I heard the hon. member for Yukon refer to the parliamentary practice in use in the United Kingdom. If he did not refer to it, I will. The practice followed in the United Kingdom is very likely to support what we are doing here, because over there only one bill combining all budget measures is introduced, and it is a time-honoured tradition which is also supportive of what we are doing, if my hon. colleague wants to base his argument on the practice in Westminster. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the legal aspect of the matter having been discussed, debated and presented in a way which I feel is quite clear, based on precedents, and the facts mentioned by the hon. member being quite simple, I should like to add this in support of my views: there is a justification for this practice which the government does not abuse, although it could, and therefore it is not contrary to our own Standing Orders and parliamentary practice. The fact is that we are now in 1982 and the number of bills is increasing day after day, week after week, month after month, and I suggest that when we can reasonably combine a number of measures deriving from the same principle, dealing with the same issue, in doing so we are not in any way limiting the freedom of expression of hon. members, because this bill, I repeat, will go through all three stages: second reading where the principle of the bill will be examined; then, clause by clause consideration of the bill in committee, as provided under our Standing Orders, where all hon. members will be able to express their views; and, finally, third reading, where an amendment may be moved for a further reference of the subject matter of the bill to the committee. Those are so many

February 10, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
opportunities under our Standing Orders where hon. members may fully express their views concerning a legislative measure.
Now, it is recognized that when a debate has been going on for too long, the government has a political decision to make by setting a limit to the duration of the debate pursuant to SO 75a, 75b or 75c, as it has been compelled to do in the past, because of the parties' inability to come to an agreement. The government demonstrates its wisdom by allowing more or less time depending on the complexity of legislation and whether it is controversial in nature. Therefore, without abdicating our responsibilities, and when circumstances make it necessary to limit debate on any bill, including this one, I say that if the measure is more substantial and complicated, the government may decide to assume the political consequences of its action, and if there is a filibuster by the opposition, they in turn will have to accept the consequences of their action as well. But the principle, the rules, the opportunities for debate do exist. Parliamentary practice does not require the government to divide the bill concerned. In this day and age, when there is a proliferation of bills because of the evolution of our society, Parliament has to study many bills. To my mind, this procedure is logical, and there is no justification for doing away with it; it has existed for years. The government has never abused it. Under those circumstances, Madam Speaker, and we shall probably plead in the same vein when we introduce the bill on energy security, we feel the opposition has neither the reasons nor the right to oppose a procedure that is in perfect agreement with parliamentary spirit and practice.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, I have never seen a House leader trying to hold up the House to ridicule as was the case just now. We have heard a speech in which we were served a systematic mixture of apples, oranges and lemons. To begin with, I will give all references to the British practice under which the rules allow the presentation of a finance bill. But that is not allowed under our current rules. Standing Order 60(11) reads as follows:
(11) The adoption of a Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
Fair enough. We have before us, and I refer hon. members to pages 109 and 117, notices of Ways and Means motions tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on the evening of November 12. Those are two notices of motions to amend the Excise Tax Act, but neither refers to the borrowing authority. Madam Speaker, you were kind enough to recognize me two days ago. At that time I put two questions to the minister about delaying the effective date of motion No. 2. It was supposed to become effective on July 1, 1982, but since representations had been made by the industry and other groups, which the minister did acknowledge, he stated that he would be prepared to hear them and postpone until January 1, 1983, the implementation of the excise tax and the changes to the assessment base. Now the government leader has the nerve to say that we will have an opportunity to examine the
question in Committee of the Whole. To whom are we going to put our questions, to him or to the Minister of State? Surely we are not going to get the answers from them. We need to question government officials and spokesmen for the industry. The amendments in those two motions amount to basic reforms. They are now part and parcel of the bill, but a totally unacceptable band-aid measure has been tacked on, Madam Speaker, because you have ruled that a bill may not go beyond the scope of the Ways and Means motion.
There must not be any difference in principle in the main provisions and quite often in the past-I am saying this for the benefit of new members-we sent some bills back because the government had tried to make certain changes which were not in accordance with the Ways and Means motions. 1 was a member of the committee with the Hon. Donald Macdonald who was then the government House leader and who said that any motion derived from the budget would go through the notice of ways and means procedure, then the motion would be adopted without debate and the bill introduced; after that there would be second reading debate, a debate in Committee of the Whole House, unless there was an order of the House to refer the bill to a committee of the House. The Committee of the Whole did that last year. But this time the borrowing authority does not flow from a Ways and Means motion, it is quite simply a financial issue which has nothing at all to do with the proposal to change the excise tax.
It is amazing that the government House leader should say that because there is the levying of taxes and the borrowing of money, this is finance and we can put it all in the same stew pot.
The government House leader made reference to how the Chair has treated omnibus bills in the past. On a number of occasions in the past the Chair has eaten itself through its illogicality, and on those occasions I have said so to the occupant of the chair. The Criminal Code bill which did away with capital punishment was an omnibus bill an inch and a half thick. My colleague, the hon. member for Durham-North-umberland (Mr. Lawrence), proposed an amendment with regard to the form of punishment for capital crime. Capital punishment was part of the principle-or was the principle- of the bill. The bill did much to amend the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker Jerome had the-I do not know what I should call it-to say that the bill having been passed at second reading, no amendment to derogate from the principle of the bill could be accepted. I had never heard of such a performance.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know exactly what the hon. member is referring to, but he is referring to a principle. I think I could approve the principle that no amendment should go beyond the scope of a bill. I think that is a principle which has been accepted and which has been basic and fundamental to most of the rulings in this House I have studied. I urge the hon. member to speak about the subject we
February 10, 1982

are debating. This is a very complicated question. Hon. members may refer to rulings previously made, but some of the remarks made by the hon. member reflect on rulings, and 1 warn him against continuing in that vein.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, if you had been listening, I think you would have noted that I was not arguing against what you are talking about, an amendment going beyond the principle of a bill. That is correct; amendments cannot do that. However, I challenge the Chair to determine what is the principle of an omnibus Criminal Code bill if it is not to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. I cite that as an example of an odd position into which the Chair can push itself when reaching for the wrong reasons, and the government House leader is inviting Your Honour to do precisely that.
In this particular matter we have two Ways and Means motions. Among our Standing Orders is Standing Order 60(11), which the British House does not have but which the Chair has ruled must be interpreted strictly. There are two reasons for that. Budget bills are to be debated in Committee of the Whole within this House, but not a borrowing authority bill. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) took us back 25 years and referred to some entirely different rules. On two occasions Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled-on points of order I raised about borrowing authority being tacked on to appropriation bills-that the change in rules in 1968-69 precluded any debate on an appropriation bill, and there was no way of debating the borrowing authority. It was a clear attempt to bootleg a subject matter beyond the principle of an appropriation bill, because borrowing is not appropriation under any circumstance. There is no way; the two things are totally apart. Appropriation is a supply matter; borrowing is something quite different. The government did have to come in then with separate borrowing authority bills. The government is attempting to hide this borrowing authority by tacking it on to excise Ways and Means motions.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) should live up to the answer he gave me the other day that he would be prepared to hold public hearings. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) says that is not so. This bill relates to certain taxes and those taxes are excise taxes. They are Motions Nos. 1 and 2, unless the minister is able to find some other ways and means motions relating to excise taxes. Or can the minister specify what other taxes? And there he will run afoul of Standing Order 60(11), because the bill brought in must be in conformity with the Ways and Means motion. We cannot bring in all these other bits.
The minister may say that that is fine, that the bill is bringing in only those matters contained in the ways and means motion dealing with excise tax. But then we are adding another part, creating an omnibus bill by including a borrowing authority bill. Immediately the Chair faces the problem. A borrowing authority bill should go to the standing committee, according to the Standing Orders, it is not a budget bill,
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
whereas the excise tax bills must stay in the House unless the House decides to do otherwise.
They cannot have it both ways. It is my view that of all the bills cited by the President of the Privy Council there was not one budget bill included in that list of omnibus bills. They all dealt with other things-gun legislation, the Criminal Code, other things, but not one budget bill. It is very clear why- because he would be hoist with his own petard, knowing that they do not apply. Omnibus bills do not apply to budget bills. On that basis, I want to support the point raised by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
I invite the Chair to reflect very carefully, for instance, to determine in answer what would be the principle of a bill "to amend certain excise taxes or the basis of valuation for certain excise taxes and the authority to borrow." What is the relationship between the two? That is the problem right there. I invite the Chair to rule that the bill that is being brought forward does not conform with Standing Order 60, Paragraph 11, and therefore should be withdrawn.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the Chair's attention a couple of points that do not repeat in any way the points raised in the excellent argument prepared by my colleague, my House leader, the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
I would like to point out first that a borrowing authority bill standing on its own is referred to standing committee. I would refer the Chair to Hansard of 1979, page 1197, where Bill C-10, a borrowing authority bill, was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Also in this session, 1980-81, this extra long session, on pages 2068-69, Bill C-30, the borrowing authority bill, was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Also, Bill C-59, a similar one, was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, as recorded at page 7326 of Hansard.
I would point out that that is in fact what happens with a borrowing authority bill and should happen with a borrowing authority bill. This bill we are considering now, C-93, is an act to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes, and is amending the excise tax. Then, attached to that, is the phrase ''and to provide other authority for the raising of funds". It describes what, as a result of excellent rulings by previous Speakers and the precedents here, has been in fact treated as a separate bill. What we have here is a subject matter which should be treated as a separate bill, but has been quite improperly lumped in with the amending portion.
The government House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), used as what I think he would consider a strong part of his argument in defending the appropriateness of this bill a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome with respect to Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act. He indeed quoted from that ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome this passage:
The use of the omnibus amending bill is well enshrined in our practices-

February 10, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
He says "omnibus amending bill". Throughout this entire judgment of Mr. Speaker Jerome, he referred to "an omnibus amending bill" as being something that was part of our practices; never to an "omnibus bill" being part of our practices, but an "omnibus amending bill" being part of our practices. That is a very fundamental and important difference, Madam Speaker.
The government House leader read a list of omnibus bills that have been passed, amending bills. He missed one. We passed one last summer that had to do with pensions. It amended a number of pension acts relating to war veterans, returning prisoners of war, former war veterans and civilians. I cannot recall the various acts that were amended by that one amending bill. The subject matter was clear; it was pensions for people who, either in their capacity as civilians or prisoners of war or combatants, were having their pensions adjusted. There was a series of statutes impinging on that, so there was one amending bill, an omnibus amending bill amending various statutes. That has been accepted pratice and that was what was happening with Bill C-51, in the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome referred to by the government House leader.
Most significantly, I would also underline from Mr. Speaker Jerome's statement that he went on to say:
I really can find no reason to set aside my predecessor's very clear and sound reasoning, or the practice. Nor can I find any authority which would support an order of the Chair at this second reading stage-
That is very important, because what he was adjudicating at that time was a second reading stage amendment. It was a point of order raised by the member for New Westminster, then Mr. Leggatt, seeking an order of the Chair to divide the bill at second reading.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, in a judgment in 1971, made it very clear that the appropriate time to deal with this subject matter was first reading, that second reading was inappropriate, and that there is no ability under any precedent or Standing Order or rule for the Chair or the House to divide the bill on second reading. But most certainly there is on first reading. So what Mr. Speaker Jerome said was that at second reading stage he could not accept the point of order put forward by the member for New Westminster. He did not say that in fact the order was inappropriate on first reading. Mr. Speaker Jerome then went on to say in this judgment, as reported at page 5522 of Hansard for May 11, 1977:
This still leaves, as it has in the past every time this kind of argument has been put forward, some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the hon. member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects.
Then he goes on after some "hear, hears", presumably from our side of the House:
1 think an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question.
That is absolutely clear, Madam Speaker. He says he thinks an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question. Then he went on to say:
-it has been suggested that motions by way of an instruction to the committee, once the bill is in the standing committee, that the bill be divided, might be applicable. This is a practice ... in the British House-
He went on to say that it does not apply here. Further on he said:
It has been said that at the report stage hon. members can isolate clauses by tabling, with the appropriate notice, motions to amend, but even there it seems to me the point is not answered, as equally it is not answered by the suggestion that at third reading stage hon. members can put down motions to refer the bill back to the committee for reconsideration of certain clauses. I say that those two remedies do not answer the point fully because it may very well be that an hon. member might take the position that the law is fine the way it is and that he ought not to be put under the burden of contriving some kind of amendment or seeking further study when in fact he does not want further study. What he really wants to express is that the law is fine the way it is and that it ought to be left alone. It seems to me that he ought to be entitled to put that point at least at some stage in our proceedings, and furthermore, to require other people to come to a vote on that proposition.
In other words, fundamental to Mr. Speaker Jerome's ruling and equally to Mr. Speaker Lamoureux's earlier rulings was that there must be an ability of the House to have a recorded vote on every aspect of the bill.
Legislation arising out of Ways and Means motions is referred to Committee of the Whole. The Ways and Means motion itself allows division of the House in respect of the nature of the item. When other bills not preceded by such a motion go to Committee of the Whole, that ability is unavailable. To emphasize that point, Mr. Speaker Jerome went on to point out:
Therefore, I think that in the past when attention has been directed to these remedies, not enough has been said about one device which does rest in the hands of hon. members, at least in my opinion, and that is a motion to delete pursuant to Standing Order 75(5).
Then he went on to point out that under Standing Order 75(5) there is the ability to delete a clause which, therefore, allows every hon. member in fact to demand a standing vote on the alternatives they look at. But here is the rub-Standing Order 75(5) reads:
If, not later than 24 hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
However, Standing Order 75(4) reads:
The consideration of the report stage of a bill from a Committee of the Whole shall be received and forthwith disposed of, without amendment or debate.
In other words, the remedy which Mr. Speaker Jerome raised in his ruling of May 11, 1977, is not available in this case because of the nature of this borrowing authority. I humbly suggest that this ruling which the government House leader brought to the attention of the Chair, if examined, in fact is a precedent, and that the ruling directs one to the inescapable conclusion that indeed this is an inappropriate mingling of amendments to the Excise Tax Act and a separate act to provide authority to borrow sums of money.
I know this is a complicated issue which has been debated many times in the past and that the Chair will want to give it consideration. Apparently the bill will not be coming up tomorrow or on Friday, but perhaps some time next week. I
February 10, 1982

humbly request that consideration be given to the points raised by the hon. member for Yukon and mine as well. Also I humbly suggest that those points lead to the conclusion that it is an inappropriate omnibus bill; it is not the kind of omnibus amending bill which has been allowed, based on past practices.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was not in the chamber so I do not know whether the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) made the submission that since this measure is not the order of business for today, tomorrow or Friday, the Chair has ample time to consider the matter and perhaps to render a ruling at the time the government calls the bill for second reading.


Madam Speaker:: The point of order of which I received notice brought forth many points that I had not anticipated. Taking into account that presentations on both sides of the House were extremely complete and very well documented, 1 should certainly like to look at those references so as to judge the question because I know the ruling will be important to the House.
 * *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,232, 3,315, 3,442, 3,529 and 3,555.


Mr. Halliday: What was the total amount of ticket sales made at the CN railway station in Woodstock, Ontario in each of the past five years?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows: The information requested is of a proprietary nature and VIA Rail Canada Inc. believes it should not be made public for competitive reasons.


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	Does the Canadian Transport Commission prevent a barge, owned by a company other than the Northern Transportation Company and located in the lower Mackenzie or Beaufort Sea, from loading freight for a return voyage after being repaired at Hay River, Northwest Territories and, if so, does the barge have to be pushed back empty to its original location?
2.	(a) Do the towing fees for a 1000-ton barge going from Tuktoyaktuk to Hay River and return total approximately $100,000 (b) is there any chance of recovering revenues by hauling freight on the return trip and, if not (i) for what reason would such a regulation exist which results in lost economy and is detrimental to the Slave Lake ship-repairing industry (ii) will the government consider rescinding the pertinent regulation?
Order Paper Questions


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.	No. The water transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission issues yearly licences to carriers on the Mackenzie River. Since these licences do not contain restrictions which limit carrier operations to one way movements, the CTC does not prevent a barge from loading freight for a return voyage after being repaired at Hay River.
2.	(a) As fees depend on various factors, including tow configurations, it is not possible to identify a generally applicable fee for a given route.
(b) See answer to 1 above.
(i)	and (ii) See answer to 1 above.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is there a summer employment program for students to work in cabinet ministers' offices and (a) if not, is such a program contemplated (b) if so, what was the scope of the program in (i) 1979 (ii) 1980 (iii) 1981?


Yvon Pinard: student summer employment program for ministers' offices was established in 1981.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	(i) Not applicable.
(ii)	Not applicable.
(iii)	Responsibilities of participants in the program varied in each office. Generally, their duties ranged from clerical assistance to research.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were employees of Graphic Artists, Studio S&B, 400 St. Antoine St. West, Montreal sworn to secrecy in connection with the details of housing provisions contained in the 1981 Budget and, if so (a) what were their names (b) on what date were they sworn to secrecy (c) were specific tasks performed by each individual for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so, what were they (d) at what time and on what date was information turned over to any one of the employees by the corporation or by anyone else in the government?
2.	Was all the work performed by the company done in Montreal?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	The employees of Graphic Artists, Studio S&B, 400 St. Antoine Street West, Montreal, were not working on "details of housing provisions contained in the 1981 Budget". They were asked to undertake some preparatory work based on proposals which had been made to address the mortgage renewal problem resulting from high interest rates.
(a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable; (d) Not applicable.
2.	Yes.
Motions for Papers RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

February 10, 1982


Mr. Blenkarn: Did the Minister of State for Science and Technology issue a booklet entitled "Limited Partnership Investment, Opportunities for Financing R & D in Canada" and, if so (a) is it the position of the government that people who invest in limited partnerships are entitled to take the financial advantage of limited partnership investment and so reduce their taxable income (b) is it the intention of the government to allow individuals to borrow so as to invest in limited partnerships for financing R & D projects (c) is it the intention of the government to promote, as a tax loophole, the financing of R & D by limited partnerships?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the
Minister of State for Science and Technology is concerned: yes, but the correct title is "Limited Partnerships: Investment Opportunities for Financing R & D in Canada".
(a)	The book explains that individuals could under certain circumstances take advantage of the tax incentives offered by the federal government on R & D.
(b)	Individuals may if they wish borrow to invest in a limited partnership.
(c)	It is the intention of the government to encourage investment in R & D through tax incentives. The booklet explains how these incentives may apply to limited partnerships.


Mr. Campbell (LaSalle):: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Mr. Herbert:: Madam Speaker, would you kindly call motions Nos. 84 and 89.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all communications during 1981 between the government and/or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the government of the province of Saskatchewan dealing with residential mortgages and home foreclosures.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, records of telephone conversations and other communciations between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the appropriate ministers of the governments of the provinces relating to the standards for programs and the conditions for federal participation in a revised Canada Assistance Plan.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Orders:
January 28, 1982-Second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-90, an act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certain acts in consequence thereof.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning Bill C-90. This bill arises out of a Ways and Means motion dealing with the Customs tariff. I should like to include in my point of order a question to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), but first I should like to explain how it arises. Paragraphs Nos. 20, 21 and 22 repeal The New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932 and The New Zealand Trade Agreement (Amendment) Act, 1970-71-72. Then paragraph 22 reads as follows:
February 10, 1982

That any enactment founded upon paragraphs 1 to 21 inclusive and Schedules I, II and III to this motion will be deemed to have come into force on the 13th day of November, 1981, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said paragraphs and Schedules imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day-
This deals with a trade agreement with New Zealand but, with the greatest respect, there is no appearance of that trade agreement. The terms of it are not before the House. We know-but not through the government-that the agreement was signed in September, 1981, but we know not the terms of it. At this moment the House is not in a position to debate fully this bill. There is no way of determining what is contained in that New Zealand trade agreement. The House is entitled to have that agreement before it. After all, do we know what notice of default has to be given, when default occurs, or whether there are dates for changes? Can notice be given by one contracting country to another for certain amendments either for elimination of some goods or the inclusion of other goods at certain levels? At the moment we are faced with surreptitiously bootlegging into the Customs Tariff the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act.
It is not that this House can by vote amend any of the tariffs of such an agreement between two contracting parties. This we know. It is one of the anomalies of the duties of the House that we are presented in many instances with tax agreements between countries. The finance committee has to consider the tax agreement but it is not allowed to change one dot or uncross one "t". That is the exclusive preserve of the department of the government negotiating with a third party.
Therefore, the House is reduced to swallowing the pill without asking any questions. Whether it is in the Committee of the Whole or whether it is in the standing committee, the parliamentary secretary knows whereof I speak, that on tax treaties there is not one thing that Members of Parliament can change. Members of Parliament can comment, but they cannot change. In this particular instance, we cannot even ask questions because the agreement is not here. There is no agreement appended to Bill C-90 either.


An hon. Member:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Where is the agreement? Is it in somebody's heart? Or in somebody's head? Does it sit up in the trade department on some shelf? Where is it? That is the question. Is the minister prepared to table that agreement so that this debate will have some semblance of sense? I have a number of colleagues who wish to comment if they can see the agreement.
The Minister of State for Finance in shaking his head cannot under any circumstances say that The New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, having been repealed and the amendment act being repealed, has not been replaced by some agreement. There is sufficient knowledge about because I have a note that the bill gives effect to the new Canada-New Zealand agreement on trade and economic co-operation signed September, 1981, which repeals the old agreements and imple-
Customs Tariff
ments the terms of the new agreement in a Ways and Means motion.
I raise the point again. How can there be intelligent debate? Perhaps the Chair will consider that there need not be intelligent debate in this House.


Mr. Laniel:: The rules say nothing about that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Government members are not interested in intelligent debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It does not alter the fact that government backbenchers are not interested in intelligent debate.
If the information is not provided to this House with regard to a bill, then I say this method, ingenious as it may be, is subverting the purposes of this House in considering these amendments. There is nothing before us, just a list. The minister cannot even interpret the list of the items dealing with New Zealand unless there is an agreement, to which he may have access but to which I do not have access. Therefore, it is my view that the debate on this particular bill should be suspended until the government is prepared to table a copy of the New Zealand-Canada trade agreement of September, 1981, or whatever its date may have been. The one which served to repeal the two legislative enactments is referred to in Sections 20 and 21 of the Ways and Means motion and also referred to in the bill again as Clauses 20 and 21 found on page 10.
Strangely enough, there is a very interesting aspect to this particular bill which I shall call into question. Several of my colleagues have done so, and I will do it for them. In Clause 22 we read:
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 13th day of November, 1981 and to have applied to all goods mentioned therein imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
Does that apply only to the goods coming from New Zealand, or does it apply to all the other changes made with regard to Third World countries where there are generous easings of tariff rates in so far as Canada is concerned?
Those are the questions that 1 raise as a point of order. My point of order is, once again, that we should not proceed until the government produces the New Zealand-Canada trade agreement.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the hon. member that his point of order is not well taken because, having had a closer look at the provisions of the bill, he will notice that its first clauses define or describe whatever changes are to be brought to the Customs Tariff as a result of the trade agreement signed between New Zealand and the Government of Canada. I should also like to point out to him that trade agreements

February 10, 1982
Customs Tariff
signed during a given year are cyclically and regularly made public by the Department of External Affairs. I cannot say, however, if this one has been made public yet. If it can be of any assistance to the hon. member during the forthcoming discussions, I shall be pleased to table a copy of the trade agreement with New Zealand.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in support of the case made by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I think it important to point out that in some respects Bill C-90 suffers from the same defect the other bill which was introduced has attached to it and about which the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) spoke.


Pierre Bussières: No.


Donald W. Munro: Excuse me, may I be
permitted to continue? It stems in a way from the budget papers. There is no question about that. In the budget papers of November 12, at page 121, we have the provisions that are herein contained. There is no indication by the provision of the actual trade agreement that was concluded between Canada and New Zealand that this particular matter had to come into force on November 12, 1981. Perhaps it would lapse when the required law was brought forward. The whole tenor of this bill is related to that trade agreement.


Pierre Bussières: No.


Donald W. Munro: Well, if it is not related to the whole agreement, then we are in the position of having an omnibus bill. I think it would be very important to set aside consideration of this bill until that particular matter was cleared up in the sense indicated by the hon. member for Yukon in connection with the other bill. The implementation, Mr. Speaker, of a trade agreement-and it may very well require implementation-should not be done through a budget proposal. If the minister himself is clear on this point, I do hope he will be able to clarify it for the rest of us.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member causes us to become aware of his ignorance. First of all, he surely has not read the bill. Second, he certainly knows nothing about the trade and economic co-operation agreement signed with New Zealand because, had he read the very first clause of the bill, if indeed he can read and understands something about the Customs Tariff, he would know the clause states specifically what changes will be made in the Customs Tariff as a result of that co-operative trading agreement. Obviously, the hon. member is talking through his hat and knows nothing about the subject. Let us stop wasting time and get on with the job!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Since the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) has offered to table the trade agreement with New Zealand, I wonder if we might seek the unanimous consent of the House to do that. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.
On the point of order raised, I would indicate to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) that the Chair is not aware of grounds which would lead to the same argument as was made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) with respect to Bill C-93. It seems to me the issue we are faced with is exactly the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in which, while he has been in possession of the original international trade agreement with New Zealand, he indicates the possibility the bill itself is not necessarily totally explanatory of the new trade agreement. The difficulty, therefore, is that possibly he cannot be as well informed as he ought to be in order to deal with this bill.
I have some sympathy with that argument in the sense an hon. member may feel there is a gap in his information. However, no argument has been placed and no citations have been put forward. I have been in the House on previous occasions when the same argument was brought up. I cannot recollect the citations, but I do clearly recollect that the absence of the trade agreement on the floor of the House at the time of debate has never hindered a bill from going forward.
So I appreciate the point made and understand and sympathize with the hon. member's feeling that he would like to have better access to information. However, no citations have been mentioned and the Chair has not been offered any argument based on a precedent which might allow the Chair to rule in that regard. Hon. members will have noted that I consulted with the officers of the Table, and the ruling of the Chair has to be that the bill can go forward.


Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-90, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certains acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill we intend to consider today will make a number of major changes in the Customs tariff and will also bring in further changes of a more technical or administrative nature, all of which were presented in the
February 10, 1982

Notice of Ways and Means motion tabled on November 12 by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
Before going any further, and before discussing the details of this bill, I would like to go over these changes quickly, if 1 may. In fact, the bill could conveniently be divided into five sections, each referring to specific objectives or items that are part of the general discussion on tariffs. First of all, the bill provides for significant changes in the general preferential tariff concerning goods imported from developing countries, and includes additional tariff improvements for the least developed countries. Second, the bill establishes a new tariff item under which goods designed for the use of disabled persons are admitted duty free. Third, there are a number of tariff changes including a new list in which tariffs have been either reduced or removed altogether on a vast range of products used by dentists or dental laboratories. Fourth, the bill repeals a number of existing tariff measures which were part of the trade agreement mentioned earlier, namely, the agreement signed by Canada and New Zealand in 1932. This agreement has now ended and its provisions have been replaced by new tariff measures which take into account the new agreement on trade and economic co-operation entered into recently by Canada and New Zealand. As I mentioned earlier, these tariff measures are an extension of the agreement and are clearly set forth in the initial sections of the bill, as we shall see later on. Finally, the fifth aspect of the bill is that it introduces a provision allowing the government to start, in an orderly fashion-and 1 stress the word orderly to avoid ruffling any feathers on the opposite side-the conversion of certain tariff items to the metric system. I know, some people are up in arms as soon as you mention the word metric. The first point I shall discuss is the general preferential tariff.


An hon. Member:: Not all industries use it!


Pierre Bussières: No, but the textile industry does. So as far as the general preferential tariff is concerned, more familiarly known as GPT, let me explain briefly that it provides preferential rates of duty for a vast range of goods imported from developing countries. The GPT was introduced on July 1, 1974, as part of a concerted effort internationally to help developing countries increase their exports of manufactured goods to developing countries. This is a major Canadian initiative aimed at strengthening the economy of those countries in the spirit of the North-South dialogue.
In July, 1980, the House will recall that the Minister of Finance asked the Tariff Board to examine and report on the possible impact on Canadian production of including new products in the general preferential tariff, and also the impact of duty-free entry of goods that were subject to duty under the same system. At that time the Minister of Finance also announced that new mechanisms would be set up to enable Canadian producers to approach the Tariff Board and ask it to consider requests for the withdrawal of advantages under the
Customs Tariff
general preferential tariff, in cases where imports benefiting from the GPT rates are thought to be harming Canadian production. The first part of the Tariff Board report on this matter, which is called the Report on Reference No. 158, was tabled in Parliament on May 20, 1981, and it recommended a number of improvements to the GPT concerning food products, fish, and certain textile and metal products.
This bill puts most of these recommendations into effect. In addition, I would like to note that a provision of this bill concerns the establishment of tariff rate quotas, to assure, in certain cases, that the goods are not imported at GPT rates, and especially in quantities which could harm Canadian production of the same goods. The Tariff Board and the parliamentary task force on the North-South dialogue recommended that special action be taken to help the least developed developing countries. During the United Nations conference on the least developed developing countries held in Paris last September, the government announced that it would take action to provide for the duty-free entry of certain goods subject to the general preferential tariff and imported from countries designated by the governor in council as a least developed developing country. The bill now under consideration introduces this important tariff change.
I would also like to note that the bill makes the rules concerning the country of origin more flexible so that goods processed in one or more than one least developed developing country can benefit from duty-free entry. The first purpose of these rules is to ensure that only the beneficiary countries receive the benefits of the GPT and therefore that the goods produced to a great extent in a developed country do not benefit from the preferential treatment under the pretext that they are shipped from a beneficiary country or were slightly processed in such a country. The bill also brings a great many technical changes to the general preferential tariff. These changes are aimed essentially at improving and simplifying existing tariff lists, which will make them easier to understand and thus to amend in the future.
The main change concerns the introduction of a new column of general preferential tariff rates in the Customs tariff. This change means that when new tariff rates are established by Parliament under the GPT, they will be added to the new column and not to a separate list set out in Section 3.1 of the Tariff, as is now the case. This list was getting cumbersome and increasingly complex because of the number of additions made to it since its introduction in 1974. I would now like to deal briefly with another aspect of this bill, namely, the provisions concerning devices for the handicapped. As hon. members will recall, the special committee of the House of Commons which examined the problems of invalids and the handicapped recommended essentially in its excellent report entitled "Obstacles", which is now well known to the Canadian public, that the federal government eliminate the tariff on

February 10, 1982
Customs Tariff
devices designed for the handicapped. They will also recall that this committee, which was presided over by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), recommended these changes in recommendations 49 and 50 of its report "Obstacles", if 1 am not mistaken.
The Customs tariff already provides for duty-free entry of most goods designed for the use of disabled persons that are not available from Canadian sources.
The Canadian tariff policy in that area has always been to exempt from duty new products designed for the use of disabled persons if unavailable from Canadian producers. However, the exemption process is relatively slow, since new products designed for the use of disabled persons are usually subject to duty as long as no provision is made in a budget for their duty-free entry. In order to reduce the impact of that delay and also to grant applications for tariff duty reduction in respect of such goods, as pointed out in the report "Obstacles", the bill proposes to establish a new tariff item under which the governor in council would be empowered to designate for duty-free entry particular groups of goods specially designed for the use of disabled persons. This procedure would make for a more flexible and faster tariff treatment of equipment intended for the disabled.
I would like to point out that such equipment will be designated for duty-free entry only when similar products are not available from Canadian producers. The bill also proposes the duty-free entry of electronic devices that are designed to help people with speech problems, and also control equipment designed to enable disabled persons to energize and control various household, industrial and office equipment.
Another aspect of the bill concerns dental goods that are used either by dentists or by technicians preparing prostheses for use by dentists. The legislation therefore establishes a new list of dental goods that now groups in one place in the Customs Tariff all dental goods used by dentists and dental laboratories.
Under this change, a number of goods that are not made in Canada and are not likely to be will be exempted, while reductions in tariffs will apply to another range of goods to be used by dentists or dental technicians. This measure follows from representations made by both dental goods manufacturers and dentists as well as Members of Parliament, following changes made in the Customs Tariff in the October 28, 1980, budget. It will be remembered that during the debate on Bill C-50 at that time, representations had been made in this House, in committee and in the other place in respect of those imported dental goods.
Those provisions excluded certain dental goods from the duty-free entry provisions of tariff item 47810-1. I would emphasize that the impact of such changes will not be significant, since the cost of materials used by dentists in reconstructive surgery constitutes a fraction of the over-all cost of dental care. However, the proposed changes will allow dentists and
dental laboratories to control their costs, will simplify customs clearance, as well as reduce the unavoidable paper burden.
Now I should like to mention some of the aspects of other tariff amendments. The bill eliminates the tariffs on a number of products such as unexposed instant films for hospitals, certain components for radio operators, and religious printed matter. Before we proceeded with second reading of the bill, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a point of order about the New Zealand-Canada trade agreement which I tabled in the House a few minutes ago with unanimous consent. With respect to that New Zealand-Canada trade agreement, most of the tariff amendments related to its renewal are of a technical nature and will have little or no appreciable effect on the general tariff policy. As 1 said earlier, the new agreement signed by Canada and New Zealand replaces the 1932 New Zealand-Canada trade agreement. Under this new agreement, the special tariff rates granted to New Zealand-and I say that again for the benefit of the hon. member who stood offended a moment ago and who had not read the bill-under the terms of the former agreement are maintained and presented in the Customs Tariff under a new form. The original provisions concerning products imported from New Zealand are changed so as to make sure that only those products which are made almost entirely in New Zealand will benefit from the preferential tariff.
With respect to metric conversion, hon. members know that a good many of the provisions of the Customs tariff involve imperial measures. The bill will grant the governor in council the authority to convert those measures to metric by way of orders in council. This will enable the government to begin the conversion of the Customs tariff to the metric system in an orderly and systematic manner, and especially to give priority in this conversion process to the industrial sectors where metric measurements are already in use, particularly the textile industry. The legislative provisions of the bill have been drafted with great care so as to limit the authority to strictly technical conversions and to avoid causing an administrative nightmare. We will endeavour instead to iron out the difficulties for those industries which are already using the metric system. That is meaningless for the hon. member who does not know anything, but it is an urgent measure for those people who conduct their businesses in metric measurements. A few technical tariff changes are also brought about in the Customs tariff. One relates to canned fish and is aimed at reinstating the tariff rates which were in force prior to an amendment to the interpretation of the tariff; other changes are designed to improve the tariff nomenclature so as to make its application easier. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments to the Customs Tariff proposed in this bill will benefit handicapped people, consumers, importers and, of course, Canadian manufacturers.
The improvements to the GPT, particularly those related to imports from underprivileged nations, reaffirm Canada's com-
February 10, 1982

mitment to help the underdeveloped countries upgrade and strengthen their economies. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that this government is determined to see that bill and the principles involved passed as quickly as possible. I therefore ask the members of this House to extend their usual co-operation so that we may undertake with dispatch the consideration of the various stages of the bill and, to do so, Mr. Speaker, the support and understanding of all members are essential. I am sure that in committee we will have a chance to examine more extensively the clauses of the bill and that our proceedings will be more than fruitful in the interests of Canadians.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank somebody in the department for providing me with a copy of the minister's speech so I could follow him line by line in the English version. It still does not answer the questions which I raised in my point of order with regard to the New Zealand trade agreement.
If we look at the bill, what is being done is deleting New Zealand from the British preferential tariff listed in the annex to the Customs tariff which, incidentally, those who are in visual reach of this can see how thick it is. Subsection 3(2) lists some 60 countries, plus or minus, throughout the world which, after this bill goes into effect, will enjoy the British preferential tariff. Neither England nor Ireland and now New Zealand will enjoy the BP.
I wish the minister would pay particular attention here because a better procedure will have to be adopted in the future when Canada negotiates more bilateral agreements with countries of the Commonwealth to which British preferential tariff rates will no longer apply and which will have their own specific rates.
This agreement is being incorporated into the Customs tariff by those items covered by the agreement. New Zealand is withdrawn and there is a special category called "New Zealand". I suppose if our friends the Australians are the next ones, we will have a section in the Customs tariff listing Australia. How about Malawi, Kenya, Trinidad and Tobago, the more important of the Caribbean Islands, Jamaica, and all of those? Are they going to be subject to these special agreements?
Are we going to see the same sort of procedure adopted in amending the Customs tariff so that nowhere in a statute book one could, as one could hitherto, see what is a New Zealand-Canada trade agreement? I do not know who is being more clever by half in trying to think that they can get away from a debate on a bill that Parliament is required to pass to incorporate and give legal sanction to such a trade agreement.
OO)
I suppose some smart-alec says that the passing of Bill C-90 to amend the Customs Tariff Act will mean that Parliament
Customs Tariff
will adopt this Canada-New Zealand trade agreement. That is nonsense. The agreement has a number of provisions which do not come under the Customs tariff listings. For instance, the notice of default which I mentioned earlier is one of those provisions. What about the requirements for changes? I have a press release which was issued by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) and his opposite number in the New Zealand government. It is the usual joint communique which is issued by ministers. This release was issued in September and indicates that the trade agreement is supposed to provide more flexible ways of dealing with trade problems. The release states:
Mr. Lumley indicated that the federal government had consulted closely with Canadian industry and provinces prior to the renegotiation of the agreement and that there was widespread support for the continuation of preferential trade arrangements with New Zealand. "I am confident that the new agreement will constitute a positive framework within which Canadian businessmen can pursue the many opportunities for trade and investment in the New Zealand market," Mr. Lumley said.
Balderdash. How do we know that? There is no opportunity to question the minister on this agreement or its provisions. This agreement is important to Canada.
What about an agreement with Australia? Will that again be bootlegged under the table? That is improper.
The bill before us is destined to remain in the House and be discussed in the Committee of the Whole. There is no opportunity to question businessmen or, for that matter, the minister-no opportunity for anyone to testify before the committee. In other words, everything is being kept under wraps. No information is being given out. Oh, I will have a copy of the trade agreement because the minister apparently tabled one.


Pierre Bussières: Go and get one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We will have to get it in the usual way, from the Journals.
At any rate, this is a ridiculous way of carrying on. No one can understand it. No lawyer who is acting on behalf of a province, for example, can look up in the Statutes of Canada to see what the trade agreement with New Zealand is. This should be made possible with all agreements.
However, according to the government, the end always justifies the means. There is an agreement, and it has been done quietly. Why is it done in this way? I presume that the government wanted that much less debate about it. There would not be, as there was, an opportunity for members from western Canada to examine individuals about meat quotas. Hon. members will recall the fuss which occurred a few years ago in western Canada over the importation of cut beef from the Pacific Rim countries, including New Zealand, which passed through Canadian quotas to the United States and which resulted in punitive action being taken by the Americans against Canadian beef producers. Such questions are germane to the examination of these agreements.
I am satisfied that the New Zealand government does not want to be part of any cover-up, but the procedure which was followed for this agreement is a total cover-up because there is

February 10, 1982
Customs Tariff
no way to question the minister about its provisions. I can see the cabinet ministers laughing. They could not care less. That is the gang who knows. But the minister is not prepared to discuss the agreement with me.


Pierre Bussières: Get a copy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have not got a copy because I cannot-


Pierre Bussières: Here, have mine.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. The minister can provide one. But it is only because he has been hauled kicking and screaming to the floor of the House that he can produce one. It was not his intention to produce one at any time and this is the point I am trying to make. Why should the agreement not be appended to the bill? Other people besides members are entitled to this information. But will the government put it with the bill? Not in a thousand years, not the government.
I hope that our trade relations with New Zealand will improve over their past record, which has been shameful. It has been much less outgoing, and this goes back 20 years. I think Canada had an opportunity much earlier to take the lead in developing stronger ties with Australia and New Zealand, but the government was preoccupied with other things. I do not know what they were. I suppose they did not speak French out there-that is the problem with the lot of them.
[ Translation]
-it can well be said, no doubt it is because French is not spoken in New Zealand and in Australia, and consequently they have been neglected.

The changes in the Customs Tariff Act are not overly exciting for anyone. As the minister said, they would accept the importation of certain commodities for the handicapped.
[ Translation]


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite disappointed when I hear the hon. member suggest that our international relations are based on the language spoken in the recipient country. He knows quite well that New Zealand, Australia and the other Commonwealth countries have always been our friends and his comments are absolutely unfounded and irresponsible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, having travelled in the countries involved and being acquainted with their representatives for over 20 years, therefore longer than the hon. member has, having known their servicemen during the war and having maintained relations with Australia and New Zealand, it is not for the minister to lecture me on my views about the relations of Canada with those two countries. It is quite simple. Frankly, as usual he is peeved for the wrong reasons.

I thank the minister for sending me a letter some time ago which outlined the changes which were proposed in the budget with regard to certain dental materials and prostheses. However, there was one very significant exception, and 1 think the minister realizes it. It came to my mind the other day. The dentist I frequent here in Ottawa has a new office. He is a young dentist, and precisely the equipment I had in mind is installed in his office. It is not made in Canada. Very little of that equipment is made in Canada. My dentist does not have one of those antiquated chairs to which lights are attached. The lights in my dentist's office are in the ceiling; they are operating room lights. There are also special lights which descend. They can be controlled either by foot or by hand. I am hopeful that in his answer the minister will give me an explanation. He will recall the discussion we had and the fact that this matter was under examination. I think an awfully long time has been taken to examine this question, and this would have been a wonderful opportunity to remove the duty on this particular equipment because, frankly, it does a great deal to increase dental costs in this country and, goodness only knows, they are high.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Give him your tooth; maybe he will put it under his pillow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 1 hope the minister will give me an answer.
Some of my colleagues will talk about metrication and the authority needed by order in council to convert pounds to kilograms and yards and feet to whatever the measurement in metric is. There will be some flak about this. I am sure some hon. members will come forward and say that there should be a total revised Customs tariff schedule in the new terms authorized by an act.
Without going into the question of metrication, I can quite well understand the concern of people in this country that so much metrication is taking place merely by bureaucratic ukase. In other words, somebody at the Metric Commission can issue a directive that, effective January 1 of such and such a year, a thing will have to be handled on the metric basis. The public has no way of countering that. Is the commission sure the people are accepting it? After all, the people of this country have a right to determine what standards of length, weight and others they are going to use. We may think some people are prejudiced because there is one way or another. Those among hon. members in the House who are older may find it very difficult to adjust to metric. All right, we have adjusted before; however, hon. members are going to talk about this, and I am sure some views about the powers of government through order in council or regulation will be expressed. There is far too much government by regulation, and this may also be a matter which will be raised.
The last point I want to make with regard to this bill concerns something not included in the bill. I have before me a communique issued by the ambassador of Japan to Canada dealing with measures to be introduced in Japan to improve trade with its trading partners. We might have considered certain measures in the past to be non-tariff barriers, but Canada and other countries wishing to sell goods to the Japanese have run into testing procedures, measurements and
February 10, 1982

all sorts of things which would absolutely baffle anyone. On December 16, 1981, it was decided that an effort would be made to put together a package of special measures for the improvement of import testing procedures by the end of January, 1982. 1 will not go through all the measures, but I have written to the Japanese ambassador thanking him for this information and saying I hope this is just the first step his country is taking to remove the hundreds and thousands of what we might call non-tariff import barriers. Japan was notorious for that. We know that commercial traffic was almost only one way. Manufactured goods left Japan by the fleetload. Raw materials went in by the same boats, but those who benefited most from that trade were the Japanese, to the detriment of many of us in many parts of Canada.
In certain areas I do not think there ever will be any cure for difficulties in industrial capacity and production in this country. With respect to the manufacture of shoes in Canada, I frankly think it is almost beyond the ken of man to resolve the difficulties in that industry to the satisfaction of everyone. The customer wants the most modern looking footwear. The customer wants a great variety of style and diverse materials at the lowest possible cost. If we open the door to imports of shoes of that nature, I am afraid most of the Canadian shoe industry would disappear. For one thing, there could not be any economies of scale in production and all that goes with that. The same goes for textiles. There are 25 million people in Canada. We do not have a big textile industry here. As a matter of fact, the market in Canada represents an end run of less than 10 per cent of American production in cotton and general artificial fibres and other textiles. Certainly on other types, yes, Canada can meet the market, but basically we would have one very difficult time. We cannot open our markets. As a matter of fact, even low cost countries like India, Singapore, Taiwan and Korea have some very serious restrictions on the import of foreign textiles other than, shall we say, some almost raw materials such as woven materials. The situation is the same with respect to shoes. Furniture is another one. There are difficulties around the world in relation to those items. Now we are having difficulty with regard to automobiles. Every country wants to manufacture automobiles and to keep others out, but we want the other man's style and the other man's price. It is not just that simple. 1 am hoping, though, that we are taking a step in the right direction. We now have Canadian banks operating in Japan. True enough, Japanese banks are operating regularly here now. They were not previously operating regularly as such. We are normalizing our trade in a much better way.
1 do not like the way it is done, and 1 never will like the fact that we get bilateral trade agreements incorporated merely by slipping in changes into the tariff. I would commend to the minister to come clean. I have a copy of the trade agreement here. If this had been appended to the bill so that we had it for information, it would be in the Statutes of Canada, although I must admit that having a trade agreement under a bill which
Customs Tariff
amends the Customs tariff is an odd place, but at least it would be there. Now it is not there. As a matter of fact, it does not even appear in Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the permission of the House, before 1 sit down at this moment, that this trade agreement be appended as part of today's Hansard. Outside of that, I think the Customs tariff bill is not that bad.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. First of all, I should like to emphasize that this trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand which the hon. member has referred to is a public document which has been available ever since a press release announced its signature by both parties. This means that any Canadian and, for that matter, any hon. member who would want to have a look at this agreement could obtain a copy upon request from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This is a public document which any Canadians may obtain upon request.
1 do not see why some hon. members are making such a big fuss about this and why they seem to imply that this is a secret document. We were not trying to hide anything. This is a public document, like any other trade agreement and it is available to anyone who wants to see it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) in this public document, or what purports to be a document, dated August 14, 1981, presents what is generally a rather nice agreement between two states, New Zealand and Canada. It does not refer to any reduction or changes in favour of Canada in the agreement. It talks about co-operation in trade, it talks about provisions for anti-dumping and so on, but nowhere does it set out Canada's offer to reduce tariffs to New Zealand, nor does it set out New Zealand's offer to reduce tariffs to Canada. So 1 presume at least that the document filed by the minister is not the complete document. 1 wonder if the minister would follow his clear demonstration of wanting to come clean with the House and make things public, and would perhaps file the schedules that in fact were negotiated between the two states, so that we would have some indication of what we received in exchange for these tariff reductions.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rise on the same point of order?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order, but seeking to be recognized as the next speaker.

February 10, 1982
Customs Tariff


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I believe there are other matters being debated at the moment and I will recognize the hon. members when we come to deal with them.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, virtually, because there happens to be a coincidence here. I am sure it is more than coincidental. In the coming into force of this particular agreement between New Zealand and Canada, in article 13, there is a requirement that "the agreement shall enter into force on a date to be agreed in an exchange of notes between the contracting parties and shall thereupon supersede-" etc.
It so happens that by the bill before us we are told that the old New Zealand trade agreement is repealed, two of them, and that this act now before us, Bill C-90, shall be deemed to have come into force on November 13, 1981. I am wondering whether the exchange of notes between Canada and New Zealand stipulated that the agreement would come into force on November 13, 1981, and whether that just happened to coincide with the day after the presentation of the budget. I think that it would be useful to have the exchange of notes as well as the agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has some difficulty. Hon. members will have noticed that I was out of the chamber for a moment. On my return I got the impression that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had proposed a motion, but I am not sure that he did. 1 understood that the issue under consideration by the hon. member for Edmonton West was the possibility that the agreement with New Zealand might be appended to today's Hansard. At this point I am not entirely clear whether the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is raising a point of order.
It does not sound to the Chair like a point of order, because it simply seeks to determine whether or not the hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) might add even further information.
The Chair will be pleased to assist the House in whatever way the House wishes. We are running out of direction. Is there some hon. member who would care to enter the debate, or move the House in a particular direction, or raise a point of order that seeks a decision by the Chair? I recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West moved that the trade agreement be appended to today's Hansard. My suggestion, in amplification of that, was that the exchange of notes between Canada and New Zealand, bringing this particular agreement into force, should also be appended, because of the coincidence, the apparent coincidence between the coming into force of this agreement and the provisions of the bill before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall I recognize the hon. Minister of State for Finance?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that some people are tripping over flowers in the carpet, as Xavier used to say. The government was asked to table a document, namely, a trade agreement between Canada and another country. This document is a public document which everybody knew about, and which has been tabled. Anybody who wants a copy of it can obtain one. This is a public and not a secret document. 1 am afraid that someone is tripping over flowers in the carpet and that we would be wasting the Canadian taxpayers' money if we had it printed as an annex to today's Debates. I do not understand at all the meaning of this discussion which has nothing to do either with points of order or information, because this is all public information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) wish to speak on the same point of order?
The Chair would like to determine whether or not there is a motion in front of the House. That would help.
Does the hon. member for Edmonton West put a motion that the trade agreement with New Zealand be appended to today's Hansard?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Edmonton West is entitled to move that motion, duly seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Now 1 recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on a point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I will speak on the motion at the same time. I asked the Minister of State for Finance before why he does not file the whole trade agreement, but he has not yet answered. If this is the whole agreement then why are we dealing with amendments to tariffs in favour of New Zealand? The bill declares that they are part of the agreement, but somewhere along the line we were not given the entire story. I am speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State volunteered to supply an agreement, but he has not supplied the whole agreement. There is nothing in the agreement with respect to the reduction of Canadian tariffs, and there is nothing in it with respect to the reduction of New Zealand tariffs. Yet, the bill deals with a reduction of tariffs or a change of tariffs. Where is the agreement? Will the minister of state tell us?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) seeking the floor. Is it to comment further on the same point of order?


Mr. Taylor:: No, Mr. Speaker; I am rising on the motion.
February 10, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair must advise the hon. member for Bow River that we should take these matters in order. Let us begin with the motion which asks to append to today's Hansard a copy of the trade agreement with New Zealand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As tabled by the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The difficulty is that there is now a motion on the floor of the House, the one dealing with Bill C-90. In order to have the trade agreement vis-a-vis New Zealand appended to today's Hansard, the Chair requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That unanimous consent may or may not exist. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous . consent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It does not require unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Edmonton West states that he feels it is not necessary to have unanimous consent, although there is another motion on the floor of the House. The Chair will take a couple of minutes to consult in that regard, but I do not think the hon. member is correct. My view is that there is one motion on the floor of the House at the moment and that another one cannot be entertained until such time-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is mine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, it is not the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West which is on the floor at this time. It is the motion of the Minister of State for Finance that is on the floor at this point. If hon. members want to raise points of order, the Chair will hear them, but first I will take a couple of minutes to assure myself that I am correct in my interpretation in respect of the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West. I think we ought not to have debate on a motion which has not yet been accepted by the Chair and about which, frankly, the Chair has serious doubt. If the hon. member is now seeking the floor on a point of order, I will hear it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who has had vast experience knows that we cannot have two motions on the floor but that we can amend the motion which is on the floor. I understood that the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West was amending the motion-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -by requesting that the agreement be appended to Hansard. I do not see anything wrong with this. The
Customs Tariff
agreement has been tabled and made public. Why should there be objection to other members having a copy of the agreement?


Yvon Pinard: Then ask for copies. It is tabled, it is public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Apparently the matter is becoming more complex. I am aware that the Minister of State for Finance tabled the agreement with New Zealand. Now the hon. member for Bow River is asking whether or not it is available. Of course it is available. It has been tabled and is available to every hon. member of the House. Now, that matter is out of the way.
I should like to turn to the issue raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. He did not put to the Chair a motion to amend the bill, which he might have done. He put a motion to the House asking that this particular agreement be appended to Hansard. It is not a motion to amend the bill; it is a motion seeking the unanimous consent of the House to append the agreement to Hansard. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the appending of that trade agreement to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They do not know what they are talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Therefore it will not be appended to Hansard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting with bated breath to participate in this exciting debate on Bill C-90, an act to amend the Customs tariff and to repeal certain acts in consequence thereof. If anyone in the country reads a copy of today's proceedings in Hansard or happens to view these proceedings on television, it will become very clear why the popularity of and esteem for politicians are so abysmally low. Bill C-90 deals with some very important matters in terms of imports and exports, but it is bogged down in parliamentary procedure and wrangling. I do not only cast my critical comments on my colleagues on my right but on those across the aisle as well. We listened to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) read from a prepared text some straightforward, rather simplistic comments about the bill.


Gérald Laniel: They were very interesting and to the point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They were very interesting, but there was nothing new. Then the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised the issue that there were documents we should have received to make the debate meaningful. In listening to the Minister of State for Finance, I do not think his contribution was particularly meaningful. This is no reflection upon him, necessarily; it is just the way things operate. In listening to the previous speaker, I was not particularly moved by any insight into the importance of the document. To put it simply, we have not had time or the necessary documentation in order to prepare. It almost begs the question as to why we go through this routine and whether or not it is an appropriate

February 10, 1982
Customs Tariff
process. I think it is clear that it is not. 1 think we should get this bill into committee very quickly where we can identify clause by clause some of the concerns of hon. members.
At this point I should like to make a couple of general comments. I recognize Mr. Speaker's generosity in providing an opportunity to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) to be in the chair. We are always pleased to have a very objective individual in the chair, and Mr. Speaker could not have picked a more objective individual from the House this afternoon.
We are looking at some very positive tariff changes on imported goods to assist the disabled. While one's first response is to laud this as a very generous move on the part of the government, as indeed it is, I find it somewhat hypocritical. Not many weeks ago we debated in the House a bill to amend the Excise Act by placing an excise tax on paraphernalia for the disabled. At that time we raised questions as to why a special tax would be placed upon back braces, leg braces and items thereof, at a time when we had just received a report on the disabled. Hon. members opposite indicated that they would study the matter, report back to the House and perhaps bring in changes to the legislation. We on this side sincerely hope that that is in process now. We welcome this particular move. I think it is a very progressive and positive step in the right direction. I would make the same comments with regard to the whole topic of dental materials.
I want to focus on a point which the Minister of State for Finance indicated. These goods are being allowed into the country duty free because they are not produced in our country. Therefore, they will not be challenging domestic manufacturing or industries, which is indeed the case. It makes one wonder how often we welcome foreign products into Canada duty free or at preferential rates. There is no comparable manufacturer in Canada because the market is essentially being overrun by foreign products.
We should look very carefully at this whole matter, and 1 think it is important that we get this topic into committee as quickly as possible so that we can see it within some context of the development of our own domestic industry and our willingness to assist our friends from across the way.
When we see a bill similar to Bill C-90, we have to wonder in what context this bill was introduced. When we decide that we are going to reduce the tariff on a whole number of goods, in what context are we making that decision? Since unquestionably we do lack a comprehensive industrial strategy for Canada, it cannot then be placed in a comprehensive context for Canada. Then we look at the lesser developed countries or those countries listed in the bill designated by the United Nations as being nations developing least. We are interested in assisting these nations and that is why we are reducing the tariffs and changing the quotas; that is why we are dismantling these tariff walls. Has enough thought been given to determining what effect these imports into Canada have on a particular developing country? We note with interest from the background notes which the minister kindly provided us that some
of the main trading partners of the least developing nations are Bangladesh, Guinea, Haiti and Tanzania. From those countries we import green coffee, bauxite and jute products duty free and w^make the assumption that it is in those countries' best interests to import them duty free. I wonder if that is necessarily always the case.
When you look at a bauxite mine and the conditions under which the ore is being mined, or when you look at the nation that is moving into a cash crop such as coffee and ask who is benefiting from these exports of coffee you find it is a select elite minority in that Third World country. Are they using productive agricultural land for the sake of growing a cash crop, such as coffee? That is a question 1 think we must ask ourselves as we go ahead and take what we perceive as being very positive steps in terms of reducing our trade barriers and welcoming more goods, particularly from developing countries.
In what context do we make this evaluation? I feel that is an important component and one that can be dealt with seriously only in committee, not in the House. We are able to ask specialists in committee whether it is in the best interest of Guinea and Tanzania to be importing these products, or whether there are other products we should be importing in lieu of these.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understood what the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said, he said he hoped that we would move into committee to call in experts to discuss this matter. I would like to have verification on this point if I am wrong, but 1 believe this bill is going to be discussed in Committee of the Whole on the floor of this House. Am I not correct, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member is correct. That is the motion before the House, that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole. Perhaps the House ought to appreciate the hon. member's point, and the Chair ought to indicate that really it is not a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the intervention, and while it was my understanding that we were moving into Committee of the Whole, the reason for my interjection was to question that particular action. When you consider the business that ought to be before this House, and particularly the borrowing authority act which is coming up in a few days and the kind of intense analysis it must receive in the Committee of the Whole, is this the kind of bill with which we want to take up the precious time of this House? 1 would question that. I would also encourage hon. members to reconsider spending the time of this House going over Bill C-90 clause by clause and looking into the various aspects of our tariffs on goods for the disabled, dental products, general commodities of agriculture and others. This is a very technical bill. It is not the kind of bill that lends itself to this kind of discussion.
With those few comments I will close and encourage hon. members of the House to recognize that important legislation is pending, much more serious than this bill in terms of a comprehensive and over-all discussion, and to get this bill to committee as quickly as possible, Consideration should be
February 10, 1982

given to sending it to the standing committee instead of, as proposed, to Committee of the Whole.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-90 covers a number of things. I want to deal with the various items one by one. Prior to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) speaking on the bill, he said that he would table the New Zealand agreement. I think all members should take a look at that tabled document. Nowhere in the document does it call for Canada to reduce any tariffs, nor does it call for New Zealand to reduce any tariffs, it is a sweetheart deal. It has very lovely language. There is a desire to strengthen friendly relations for the promotion, encouragement and expansion of bilateral trade. It recognizes the desirability, it is mindful of the importance, and it is determined. It goes on and on. Nowhere does it say that the government of New Zealand will reduce tariffs in New Zealand, nor does it say that the Government of Canada will reduce any tariffs. It talks about the consultative process, the sharing of technological information and that type of thing. But that is not what this bill deals with. Part of this bill deals with certain tariff changes that extend to New Zealand.
Looking at those tariff changes and the whole purpose and scope of this type of bill, I want to say to the House that in my view we in Canada are losing all sorts of potential trade because we do not pay real attention to two countries in the world that should be our most complete trading partners. I am referring to Australia and New Zealand.
It is probably nice and balmy in New Zealand today. I am sure people are on the beach, because it is holiday season. It is mid-summer. The same applies to Australia. While we wade around in two or three feet of snow and suffer in very cold temperatures, Australia and New Zealand are enjoying summer. While they do not get winter like we get winter, except perhaps in Tasmania and to some extent the south island of New Zealand, their seasons are the exact opposite to ours.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the combined population of Australia and New Zealand is about 17 million people. They live not very much differently from us. Their hopes, their aspirations for their children, their housing, the way they speak, think and work are not much different from us. They represent for Canada a perfect market for our goods and expertise, and we represent the same thing to them.
Now, Sir, I have had some experience in the manufacturing business. One of the companies I am associated with maintains an Australian subsidiary where we sell a great deal of our products. Indeed, in one product line we have some 40 per cent of the Australian market. We would have a larger share of the New Zealand market if there had been negotiations in this trade deal with New Zealand to remove some of the import restrictions that exist there. It is a good market for us largely because what we manufacture for our spring season are the same type of goods sold for Christmas in New Zeland and Australia. So in our trade with that part of the world we are
Customs Tariff
able to get nearly two months more production using the same machinery and production lines that we use for our Canadian trade. That makes our plants very much more efficient and it means we can sell in Canada for less. Of course, the same thing applies to the manufacturers and processors in those two countries.
Any country the size of Canada, New Zealand or Australia needs a large home market so as to develop a good, profitable production run. If we were able to combine the Canadian market of 24 million people with the 17 million of Australia and New Zealand, we could eliminate this "small home market" attitude which exists in all three countries. Yet we do not seem to be prepared to get down to brass tacks with those countries. We continue to have little trade agreements, tariffs, and we do not make general agreements for an open and free trade arrangement in that market.
I say to you, Sir, that market is valuable to us. A bathing suit manufacturer in Australia or Canada-and they make good bathing suits in Australia; I have one-has an open market in the other country in his off-season. This applies equally to lawn furniture, barbecues, a whole host of things we produce here and they produce there. If we were as a nation looking at the possibility of expanding our world trade, we would enter into a common market agreement with Australia and New Zealand. We have everything going for us and could do it if we wanted to, instead of niggling back and forth with a system which contains an unbelievable number of different tariffs.
We have, Mr. Speaker, the British preference, most favoured nation, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, and the general preferred tariff. Then of course we have the "free" situation and the U.K. and Ireland situation and now, presumably, as we negotiate these bilateral agreements while still maintaining the tariff structure, we have the New Zealand tariff structure, which will presumably form another chapter in the general tariff book, a bible of unbelievable complexity.
We are not looking to our responsibilities in this field correctly, and I want to bring to the attention of the House a situation concerning New Zealand. Our trade with them is not a big deal. In 1979 we exported to them some $90 million worth of goods and imported $135 million worth of goods. The reason our imports in 1979 were so high is that a great deal of New Zealand meat was coming into Canada for trans-shipment to the United States. When I first saw that I wondered why, and so I inquired of L.N. Reynolds Co., Ltd., perhaps Canada's largest meat brokers, and that is what they told me.
However, in looking at our total trade with New Zealand, we find that our exports to them represent only 2.3 per cent of their imports. There is no reason why we should have such a small amount, no reason at all. Now it is quite true that their closest trading partner is Australia, but our own analysis indicates we could have a far larger trade with New Zealand if we did something about it. I want to read from page 19 of the departmental analysis. Speaking of the new energy and mineral resources in that country, it says:

February 10, 1982
Customs Tariff
Expansion is expected to take place in the mining of ironsands to satisfy the rising demands of domestic steel producers, as well as in the mining of molybdenite, lead, zinc and copper.
All of this should be of benefit to Canadian producers of mining machinery and other related equipment. Similar opportunities are expected in the exploration for new natural gas deposits, its extraction, treatment and transportation.
We have that expertise here, we have that ability here. I would call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

*

Thursday, February 11, 1982