1984-05-02

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to press the Government on a matter of grave concern to a number of mentally and physically handicapped people in the Peace country, not to mention their families and friends who are concerned with their well-being.
These people with special needs have developed a feeling of pride, accomplishment, and skill, by being a part of the vocational training centre project. The project receives crucial federal funding. This on the job training project provided both trainees and the general public with a valuable learning opportunity.
This project is now about to come to an end as a result of the termination of the federal funding. The trainees will suffer. Roger Jackson, and the board of directors of the sponsoring association will see their dreams falter, and the friends and families of the trainees will lose hope for their loved ones. No comparable service is available in this northern community.
As well, Mr. Speaker, the Government will suffer because these trainees may well end up drawing unemployment insurance and social assistance, without training. This is how the Government will suffer because it will be spending without gain.
Surely the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), who could find $140 million to provide jobs in Liberal ridings, can find a mere $200,000 in comparison, to help these people with special needs.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 and 8 of this year, I asked the Leader of the Opposition some questions
about his relationship with non-resident Walter Wolf. The House will recall that, contrary to the rules that apply during an election campaign, Mr. Wolf allegedly gave the Leader of the Opposition $250,000 for the avowed purpose of dumping the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). This scheme was orchestrated by a certain Michel Cogger. This morning, the press reported that the same Michel Cogger was being prosecuted because of certain schemes which again involve Mr. Walter Wolf and that this time the amount involved was $200,000.
Could the Leader of the Opposition inform Canadians about his entourage? As long as Mr. Cogger is not required to pay the $200,000 mentioned in the suit, he must be given the benefit of the doubt. However, the events surrounding this transaction and the unlawful payment of $200,000 into the campaign fund of the Leader of the Opposition raise a number of questions and deserve a formal statement on the part of the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is said that we know a person by the company he keeps, and it is clear that in this respect, the Leader of the Opposition has left many Canadians with a number of questions marks.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in this, the last year of the International Women's Decade, the decade meant to signal the advancement of women, the Liberal Government moves to close the Office of Equal Opportunity for Women. That is the one office that has provided some limited support and counselling to the 100,000 women in the public service who are in the lower income brackets.
The closure of this office has been protested by Members of Parliament, by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, by the Women's Adviser to the Prime Minister, and by thousands of individual women, but to no avail.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister responsible for the status of women, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) have decided they know better.
Last February the Minister responsible for the status of women denied that the office would be closed. At least that is

May 2, 1984
the impression she left with the House when she said in response to questions:
There is no intention to close that office on April 1.
As with so many of her statements, the Minister can again virtuously protest that she kept her word, because the office did not close on April 1 but on May 1. How semantically misleading can you get?
The Government, Sir, closes the office. Thousands of women will be denied its services.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, today, we read in La Presse and other newspapers that once again, representatives abroad of the Government of Quebec have been making statements about certain situations, and I am thinking for instance of the statement made by Mrs. Beaudoin about the Pope, who according to her, was not very well informed about the moral situation in this country or rather, in the Province of Quebec. Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec said the matter was blown out of all proportion and that it was a tempest in a teapot.
I suppose it is not terribly important to the Premier of Quebec. However, as a citizen of Canada and Quebec, I think that our international image is certainly not being improved by the Quebec Government's actions. Remember what happened , when the Premier of Quebec went to France? He said that once our senior citizens are dead, Quebec will vote for independence. Here again, he did not think what he said was terribly important. Another blunder was made when the Premier of Quebec went to Italy and said that the Italian President had expressed his support for the cause of independence. However, the President of Italy, through his Ambassador here in Canada, sent a number of documents back to the Premier, including his passport for "Quebec 1984".
Mr. Speaker, according to the Government of Quebec there is no problem. However, I am very concerned about the image we are projecting abroad, because of the actions of a province like Quebec. It is a shame that the Quebec Government, elected according to our democratic rules, refuses to consider the real situation in Quebec and is trying to get its message across through all kinds of underhanded manoeuvring, which can only have an adverse affect on the status of Quebecers and Canadians in general outside the country.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of State for Social Development made a speech on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to the Fisheries Council of Canada in which he spelled out the approach the Government will take to restructure the Pacific Fishing industry.
The Minister laid out a series of measures which are guaranteed to cause an uproar among fishermen and their communities. He then went on to say:
We hope and expect to receive the same level of co-operation from the opposition Parties that they gave last year to the Atlantic restructuring legislation.
I want to tell the Minister and his colleagues, clearly and plainly, that if he intends to treat this legislation in the same underhanded and irresponsible way as the Atlantic legislation, holding it back until the last possible moment in order to limit debate, and if he persists in bringing in legislation designed to restructure the industry by wiping out the livelihood of a large portion of the Pacific fishing fleet, he should not expect too much co-operation from this Party.
I serve notice that we will accept nothing less than a full debate in this House, and that we will press for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to travel to the West Coast to discuss the effect the rumoured legislation will have on fishermen and their communities.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) what steps the Liberal Government was taking to prevent financial institutions from demanding that Canadian home owners waive their rights before granting a mortgage renewal. The Minister had no answer, but he went on to suggest that home owners seek out other institutions to obtain more favourable terms.
All Canadian home owners with a mortgage know that if they seek out another institution it will cost them legal fees, appraisal fees, survey fees, and other costs. For a renewal on a $50,000 mortgage it could be as much as $1,000, whereas for a renewal with the same institution it would be a minimal fee.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance has no idea of the problems of ordinary Canadians, and has no intention of helping them. The Liberal Government is simply standing by while mortgage interest rates continue to climb.

May 2, 1984


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, 77 cents and sinking! The Canadian dollar continues to plunge on world markets as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stands idly by, twiddling his thumbs. How can we instill confidence in the Canadian economy? How can we encourage investment? Most important, how can we create new jobs when our currency flounders about like that of a Third World banana republic?
The only response of the Liberals to the declining dollar has been to increase interest rates, a move which can only worsen the already ridiculously high level of unemployment. Canadians must, for our own sakes, make the necessary fundamental changes to our political economy so that our currency remains sound, investment is enhanced, and employment increases. Since the Liberals are unprepared to make these changes, it is high time they were replaced by a Conservative Government which will do so.



Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the importance of the statement made yesterday by Bishops de Roo and Proulx, representatives of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Bishops, following on the landmark document which they released 16 months ago, have released a new report entitled "Ethical Choices and Political Challenges". They have again had the moral courage and conviction to point out the major problems which face this country, and to challenge the present Government, especially those candidates running for leadership of the Liberal party, to face those challenges.
In their report they lay out the stark reality that our present economic growth is characterized by soaring corporate profits and an almost complete lack of new job creation. While profits for banks and multinational companies in Canada hit record levels, two million Canadians cannot find productive work. The Government lacks any effective control over the new technologies and the profit-motivated priorities of the private sector which created these problems, yet insists that the private sector will solve our problems.
When we see the distribution of benefits in our society becoming increasingly unjust, as we have seen over the past few years, we have to ask what are our values and priorities. The Bishops have asked the right questions, and they should be thanked. It is up to the leaders of our country to provide honest and serious answers.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance. In their absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
How can anyone justify or accept the high interest rates which were recently announced by the Farm Credit Corporation? The Minister must know that interest rates have risen from 13 per cent to 14 per cent for a five-year loan, and to 15 per cent on a 20-year loan. At the same time a farmer can get a loan from a chartered bank as low as 13.5 per cent. A home owner in the City of Toronto can get a mortgage at 13.25 per cent. Farmers are forced to pay more than people in downtown Toronto. These rates are unaffordable at this time because agriculture is already close to $20 billion in debt. Bankruptcies in the farm sector are up more than 58 per cent over last year's levels. How can the Government justify these rates when it only pays 12.5 per cent for its five-year money?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to check the length of the loan terms made by the Farm Credit Corporation. The rates charged by the Farm Credit Corporation are closely tied to the cost of borrowing for a similar term by the federal Government. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of this. There is a close relationship between what we have to pay for the money we borrow for similar terms and the rate at which we lend that money to farmers through the Farm Credit Corporation. The best evidence that the Farm Credit Corporation is running its operations very carefully in that regard to benefit the farmers is, as the Hon. Member knows, that the Corporation is not making a lot of money on its operations. On the contrary.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, we would not expect the Farm Credit Corporation to make any money. We would expect it to break even.


INTEREST RATE REBATE PROGRAM
Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Finance completely abandoned the idea of the interest rate rebate program which was in place for two years from 1981? Has the Minister completely abandoned that program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that program was set up at a time when interest rates reached and, in fact, went over 20 per cent. The Hon. Member knows that since then there has been a very significant decline in interest rates both in Canada and the United States. Obviously the program was abandoned when there was a significant decline in interest rates.
3322

May 2, 1984
Oral Questions
I do not expect a repeat of the situation that occurred a few years ago, but as Minister of Finance I have to monitor the situation on a constant basis. Decisions of that nature are generally announced in Budgets, as the Hon. Member knows. In spite of what he said, I remind him that there is no shortage of farmers applying to the Farm Credit Corporation for loans. In fact many farmers find that the Farm Credit Corporation offers better rates and better opportunities than the banks or other financial institutions, including the credit unions and co-operatives.


PROPOSED AGRI-BOND PROGRAM
Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance must recognize that many farmers across Canada do not accept the rates presently being offered to the farm community by the Farm Credit Corporation. Will the Minister consider implementing a further study of the agribond issue, a matter that was referred to the Finance Committee some time ago? Would he support that, and ask for legislation which would provide better funding for the Farm Credit Corporation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the issue has been referred to a parliamentary committee because it is indeed an issue which deserves study. There are arguments in favour of such a proposal, but the Hon. Member also knows that there are many difficulties and drawbacks in that particular proposal. The parliamentary committee will examine these difficulties and in due time will submit a report in that regard.
I would invite my friend not to concentrate on one particular approach or one particular option. As I have indicated, when interest rates were very high steps were taken to help farmers in difficulty, and the Government has shown that it does care in that regard. We will continue to monitor the situation.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. However, in his absence-I see he has just arrived.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where's the beef?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and deals with the western grain stabilization program. Farmers are facing the most severe economic problems they have faced since the 1930s. The rate of bankruptcies has risen over 100 per cent. Some farm groups indicate that 10 per cent of farmers have not been able to pay last year's fuel bills, and the situation is very, very serious.
Our Members on this side of the House have called for some quick action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Our Leader has called for action from the Prime Minister.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Where is he? Where is your Leader?


Leonard J. Gustafson: We have seen no action taken. Our House Leader, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is supposed to be Question Period. Would the Hon. Member ask his question?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask my question but there is too much noise.
Our Deputy House Leader, the Hon. Mr. Nielsen, has asked-


Some Hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member realizes that it is the practice of the House to refer to Hon. Members by constituency or by function, and not by name.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Yukon, Mr. Nielsen-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard J. Gustafson: -asked the Government House Leader, in writing, for some quick action. The Government and the Minister have disregarded that request.


Jean-Guy Dubois: What is your question?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the farmers need money this spring.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, when an Hon. Member takes more than five minutes with an exchange, it is at the expense of the backbenchers of his own Party. I would invite the Hon. Member to ask his question.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, my question is the same one we have been asking for over a year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Will the Minister make a payment to the farmers this spring? They need the money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: Yes or no? Are you really serious?
May 2, 1984


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we are bound by legislation until the legislation is changed.


An Hon. Member:: So change it.


Eugene Whelan: We cannot make a payment under the present legislation. The new legislation will be presented in the House very soon.


Leonard J. Gustafson: When?


Eugene Whelan: We have said that earlier this week, and we still stand by that.


REQUEST THAT INTERIM PAYMENT BE MADE
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister will note that farmers have not received a payment since 1979. The Minister will also know that farmers have each paid $4,800 into the fund since 1979. If interest payments were attributed to that money at bank prime rates, it would have amounted to $7,100.


Mr. McKnight:: Per farmer.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Yes, per farmer. In the announcement he made in Winnipeg, the Minister suggested that he would pay out $2,500 to $3,000 per farmer.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Leonard J. Gustafson: And he suggested that he would probably pay that amount next fall. I ask the Minister again, will he consider making an interim payment as he did twice in the spring? And will he make the payment when the farmers need the money-and they need it now? And will he make it at a level which will help them solve their cash flow problems?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that 25 per cent of the farmers did not join this plan and he is trying to get the impression across that every farmer in western Canada will benefit from this payout. It is a voluntary plan. The federal Government puts $2 in for every dollar the producers put in, plus we administer the plan free and pay the interest on the money at the same rate it costs the Government of Canada to borrow. The Hon. Member knows full well how far this money can go. He also knows full well that the producers have received every dollar they put in that plan right from the beginning up to last year, if he wants to be fair about it.
The Hon. Member knows also, Mr. Speaker, that the plan is not going to do everything he is trying to intimate. For instance, the Premier of Manitoba says: "Pay out all that money and just get rid of it", which would make the plan unsound. We have an actuarially sound plan at the present time. We want it to remain that way, and so do the producers.
Oral Questions
The advisory committee, which is made up of farmers from western Canada, have approved what we are doing, and approved it unanimously. These are farmers from western Canada who are in contact every day with other farmers, and their surveys show that what we are doing is what the farmers want.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who was busy yesterday trying to defend our very unfair personal income tax system. He made two points; first, that the loopholes used by the rich are available to everyone, and, second, that the system is fair. The Minister should try to explain to the ordinary worker or pensioner, or virtually anyone in the reasonable income category, where they are going to get the money to use those loopholes. He knows it is unfair.
My question really concerns the change in the system as it has developed in recent years. It relates to the fact that, between 1970 and 1981, those individuals earning over $100,000 and paying no tax increased in numbers from three to 1,500, and the number of those earning over $200,000 and paying no tax virtually doubled between 1980 and 1981.
Will the Minister acknowledge to the House that the reason we are seeing more and more rich individuals in Canada in a position where they are not paying their fair share is because the Government has introduced new tax loopholes for their benefit?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it would be typical of the New Democratic Party to qualify any incentive, complaining of the tax system, as a loophole. If the Hon. Member would look at the Income Tax Act he would see that there are a number of tax incentives which have been provided in order to encourage investment and stimulate the economy. Some of these incentives have to do with research and development, which is very important in creating jobs. Some have to do with capital investment or investment in equity, which this country needs. These incentives have been provided for all Canadians in order to encourage them to invest in the Canadian economy, thus stimulating economic growth.
I indicated something yesterday to the Hon. Member, and I will repeat it to him again today, taking a very simple example. You may have $100,000 of income this year but if, through your activities, the risks you have taken, you lost $150,000 last year, you are entitled to claim your loss last year against your income this year.


John Edward Broadbent: Why?

May 2, 1984
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: That is typical New Democratic Party. The Hon. Member asks why.


Mr. Deans:: How about the man who is not working? What does he get?


Marc Lalonde: Because the New Democratic Party does not want any growth. The New Democratic Party is always living in the past. It does not want to see growth in this country. It is as simple as this. You have provisions in our tax system whereby you are encouraging people to take high risks in order to stimulate the economy, to stimulate growth and create jobs. If people lose money one year, they are entitled to deduct it against their income the following year, or the year after that.
You may find yourself indeed with high income one year and no tax to pay, but it will be because you have incurred losses in order to help stimulate the economy and create jobs. This is what is happening. It is the same situation in the area of research and development. The NDP Members should know a little bit about incentives in the economy.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at least the Minister has the integrity to look uncomfortable with the hogwash he was just presenting to the House. We believe that if someone invests and creates jobs they ought to make a profit, yes. But we also believe that if they make a profit and gain income, they should pay tax on that income like everyone else.


LOSS OF REVENUE TO TREASURY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in his Budget of 1981 the then Minister of Finance said: "There are more winners than losers in the upper income group." This Minister of Finance was responsible for a Budget which introduced additional loopholes of use only to upper income Canadians. In light of those facts, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government no longer publishes documents which show how much revenue is lost to the Treasury because of these loopholes? Will the Government make that available to the Canadian public now? What is the Government afraid of?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the Hon. Member's hogwash in that regard, I would like to take him on, on what he said. He said if Canadians make profits they should pay taxes. That is fine. If they have losses should they be able to claim them against their income? That is the question the Hon. Member should answer before going on with this type of questioning.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister ought to realize that he is supposed to answer the questions that are put to him in this House. He has just ignored my question.


Marc Lalonde: I have heard that hogwash before.


John Edward Broadbent: I will be happy to debate that hogwash with the Minister any time, in the House, or in the national election
I hope we will have soon, and listen to him try to defend that position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR TAX INFORMATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this information, which was provided for only two years, shows how much revenue is lost to the Treasury because of the loopholes made available to upper income Canadians. Does the Minister not think it is fair that when these people get the benefits, and the revenue has to be made up by ordinary taxpayers, the least those taxpayers should get is a document outlining the amount of money upper income Canadians are not paying to the Treasury that they ought to be paying? Will the Minister provide that information to the people of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member is again misrepresenting the situation. He is talking about tax expenditures.


John Edward Broadbent: Misrepresenting what?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, you are misrepresenting the situation. What the Government published on a couple of occasions was the tax expenditure table. This is not a matter having to do with loopholes; it is the total amount the Government is providing in incentives in the economy to all Canadians through various systems of incentive in the tax system or otherwise.


John Edward Broadbent: Let's have it, then.


Marc Lalonde: This table has not been kept for a few years. I do not have it. I do not have any particular objection to collecting it and producing it in future years. I have no particular hang-ups about that. I will take the Hon. Member's view as a representation. I thought at that time it was a helpful table, but it has not been produced for a few years.


John Edward Broadbent: Why?


Marc Lalonde: Well, I invite my friend to look at the contents of the last few Budgets, which he has not even bothered to read, if I understand his questions in the House. I am afraid he should begin to read at least the information he has obtained before asking for more.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for the status of women I will direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. The Minister must know that yesterday's announcement closing down the Office of Equal Opportunity for Women in the
May 2, 1984

Public Service has caused widespread concern. The move has been opposed by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the women's rights adviser in the Prime Minister's Office, and by interested groups right across the country. In light of all that opposition and the clear injustice to people who are looking for advancement, why did the Government take that step?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this step was not taken by the Government. The Public Service Commission is an autonomous agency reporting to this Parliament. I am concerned about the implications and impressions conveyed by the decision of the Public Service Commission to close this office even though the Commission issued a release saying that the work of this office is to be continued by the various branches of the Commission. In my view, the impression given by this step is not consistent with the firm commitment and action of this Government not only to foster equal opportunities for women but to make sure this action takes place through a strong, effective, and ongoing affirmative action program.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister can wash his hands of this matter. The Government took all the credit when it set up the office, and now it wants to wash its hands of it when closing it down. This specific agency was dedicated primarily to low income workers in the Public Service to give them the opportunity for jobs and advancement. Both I and the people affected want to know from the Minister what assurances his Government will give that it will provide opportunities and jobs for low income workers in the Public Service. They have had enough rhetoric from the Government, and they now find the Government is closing down the only office that gives them some opportunity.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I realize my hon. friend has just become Treasury Board critic. I hope he will have that job for a very long time, and in light of yesterday's Gallup poll I am sure that is going to be the case.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I suggest to my hon. friend that if he does some elementary homework he will find the Public Service Commission is not a branch of the Government as such; it is an autonomous agency which, by law, is not subject to control by Government. It reports directly to this Parliament. I suggest my hon. friend do as I have done and express his concern to the Commission. I hope, with this consensus on both sides of the House, the Commission will take appropriate action to reassure women across the country that the Commission is not lessening its commitment to providing opportunities for women in a way consistent with the meaningful action of the Government as such in programs under the direct control of the
Oral Questions
Treasury Board. I challenge my friend to back me up in my efforts and the efforts of this Government.


David Edward Crombie: Do something and I will.

[ Translation]


BILINGUAL SERVICES FOR ATHLETES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Two months ago, the Minister had some pretty harsh comments on the lack of bilingual services for Canadian athletes, and I agree that his comments were justified. Recently, on April 19 of this year, the Sports Federation of Canada approached the Minister, saying that it was interested in working with the Government on preparing guidelines dealing with private sector advertising and bilingualism. Considering this evidence of the Federation's good faith, can the Minister inform the House today why he failed to communicate and negotiate with the Federation, and discuss the matter, before announcing his guideline, as stated in the press release?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was not being inclusive when he said the Federation was acting in good faith. To my knowledge, most of Canada's sports federations recognize the fact that our athletes must have access to services in both languages, and I do not see any problem in that respect.
The Hon. Member asked whether I agreed to meet people . . . When asked, I have never refused to meet any of the federation presidents.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE EXPLANATION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I think that yesterday, when answering questions put by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville, the Minister was less than courteous in his remarks about the very relevant questions she put to the Minister. Today, I would like to take this opportunity to invite the Minister to apologize and also to ask him why, since he has been invited to the next general meeting, he is not taking advantage of this opportunity to explain his position to the delegates. Furthermore, why is his Department refusing to make a financial contribution to the cost of simultaneous interpretation services, the availability of which proves the good faith of this federation, and especially since the Minister would have an opportunity to set up services in both languages?

May 2, 1984

Oral Questions


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to point out that I have no apologies to offer for the position I have taken on this matter. My criticism is that the Progressive Conservative Party has two policies on bilingualism. It is against English or against French, whichever is most convenient. What I find appalling is that you will not let Francophones receive services in French-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister should address the Chair.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has recently been soliciting support from native people for his leadership bid. He will know that yesterday and today Indian people in Manitoba have been demonstrating in the City of Winnipeg over their concerns about the lack of adequate funding for on-reserve education. The Minister has been fond of paying lip service to the idea of Indian control of education on their reserves. Can he tell us what he is prepared to do immediately to provide adequate buildings and services for on-reserve schools in Manitoba or, for that matter, across the country?


Erik Nielsen: Donate $10,000.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for the Yukon has just offered to donate $10,000.


Erik Nielsen: No, you.


John Carr Munro: I would inform the Hon. Member, without agreeing to his verbiage and preamble, that I met with the Indian leadership of Manitoba in my office just a few minutes ago. I am meeting them again at 3.15 p.m.
They are aware of the work that has been put together in a Cabinet submission from the Assembly of First Nations, reviewing the whole educational system for the Indian people and identifying the very large shortfalls of money that must be made up to bring it up to the standard of the non native communities. They are also aware that, in the interval, I have another Treasury Board submission trying to obtain the necessary money to correct the immediate situation in Manitoba as well as other parts of the country. I hope to have that before the Treasury Board before the end of the month.
In the meantime my officials are working with the four chiefs immediately involved to iron out over the next day or two the precise amount of money that will be required in Manitoba. We have a general idea but it has to be refined. That will be done in the next couple of days.
I believe and hope that the chiefs are satisfied that everything is being done in the short term that possibly can be done. Again, I will be meeting with them probably around 3.15. If the Hon. Member wants to get a further progress report tomorrow, that is fine. I will do so.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I guess the shortfall is the result of the administration up until today.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE ON FUNDING
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has identified correctly that there is a serious shortfall. Indeed, one study has indicated that reserve schools in Manitoba are 30 years behind in services compared to provincial schools. Provincial schools in Manitoba receive roughly $8,000 per student per year, whereas reserve schools receive $4,000 per student per year.
Will the Minister assure us right now that the package that he is putting together this afternoon and the rest of this day will at least bring reserve schools up to the minimum provincial standards so that on reserve students are not made to pay for his Department's seeming unwillingness up to this time to fund education adequately?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance without having gone to Treasury Board and received the approval. If I gave that assurance, the Indian leadership, who are very astute in these matters, would know that it was a canard. They would know it was not true. They would know that I had not gone to Treasury Board yet. They would know that a commitment of that kind was merely window dressing without any validity behind it, as indeed I am sure they feel the Hon. Member must be aware of that himself. To an extent, he is doing nothing but grandstanding himself right here in the House.


Mr. Oberle:: You are the trustee.


John Carr Munro: To grandstand on a serious issue like this, that impacts on the life of the Indian people and the educational system, to me leaves something to be desired in terms of morality on the part of the Hon. Member.
The fact of the matter is that I cannot give that undertaking. I would like to give it, but I cannot.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In September of this year the National Capital will be host to His Highness, Pope John Paul II. As Head of State for the


May 2, 1984

Vatican, he will be visiting our National Capital and will be received with the usual warmth, affection and attention. [Translation]
On September 20, during the Pope's visit to the National Capital area, an important event will take place at the Equestrian Park in Nepean, where the Pope will say Mass. The logistics of this event will, of course, be a problem, since more than 250,000 people will be going to and from the Park. [English]
The organizers are planning special arrangements in matters of health, security, transportation, and social services. Given that the federal Government is the largest employer in the National Capital area and will want to participate and co-ordinate its efforts with the organizers, can the Minister inform the House what working arrangements can be expected of public servants on that day, September 20, 1984?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have been actively considering a number of options with respect to the best way to deal with the situation on this forthcoming historic date. I hope to have an announcement to make in this regard before too many more days go by. I know the interest in particular of my hon. friend in this subject. I hope to be able to have some announcement to make before too many more days go by.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who is answering questions about de Havilland in the House. I want to pursue a question that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands put to him a couple of days ago with respect to the payment of $155,000 in bonuses to the executives of de Havilland.
I have seen a government document which states that a part of the current rescue plan for de Havilland will be to seek a concessionary wage settlement with the company's union that reflects the severity of the company's financial situation. It goes on to say that continued government support will be conditional on reaching such a settlement. Why are the unions being asked to make financial sacrifices while the management of the company is receiving bonuses?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that in my previous answer I said that these bonuses applied to the year ending in May 1983, and that no bonuses were paid this year.
The Hon. Member will also recall that for the Dash-8 program, for instance, a tremendous effort was made to make
Oral Questions
sure the program would be developed on time, and in fact, results were way ahead of the projections.
I think the Hon. Member should separate the two questions and consider the issue of the bonuses within the period for which they were given.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you understood that answer better than I did.


BONUS PLAN
Michael Holcombe Wilson: In the year 1982, the year for which the bonuses were paid, the company lost $230 million. Normally, when companies lose money there is not a bonus paid to management. Would the Minister explain under what part of the bonus plan were bonuses paid to the management for the year 1982?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Hon. Member that the entire situation at de Havilland should be considered. Obviously, developing the Dash-8, for instance, demanded an all-out effort on the part of all employees as well as management.
We must not forget that, at the time the company was ready to market the aircraft, the market situation was deteriorating, and today, we are taking steps at de Havilland to provide for better marketing of the aircraft. As soon as market conditions improve, the company's financial situation will improve as well.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It pertains to blue uniforms for Canada's naval forces. Last October, in response to a question from the Member for Halifax West, the Minister praised the green uniforms we presently have in the Canadian Navy, and stated: "There is no intention of changing that state of affairs". Last Friday, the Member from Halifax, the Minister for International Trade, held out the possibility of blue uniforms for our Navy, and stated: "I am satisfied very substantial progress has been made in this matter". Could the Minister of National Defence tell us whether the Minister for International Trade was simply getting a head start on the upcoming federal election campaign with some promises, or was he in reality signalling a change in government policy in this matter?

May 2, 1984
Oral Questions


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman, since he paid attention to my reply to the Hon. Member from Halifax last October, that there is indeed no change in the government policy as I announced it at that time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: There you go, Gerry. Down the tube.


An Hon. Member:: Halifax will never be the same.


T.A. Bud Bradley: To say the least, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised about that answer.


BLUE UNIFORMS INQUIRY
T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, we have here then a Minister of the Crown who is speaking at a naval establishment as a Minister of the Crown, announcing a Department of National Defence or government program, and yet in theory announcing things which the Government is saying do not exist. I am sure that if the Minister were making the statement he would have some knowledge through Cabinet, or some approval from the Minister of National Defence. If not, he should not be a Minister of the Crown. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, where there is smoke there is fire.


Mr. Corbett:: Not in this case.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Could the Minister tell the House exactly where the naval blue uniforms sit and when we can expect a comprehensive explanation or a response from the Minister of National Defence on the issue?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Who is telling the truth?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I thought my reply was quite clear. I gave it in October and I reiterated it here today. Perhaps the hon. gentleman was there at the press conference given by my colleague. I was not there. As I understand it, the quote that he has given is misleading.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosby:: Maybe John Turner told him something.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the status of women. It concerns the closure of the Office of Equal Opportunity for Women. The Minister told me on February 20 that this would not happen, that there would be no closure of the office. What is she doing to reinstate this office or to beef it
up? Does the Minister not agree that it is essential for women in the public service to have a separate advocacy centre, an advocacy and watchdog centre, just as we need a separate office for the status of women, which is her ministry, and that it should be detached from other Government personnel offices in order to provide a range of services, including counselling support, training, and watchdog services? Does the Minister not agree with this? What is she going to do to have this office reinstated and beefed up?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the Hon. Member. I have been assured by Commissioner McQueen that in fact these services are going to be strengthened. The office as it was known no longer exists, but it is indeed integrated into the new affirmative action program and is being strengthened. All of the people currently employed will continue to be employed. However, I am as concerned as the Hon. Member, and I have arranged to meet with Commissioner McQueen next week to see that these services continue.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, considering the Minister had all this information way back in February, why is the Minister waiting until now to meet with the Public Service Commission on this matter? Did the Minister not hear the response of the President of the Treasury Board, whose views are apparently much stronger than hers on the continuation of this particular office? Does the Government not have any influence at all over the Public Service Commission in making sure programs that are going to offer opportunities for women are implemented? How can they implement their own affirmative action program if this is the case?
I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, a specific-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should ask a supplementary question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Since the closure of this office particularly concerns low income public servants, something like 95,000 women clerks and secretaries, who need this office and need it as a separate entity not integrated in other-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member ask her question?


An Hon. Member:: She did.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal.


AIRPORTS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister who would have knowledge of
May 2, 1984

the Department of Transport. The Minister will know that in the Saint John airport employees who have been employed by the rental car agencies have been notified that they must become bilingual in those positions by January of next year. Can the Minister assure us that the people who now hold those positions will find themselves secure and that indeed they will not be thrown out of their jobs?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I know many things, and one of them is that it is not normal for a Minister to answer for his successor after he has left a Department. I will find out all the facts and make sure my hon. friend has an answer.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Of course the Acting Prime Minister realizes that if the Minister of Transport were in the House I would have placed that question before him.


POSITION OF EMPLOYEES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, while the Acting Prime Minister is looking into this matter, will he kindly make sure that we are made aware of the facts about this situation within a reasonable period of time so that those employees can assess their situation and hopefully be assured that they will not be turfed out of a job by a policy which, in this particular situation, is not relevant to the one that exists in Saint John?


Mr. McKenzie:: Or any other airport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that was inferred in the answer I gave. I will make sure of that in exactly four minutes.


FINANCE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday he assured holders of home mortgages that the proposal for mortgage insurance in the Budget would be retroactive to March 1. Will the Minister of Finance give that same assurance to farmers who have sold land, that the RRSP to shelter $120,000 of capital gain will also be retroactive to March 1 regardless of when the legislation is passed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I refer the Hon. Member to my statement in my Budget.
Oral Questions POOLS


SPORTS POOL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. Send him in here. He is right behind the curtain.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The federal Government is violating Criminal Code regulations with this new sports pool. The reason is that the prizes are fixed, which means it is a lottery and not a pool. The federal Government is also violating a 1979 agreement with the provinces which stipulates the former will stay out of the lottery field. Surreptitiously and blatantly, yesterday or early this morning-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, I presume, is going to ask a question?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This morning the Government changed the pool to a lottery by Order in Council. I would like to ask the Minister: did you do this?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I was still giving information to a Member of the Official Opposition who wanted further details. That is why the Hon. Member had trouble finding me. The answer to his question is: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Mines.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Oberle: I will let Steve go ahead, and I will wait.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton North has a supplementary question.


ORDER IN COUNCIL INQUIRY
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider this matter very amusing at this stage of the game. We put through a Bill here which set up a pool, and this Government has surreptitiously and blatantly changed a government Act without coming to Parliament. It changed the pool to a lottery. Did the Minister, by Order in Council,

May 2, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Paproski
change the pool Bill that we now have in the House of Commons to a lottery, either yesterday or this morning? Yes or no?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to comment on the proceedings before the courts, because I have great respect for our judicial system. And I have no intention of commenting on the kind of argument the Hon. Member wants to start.
We have always maintained publicly that it was a sports pool. Now, the Progressive Conservative Party is absolutely against our helping amateur sport; it does not want us to support medical research; it is against our helping culture and the arts. And so it goes ... Mr. Speaker, what they like to do, every 15 or 20 years when they are in power, is to give everything to the provinces and make it impossible for the federal Government to receive international athletes by, for instance, providing funding of $200 million for the Calgary Games. That is why we are trying to help our amateur athletes across Canada and not just in one province.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a supplementary. I want to know whether he is violating the Criminal Code. Yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has had a supplementary.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is a real phoney answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


PRIVILEGE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been given a question, a supplementary. I hope he has a valid point of privilege.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you, Sir, as the first commoner of this House, if a Minister of the Crown can, surreptitiously, by Order in Council, change a government Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like to know. On a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling of documents. The Hon. Minister of State for Finance.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am serving notice-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton North has in no way related his remarks to a matter of privilege. He has an argument. He may have a difference as to facts, but in no way has he presented anything which remotely touches privilege.
Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, if I may have that chance, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton North on a point of order, having failed to make a point of privilege.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am merely asking for an explanation here, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you will be able to help me. We passed a Bill in this House which entitles the Government to run a pool for the Olympics. I am just saying that we passed this Bill and we said that this Government would do it according to that particular rule. That is fine. Now I want to know-


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order relates-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I want to know-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Standing Orders of the House of Commons are the procedure by which we are governed. If the Hon. Member can cite a standing order of the House of Commons and indicate in what respect he has a matter of order, the Chair would be more than pleased to hear it.
A matter relating to facts, a matter relating to whether or not certain events have taken place, is not a point of order, nor is it a matter of privilege. The Hon. Member may want to reflect. There are other avenues available to him to raise a matter which he may feel is a grievance, a matter on which he has a difference of opinion. Other opportunities are available in the procedures of this House. I invite him to reflect carefully. I am sure that, experienced parliamentarian that he is, after mature reflection he will realize that another order of proceedings would be more appropriate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Well, I want to thank you for that but I am still going to raise it.
May 2, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 64(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (5).
In accordance with Standing Order 64(2), I also ask you to designate the order of the day necessary for the consideration of this ways and means motion.


COPYRIGHT
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table in the House today in both official languages a white paper on copyright revision entitled From Gutenberg to Telidon.
At the same time I should like to inform the House that, after consultation with all House Leaders, I am pleased to announce unanimous consent to refer this document to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion of the Hon. Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.

Order Paper Questions


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 408, 596 and 731.


RECIPIENTS OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE CHEQUES
Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare send the pamphlet "The Child Tax Credit" to recipients of family allowance cheques and, if so (a) how many pamphlets were printed (b) at what cost?
2.	How many persons received family allowance cheques in December, 1983?
3.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare send a Christmas greeting note to recipients of family allowance cheques and, if so, what was the total cost of printing the messages?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. "The Child Tax Credit" pamphlet was sent to all family allowance recipients in December, 1983. (a) Some 3,807,000 pamphlets were printed, (b) The cost of printing was $32,939.77.
2.	The number of persons receiving family allowance cheques in December, 1983 was 3,634,811.
3.	Yes. The annual notice to beneficiaries advising of the early delivery of December cheques and extending seasons greetings was continued in December, 1983. The cost of printing this message was approximately $10,000.


NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF CANADA
Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the National Museums of Canada and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
MR. MCKINNON-PENALTIES FOR drunk driving
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
They humbly sheweth that there is an urgent need to enact legislation against drunken-driving. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. This petition is signed by Sheila Kelly and others.
(a) Names
Sean B. Murphy
Rene J. Marin*
Leo Dora is

(b) Positions
Chairman of the Board of	$17,550
T rustees
Chairman of the EC*, ex officio member of all the committees of the Board of Trustees*
Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Vice-Chairman of the EC, ex officio member of the Board of Trustees and Chairman of the SC-AE
-no remuneration-
Governor-in-Council appointee
Vice Chairman and Secretary General -no remuneration-
Public servant


[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Richard M. H. Alway	Member of the Board of	$10,800
Trustees
Member of the EC, Chairman of the NGC-CC
Robert G. MacLeod2	Member of the Board of	$ 3,600
Trustees and of the SC-AE
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1984
Order Paper Questions			
Roger B. Hamel	Member of the Board of Trustees of the EC, Chairman of the NP-CC	$ 5,850	QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President ofMichael C. D. Hobbs	Member of the Board of	$ 5,325	T rustees	the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, if question No. 266 could beChairman of the NMM-CC	made an order for return, this return would be tabledJane Thompson Edwards	Member of the Board of Trustees	$ 4,950	immediately.Member of the NP-CC Chairman of the NMNS-CC	Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that questionBohdan Bociurkiw	Member of the Board of T rustees Member of the NMM-CC Member of the NP-CC	$ 5,850	No. 266 be deemed to have been made an order for return?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Michelle Nolin-Raynauld	Member of the Board of Trustees	$ 7,425	[Text]
	Member of the NP-CC		JAYCEE FAIR, VICTORIA, B.C.
The Chairman receives $325 per diem for attendance at meetings plus travel and living expenses.
Other members receive $225 per diem for attendance at meetings plus travel and living expenses.
1	Resigned February 28, 1983
2	End of mandate-February 14, 1983 * *
Explanatory Notes
* There are seven committees of the NMC Board of Trustees:
EC-Executive Committee
NGC-CC National Gallery of Canada Consultative Committee NMM-CC National Museum of Man Consultative Committee NMNS-CC National Museum of Natural Sciences Consultative Committee NMST-CC National Museum of Science and Technology NP-CC National Programmes Consultative Committee SC-AE Special Committee-Audit and Evaluation


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Did the Government provide an exhibit on government services offered in the Province of British Columbia at the Jaycee Fair in Victoria from May 10 to 17, 1981 and, if so, what was the cost of (a) purchasing or leasing the tractor and semi-trailer in which the exhibit was housed (b) transportation to and accommodation at the fair (c) salaries and accommodation expenses of the staff accompanying the exhibit (d) preparing the exhibit and, in particular, the booklet "The Government of Canada at your Service in British Columbia"?
2.	Is the exhibit a long-term endeavor and, if so, what is the estimated total cost for its travels to different locales in the Province?
3.	At what other locations in British Columbia was the exhibit shown and, in each case, at what cost?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the Fiscal year 1982-83, did the Group meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: 1.
No. (a), (b), (c) and (d) N/A.
2. Not applicable.
[ Translation]


John Leslie Evans: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Roy MacLaren: that Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
May 2, 1984

He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 would enact the amendments to the Customs Tariff set out in the notice of ways and means motion tabled as part of last April's Budget.
Before noting a few details of the Bill, I should like to summarize the tariff amendments. First, improvements are being made in the rates of duty and other provisions of the general preferential tariff for developing countries. Second, we are increasing the limits on the value of goods that Canadians returning from abroad can bring home free of duty and tax. Third, duties on certain machinery parts are being increased. Finally, there are a number of miscellaneous changes affecting the dutiable status of a limited number of products.
The first group of tariff amendments which I should like to bring to the attention of the House relates to the general preferential tariff or what over a period of years has become known as the GPT. Hon. Members may recall that, as part of the 1981 Budget, there were a number of improvements made in the GPT, including new or lower rates on a broad range of products from developing countries. These rates had been recommended by the Tariff Board in response to a request from the Minister of Finance for a report on the impact on Canadian production of including new products under the GPT and of reducing to "free" the existing rates on other products.
The amendments in the Bill now before the House implement most of the recommendations made by the Tariff Board. That report was tabled in the House in May, 1982. Anyone interested can see the details in that report, on which interested parties were invited to comment. The comments received were carefully reviewed. While a few departures from the board's proposals have been made as a result, most of the board's recommendations are being adopted.
The amendments now before us provide for new or lower GPT rates, mainly free rates, on a wide range of products. The specific tariff amendments are set out in Schedule I to the Bill. The new lower rates would apply to qualifying imports, which in 1982 were valued at $11 million.
There are other amendments to the general preferential tariff included in this Bill which were not within the scope of the Tariff Board's study. The most noteworthy is the continuation of the general preferential scheme itself for another ten years to June 30, 1994.
Like Canada, most industrialized countries originally implemented their preferential tariff schemes for specified periods during which the impact of the preferences could be monitored and the need for their continuation determined. Those countries have also extended, or announced their intention to extend, their schemes. Canada's decision to extend the GPT rate was announced in May, 1982 by the Canadian delegation to a meeting of the Special Committee on preferences of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Provision has also been made in the Bill for a liberalization of the so-called "rules of origin" under the GPT. The purpose of these rules of origin is to ensure that only bona fide developing countries received the benefits of the general preferential
Customs Tariff
tariff. Goods substantially manufactured in industrialized nations which are shipped through GPT beneficiaries or have had only minor processing done on them in beneficiary countries are excluded from entry under the general preferential tariff by rules of origin. The rules are being amended so that value added in any GPT country will count toward the 60 per cent GPT content that products must have to be allowed entry at GPT rates.
Previously, the content requirement could be met only in the country from which the goods were being exported to Canada. This new measure was also announced by the Canadian delegation at the UNCTAD meeting I mentioned a moment ago and is in line with action taken by other industrialized countries.
Another change in the general preferential tariff is a new provision to give the Governor in Council authority to waive the requirement that goods must be shipped directly to Canada from GPT countries in order to qualify for GPT rates. This provision, which is similar to ones already in place for the British preferential and most-favoured-nation tariffs, will provide the authority needed for a flexible and speedy response to meet particular problems which arise from time to time with respect to shipments from developing countries. I might add that the Bill also includes a number of purely technical amendments to the GPT.
I should now like to turn to tourist exemptions. Prior to the April, 1983 Budget, the Department of Finance received many representations from individuals and several Members of this House asking that the value limitations on duty and tax-free exemptions for Canadians returning with purchases made abroad be increased. It was decided to meet those requests because the limits had not been increased since 1974. Their real value had been substantially eroded by inflation. The increases in the exemptions will also speed up customs clearance procedure, making it more convenient for travellers at our airports and other entry ports and reducing costs of administration.
The following are the specific changes in tourist exemptions. The quarterly exemption, available once in each calendar quarter after an absence of not less than 48 hours, is being increased from $50 to $100. The annual exemption, available once a year, after an absence of not less than seven days, is being increased from $150 to $300. The value of goods that can be brought back tax and duty-free under the "casual" exemption, which does not provide for a frequency limitation, is being doubled from $10 to $20. The minimum absence requirement under that casual exemption is being reduced from 48 to 24 hours.
In addition, the value of goods that can be entered under the tourist item which provides for a "flat" duty and tax rate is being increased from $150 to $300. The flat rate is being reduced from 25 percent to 20 per cent to take account of the lower duty rates applying as a result of the Tokyo round of GATT negotiations. There are also a number of purely technical changes in the tourist exemptions. All of these changes should make compliance with them less onerous for the travel-

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff
ling public and should reduce government cost in administering these provisions.
The exemption increases included in this Bill are reasonable and respond to the representations and needs of the travelling public without having any adverse impact on Canadian business or on our balance of payments situation.
1 said something about the changes in the Bill respecting the general preferential tariff and the new provisions regarding tourist exemptions. I now want to turn to the tariff increases provided for in this Bill. Schedule III to this Bill contains amendments to certain machinery tariff items. While some of these amendments have the effect of lowering rates of duty, there are increases on feed pellet mill dies and rolls and on certain bulldozer parts.
Let me first say that the general policy of the Government is to work toward freer international trade and not to propose tariff increases, particularly in cases where existing rates are bound under international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT as it is commonly called.
Having said that, one might ask why we are proposing in this Bill to increase tariffs, even if the increases affect only a few specialized products. The answer is simply that these exceptions to the general rule are being made in the interest of equity.
During the Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations, it was decided to bind at "free" the rates of duty on a wide range of machinery and machine parts which had been entering Canada on a duty-free basis under the duty remission provisions of the machinery program on the grounds that they were unavailable from Canadian production. Some of the products covered by this agreement were dies and rolls used in feed pellet mills and a number of bulldozer parts.
Unfortunately, at that time Canadian officials were unaware that these particular articles were about to be made in Canada and that the Canadian manufacturers were counting on the fact that under the machinery program, a tariff could be applied to imports when production commenced. Accordingly, we have a situation where tariff protection considered necessary to the viability of Canadian manufacturing had been removed. In view of this, it was concluded that the appropriate duties on the feed pellet mill dies and rolls and bulldozer parts should be reinstated. Before these few tariff increases can come into effect, Mr. Speaker, they must be negotiated with our trading partners. These negotiations are now in progress. Accordingly, the Bill provides that the increases are to come into effect on a date to be proclaimed by the Governor in Council.
As I have mentioned, not all of the amendments in Schedule III provide for tariff increases. Provision is made for reduced rates on crawler loaders and crawler pipelayers and parts. These decreases together with the higher rates on the bulldozer parts essentially represent a package of tariff amendments
designed to standardize and simplify the tariff treatment of all crawler machines and parts.
In addition, the fourth major section of the Bill includes a number of miscellaneous tariff changes. The other tariff amendments set out in Clauses 5, 7, 8 and 9 and in Schedule III of the Bill do not have the significance or impact of the amendments which I have already noted. Many of these miscellaneous tariff changes are of a technical nature and are designed to reflect anomalies or to overcome administrative problems. Others are of a more substantive character, such as the new tariff items to implement the Tariff Board's interim report covering firebrick and other refractory products. These new items simplify and modernize the treatment of those products, taking into account representations made subsequent to the tabling of the board's report.
A new item is being introduced to provide duty-free entry for church carillons of a certain character. This item has been requested by a number of Members of the House on behalf of churches in their constituencies. The tariff on mixing consoles and tape recorders used by professional sound recording studios is being removed to assist the Canadian recording industry in its efforts to remain competitive by employing the most modern recording equipment.
Tariff-free provisions are also being established for certain other products from developing countries, and these products are set forth in the Bill. These miscellaneous changes are in line with the Government's policy of keeping our tariff responsive, within the limits imposed by our international obligations, to changing economic and technical needs.
I hope that the House will agree that these tariff measures should be given speedy passage since they do provide significant benefit, both to the developing countries and to Canadian manufacturers, Canadian importers and Canadian private citizens.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, we were not intending to take up a great deal of time on this Bill but we took a look at the Bill again and are rather disturbed by some of the things it contains. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the nature of this particular piece of legislation.
In brief, the legislation extends the general preferential tariff, that would normally have expired on June 30 of this year, until June 30 of 1994, a 10-year period. Second, as the Minister has indicated, it makes provisions for Canadians returning as tourists by doubling the amount of the former duty-free allowance on goods brought into the country. Third, the Bill does make certain tariff changes.
I would like to deal with the matter piece by piece. First, I would like to direct your attention, Sir, to the various schedules in this Bill. As you are perhaps aware, Sir, the tariff system in Canada includes four general tariff structures. The first tariff structure is the British preferential tariff. The next tariff is the most favoured-nationl tariff. Then there is a tariff called the general tariff, and finally a tariff called the general preferential tariff. All that sounds wonderful until one begins
May 2, 1984

to understand that all the countries in the world fall either under the British preferential tariff, the most favoured-nation tariff or the general preferential tariff, except for one country. There is one country in the world which we in this nation apparently hate, disdain, distrust and have no use for at all. That country, which must pay higher duties than any other country in the world on its imports into Canada, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Indeed, when looking at the Bill, one would find, for example, that if Saudi Arabia were to import vinegar into Canada, it would have to pay a 25 per cent tariff. However, the general preferential tariff on vinegar is free and the British preferential tariff on vinegar is 10 per cent. I do not know who is bringing vinegar into the country but if, for example, Saudi Arabia wished to import cigar boxes into Canada, it would have to pay a 35 per cent tariff. However, the general preferential tariff is free and the British preferential tariff is 11.3 per cent.
The Bill goes on. We all know the propensity of the Saudis to produce liquor. They are well covered by this tariff because the tariff on liquor from Saudi Arabia is dramatically higher than the tariff on liquor from any other country. I am thumbing through the Bill, Sir, so that I may tell you specifically what the amount of that tariff is. It is clear that the Saudis certainly would not be able to develop much of a market in Canada for their booze, if they should ever decide to produce booze, under the terms of this Bill. On bottled spirits like brandy, the Saudis would have to pay a $6 tariff, while the British preferential tariff is 75 cents. That is rather rough on the Saudis.
I believe that it is a bit ridiculous that the Government should produce a Bill which includes something called a general tariff when only one country in the world is subject to that tariff.
The Minister has come forward in the House and said that this is a great Bill. However, I would think that, when reviewing this piece of legislation, somewhere along the line we should simplify it. I believe that somewhere along the line, we should get rid of all this useless printing. I do not know, Sir, how much is imported into Canada from Saudi Arabia and I do not know why we should hit the Saudis with all these extra tariff charges that we do not charge any other country in the world, but that is what we do. I ask you, Sir, why should we deal with a Bill which contains schedules such as those in the Bill before us without giving it some deep consideration?
Beyond the points which I have already mentioned, Sir, we run into another series of tariff charts. In the course of preparing my comments on this Bill, I felt it was important to obtain a list of countries and their corresponding tariff arrangements from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). A great many countries fall not only under the most favoured-nation status but under the general preferential status and indeed the British preferential status as well. The usual arrangement is to use the lowest tariff. Why would a country not have only one tariff arrangement with Canada? Why would an importer have to find out which under the particular
Customs Tariff
circumstances would be the lowest tariff applicable to his country?
It is even more strange, Sir, to learn of some of the countries which fall under the most favoured-nation status. We have had difficulties with some countries in the world. We have had difficulties with the philosophy and the activities of the U.S.S.R., for example, but that country is considered to be a most favoured-nation. Hungary is a most favoured nation. Czechoslovakia is a most favoured nation. But poor old Romania is not only a most favoured nation, but it is entitled to a general preferential tariff because it is underprivileged. It has not only a rotten communist government, but it is most favoured. On top of that, it is entitled to general preferential treatment.
When one analyses this whole course of events, one begins to wonder under what circumstances and under what arrangements certain specific nations should have certain specific treatment from the Government. When we are discussing a Bill that affects the tariffs we are going to charge people bringing goods into the country, surely we should pay some attention to where we are going as a nation in terms of foreign trade. What kind of objectives have we got in terms of developing Canada and Canada's trade with the rest of the world? What kind of foreign aid stance should we take? If everyone is a somebody, then no one is an anybody. That is what we have here.
We pretend to assist certain countries of the world with trade preferences by giving them the benefit of the general preferential tariff, but the fact is that we give that general preferential tariff to virtually every country of the world. There is no real, specific benefit to those countries that perhaps we are trying as a nation to help.
Second, it is apparent, when one analyses the chart of the tariffs available, that some countries whose trading activities are such as to damage Canadian industry and who organize their affairs in such a way as to prevent Canadians from having reasonable access to their home markets, are given by this Government general preferential tariff treatment when they bring their goods into Canada. We are the proverbial good boy scouts. We take a kneeing every time we deal with them, yet we allow them to bring their goods into our country in many cases virtually, duty-free.
I specifically draw to the attention of the House the problems we have had in the aircraft industry. This House has been beset with problems concerning de Havilland. One of the problems de Havilland has is the unfair competition that it is experiencing from an aircraft corporation owned, operated and run by the Brazilian Government. Yet Canada gives to Brazil general preferential tariff rating on all of its imports into Canada. We do so even though Brazil will not allow us anything like that type of preference when we are selling our goods to Brazil, even though the Brazilians operate in the aircraft field and in the financing of aircraft in such a fashion

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff
as to damage seriously and mortally our exports of aircraft from de Havilland into the South American market.
It is absolutely ridiculous that we should continue to give certain countries general preferential tariff benefits when their trading stance and the way they operate in the world is to do damage to Canadians and to Canadian business. I think it is important that the Government be prepared to go over the various countries with the House and declare and explain why this Government is prepared to give various countries the general preferential tariff rate it is obviously, by this Bill, intending to extend. There has to be a rethinking as to who should get trade advantages with Canada.
I think Canada has an obligation to help certain of the less fortunate people in the world. We have to help them help themselves, because I think we owe that to the world as good citizens. But surely as good citizens of the world we should not dilute that assistance by giving it willy-nilly to everyone, willy-nilly to those who really do not justify that assistance. For example. South Korea was certainly an underdeveloped country at one time, but now it has virtually taken the world over in terms of shipbuilding and in terms of steel. Indeed, we have had to put anti-dumping charges against steel imports coming from that country. There comes a point when an underdeveloped country ceases to be entitled to privileges beyond what is reasonable. That is particularly so when the trade arrangements we have with those countries are prejudicial to Canada and when those countries operate in such a fashion as to use Canada as a dumping ground for their products to the detriment of Canadian industry and Canadian jobs.
When we deal with a Bill of this nature, the Government has an obligation to talk not only about housekeeping changes in tariff structures, but it has an obligation to say how this particular piece of legislation improves opportunities for Canadians, improves job opportunities for Canadians, and improves business opportunities for Canadians. If one is looking at it from an aid point of view, it helps foreign aid opportunities to justify Canada's place in making this a better world. This Bill does not do anything of that nature. It just covers the waterfront and carries on with the same old scheme that has lost all sense of validity when we give preferences to everyone. We have no sense of a constant tariff provision. There is no rationale in our tariff rates. The Minister was not prepared in his explanation to defend the rationale behind the tariff-setting system.
Tariffs are something we use-perhaps they are not as valid today as they were at one time-as an inducement to other countries to allow them, force them, or encourage them to give Canadians an opportunity to trade in their countries. When a country sells goods to us at no tariff or at a very much reduced tariff, we expect that country to give to our exporters, manufacturers, and vendors of goods opportunities in its market. Trade is a two-way street.
Over two million Canadians depend on foreign trade for their livelihood. Under this Government our share of world trade since 1968 has slipped from 5.8 per cent to 3.7 per cent.
If we were able to increase our share of world trade by 1 per cent today, we could increase the number of jobs held by Canadians by very close to 600,000. Yet, does this Bill do anything toward that aim or objective? Not on your life. There are in it just a few housekeeping amendments to allow Canadians to come in with $300 worth of goods when they could have brought in only $ 150 before. It does not even put any imagination into the subject.
We have an obligation when we are considering a Bill of this nature to ask the Government where we are going in foreign trade. Where does this Bill, in terms of tariff protection for Canadian industry and the change in that protection, help Canadian industry or, in the converse, help Canadians get into foreign markets? There is precious little in this Bill, Sir, which in any way helps.
The Minister mentioned bulldozer parts. He said he was increasing the tariff on bulldozer parts. Well, that is what the Bill is all about. The Bill also, I am told, Sir, if I have it correctly, reduces the tariff on certain mynah birds, which are members of the starling family and which have traditionally been allowed into the country. The Bill is to amend the Act to exempt the Chinese Talking mynah bird and the Hill mynah bird.


Mr. Roche:: It is like a "mynah" bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says it is a "mynah" bill.
Somewhere along the line there has to be some better explanation as to why we should be changing the tariffs of Canada other than to deal with the problem of mynah birds. There is no provision in this Bill whereby the Government can make specific exemptions to specific countries on tariffs. A country falls within one of four categories. Most countries get some kind of preference, all except the Saudis, I would say. However, surely to goodness if we are going to improve our trade position, or if we are to be able to extend a helping hand to a specific foreign country which needs that help, there should be some specific direction, some specific look at each country's position and how that country should be treated vis-a-vis Canada. This Bill does not do that.
Let me speak for a moment about the British preferential tariff. You may recall, Sir, that in the early 1930s, the Government of the late R. B. Bennett created, as a result of the Commonwealth Conference, the British preferential tariff. That was the first preferential tariff that we ever had in this country. It was followed later by a most-favoured nation type arrangement. The British preferential tariff was a special arrangement which went a long way to holding the Commonwealth together and giving Canada significant trading opportunities. As a result, a number of subsidiaries of Canadian companies were created around the world. I specifically think of the Canadian subsidiaries of the Ford Motorcar Company, for example, in what is now Zimbabwe. That subsidiary was created because it was an agency in South Africa where Canadian Ford automobile parts and components were sent
May 2, 1984

and converted into automobiles there, and that was of benefit to Canada. The British preferential tariff has pretty well disappeared as an advantage now because, indeed, aside from certain trade arrangements with Australia and New Zealand, the British preferential tariff is not as good as the general preferential tariff accorded to most Commonwealth countries. As far as most Commonwealth countries are concerned, they carry on under the general preferential tariff.
It would seem to me, Sir, that in proceeding with this Bill, the Government should do some rethinking. The Government should say that, in a sense, the British preferential tariff system has served its purpose and that it should be set aside, removed. The countries in the British Commonwealth which qualify for the British preferential tariff as well as the general preferential tariff should perhaps benefit from the general preferential tariff, and other countries should have the regular tariff. I believe we could probably organize in such a way as to get along with one or two tariffs: first, a tariff structure for all countries in the world and, second, a tariff structure for those specific underdeveloped countries where an easy access to the Canadian market would help. I feel we no longer need four tariff structures. Obviously, the general tariff structure does not mean anything. Only the Saudis pay that. The British preferential tariff system really means very little. Why could we not, then, handle the whole matter with two structures? That would simplify things dramatically. We could have one structure which was a regular tariff and one structure which gave to underdeveloped, less developed, nations a special privilege or preference in Canada.
In doing this, it would be my submission that we should analyse carefully those countries to which we want to give special privilege. It should be countries which are growing, countries we can help. It should not be every country in the world, or every underdeveloped country in the world, but only certain undeveloped countries which should be given virtually tariff-free access to Canada. The rest of the world should pay the same tariff. We should not discriminate. That does not mean that, in not discriminating, we cannot make separate arrangements with countries which are not included for specific items of trade. That would be a sectoral approach to what are perhaps special bilateral trade arrangements on special goods from special countries.
It would seem to me that in the interests of the country we should move ahead. This Bill should be redrawn and simplified, and if we make tariff item changes, we should make them after rethinking them. This, Sir, is what I recommend to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche).


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I want to make a few comments on the trade liberalization aspects of the Bill before us. First of all, the changes made in extending the preferential tariff treatment which are listed are not an altruistic measure
Customs Tariff
taken by Canada. Indeed, they are in harmony with the move today in the world to recognize that each country benefits according to the way in which it facilitates its trade with other nations. If we are going to be able to sell Canadian goods to those expanding, developing country markets where huge population increases are happening, we have to enable those countries to reach into Canada. Therefore, I support this Bill.
However, I believe that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has made an extremely important point in calling to our attention the failure of the Bill-and even the Minister's own speech-to indicate clearly enough that when certain countries increase their ability to perform-as we say, they graduate-they would no longer receive preferential treatment.
I was glad to see that the Bill before us follows, or at least it certainly takes note of, one of the principal recommendations made to the House by the parliamentary Committee on North-South Relations which reported to the House about two years ago. In the section on trade we recommended that the general preferential tariff be extended to include all manufactured goods of the world's poorest countries, and that graduation criteria be established to identify those countries no longer in need of preferential treatment. As both myself and my colleague from Mississauga South pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the Government had failed in this Bill to indicate clearly that the extensions of the general preferential tariff are supposed to be aimed at those least developed countries. That is a very important principle which ought to be followed.
In a statement the Minister said he wanted the developing countries to receive the benefits of the preferential tariff, but he did not specify or make clear that as Canada increases or liberalizes its trade benefits, we have in mind those countries which truly need access to our markets if they are going to be able to develop some self-reliance and become full partners in the trading system of the world. We have to consider why the Minister's speech, indeed the Bill, are inadequate responses to the points raised by my colleague and by myself.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada today does not have a strategy for international development. We had a strategy from 1975 to 1980, some of which was implemented, some not. But at least it was a clear course of direction, covering trade matters, international financial institutions and development assistance. There was a course of action that the Canadian people and this House could see clearly. We are now in the fourth year of the subsequent decade and there is still no strategy for the 1980s. I would certainly like to have the Minister's view on why the Government does not have a full strategy for international development and Canada's role therein. If that were the case, it would be clear for everyone to see why these partial measures are being taken. It would also be clear whether we are in fact aiming this Bill at the least developed and most heavily populated countries of the world, or whether we are being less discriminating in our trade moves.

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff
Before I leave the subject of the North-South committee's recommendations, I want to draw to the attention of the House that, although the Government has accepted our recommendation concerning the general preferential tariff extension to some extent, it has yet to respond to what we considered at that time, based on a very extensive analysis of trade conditions, that there be a major public inquiry on the question of adjustment measures. We know that if we are to allow greater entry to the products of developing nations, that is going to cause dislocation in the Canadian economy. I do not know any politician in his right mind who would advocate measures which will throw his own people out of work. The most famous example of this is, of course, the textile industry. It is well known that the Canadian textile industry is shored up by subsidies and that textiles can be produced at a much lower cost in many other countries, as indeed they are. Yet it would be an irresponsible measure for any of us to recommend holus-bolus that we close down the Canadian textile industry in an effort to provide more jobs in the developing world. Having said that, it is clear as we move into the post-technological society-whatever this new society of computership and high technology is going to be called-that we have to set a course, examine our industrial strengths and set into motion a process of conversion of those industries no longer competitive in the global economy.
In a very strong recommendation the North-South committee suggested that the Government immediately launch a major public inquiry of the industrial sectors which are likely to be at long-term competitive disadvantage in relation to developing countries, with a view to adopting effective adjustment measures. In light of that, I fail to recognize why the Government has just turned its back. The Government responded that it agreed with the thrust of our report, but I am calling the attention of the House to this fundamental need for a public inquiry into the adjustment measures which are going to be required if Canada is going to be able to modernize its productive capacity so that it harmonizes with the global demand for an increase in world trade generally. My colleague has already stated that Canada's share of world trade has slipped from 5.8 per cent to 3.7 per cent. Surely that is sufficient evidence to impel us to take measures to increase our share. Surely that is the motivation for taking those steps which will increase the capacity of the growing population of the developing world to buy from us. Trade is a two-way street, Mr. Speaker.
Changes are called for, for example, in the international development strategy for the 1980s, which was adopted by consensus at the United Nations in 1980. I believe the measures set out in the international development strategy should be adopted by Canada as a proponent nation, recognizing the truth today in the North-South dialogue that the global economy is so interdependently structured that when the North goes into recession, as we have done, we cannot come out of it until the South is given an opportunity for its own expansion. We cannot live by ourselves. It is not simply a
question of altruism to put forth that viewpoint; it is a question of economic survival.
The international development strategy was conceived and developed along those lines. The world being in an economic crisis today is a further reason for Canada to project its own international development strategy for the remaining decade of the 1980s.
I have just returned from Peru, which is a country that has a major aid program from the Canadian Government. If one wants to see all the effects of the complex web of relationships today in one location, even a small location like Peru, that is the place to see it. We see the effects of the debt crisis. The debt crisis in many countries is caused by the bottom falling out of their commodity export markets while they have to pay more for the importation of manufactured goods from industrialized countries. The debt crisis is caused by the gap widening between their exports earnings and the cost of imports. This debt crisis, which is now of staggering dimension, is affecting countries all over the world, but it is particularly noticeable in Latin American countries, which perhaps had too easy an access to the banking institutions of the 1970s which wanted to lend them money under the concept of a never ending expanding world economy.
Peru is an example of how the debt crisis has meant a larger cutback in development programs for its own people. There are people in developing countries today who are farther behind in achieving their own self-reliance than they were a few years ago, even with all the development assistance that is still taking place. I am quite sure that the Minister recognizes as well as I do the reality of what I am saying. It gives more truth to my earlier comment that we must be able to put together a package that includes the items of international development assistance, preferential trade relationships, and the development of indigenous energy supplies, both renewable and nonrenewable. This package must include the enlargement of the international financial institutions, particularly the facilities within the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We must develop an entire enlarged package that can be sustained by the sufficiency of world liquidity, which exists today, in order that Canadians and the Canadian Government have a meaningful relationship with the expanding populations of the world with whom we have an interdependent relationship.
Those are some of the general comments that I felt impelled to make because of what I regard to be a piecemeal legislation that approaches a very serious and deep problem from a rather narrow base. I believe that there is an opportunity for Canada to play a constructive role in the enlargement of the world economy. We cannot do this alone since we are too small and have too many problems in our own country. However, it is to our own advantage to play a greater role in the push for global economic negotiations as a means of implementing the international development strategy for the 1980s. It is in our interest to do this.

May 2, 1984
I say to the Minister very frankly that I believe there is a lack of impetus and momentum in the Government today in the development of our relations.
I believe Canada should take an approach that would incorporate Bill C-7 into a larger framework which would have a much more meaningful impact on the international community and would indeed benefit the Canadian people and result in the creation of more jobs in our society. Such an approach would reflect a greater concern about the staggering effects of the rising debt burden on developing countries, the monetary policies of industrialized countries and the trade barriers that still exist, despite some of the piecemeal benefits in the present legislation. We have yet to recognize that the economic recovery of industrialized countries depends on the ability of growing markets in other parts of the world, particularly in the developing countries, to buy.
When we recognize that millions will continue to face starvation if we do not make the necessary structural improvements in the world institutions, it becomes a two-pronged motivation for greater action. There is a political and economic imperative that challenges us as politicians to do this. There is a human imperative that challenges us as human beings to do this. 1 have just given the example of my most recent examination of this subject in Peru. As human beings we should recognize that the extended suffering of millions upon millions of people is not a proper basis for any kind of society to call itself advanced in a world of technology that is able to produce sufficiently to feed and house every member of the human community.
We have taken some satisfaction from the fact that all of us are agreed as political Parties that Canada must reach .7 per cent of Gross National Product in international development assistance by 1990. 1 think that is a recognition of a sense of concern that is present in the House. Certainly, it is present in the country. When all is said and done, despite different approaches which people take on economic subjects, we want to do the right thing within our capacity to do it. I believe that reaching .7 per cent by 1990 would be, in my view, a minimal requirement.
The point I want to make here and on which this bill touches is that development aid is only a fraction of what needs to be done to build the economies of the South. It is not development assistance that will build the economies. It is, I would even say, of marginal benefit to developing countries. It is the enlargement of their capacity to become self-reliant; it is the enlargement of their capacity to plug into world trade. This Bill begins to approach that.
However, there are a number of steps that could be taken, and I believe this Bill could be viewed as a foundation. There are a number of steps that need to be taken if Canada is to be fully involved in contributing to the expansion of the world economy.
I think that Canada through the United Nations' system, which is intimately involved in all the intricacies of the subject,
Customs Tariff
should work to expand the resources and quotas of the International Monetary Fund so that that fund itself could provide, along with the facilities of the World Bank, access to the least developed. We are seeing now the effects of the stringent conditionality of the IMF in many countries that are turning to it for assistance because of the debt crisis. We saw only last week the results of such stringent measures in Dominica where there were riots as a result of controls being put on the local economy with deleterious political effects in the country. We are going to have more of that if ways are not found to increase the capacity of the international financial institutions to respond to today's need. That is going to require, I think, more of a sense of commitment that perhaps we hoped we were going to see as the North-South Summit was held in Cancun in the fall of 1981, which once more failed to deliver the goods.
I think that Canada must take an active part in efforts to initiate a process of basic reform of world trade and financial arrangements. This reform will take the nature, in the main, of an enlargement of the facilities within the institutions. It should take a much more vigorous look at the effects of protectionism, and we should commit ourselves to contributing actively to negotiations within GATT and preparatory discussions regarding a new trade round.
I think the GATT results of its most recent trade round were certainly of some benefit, but marginal compared to the need. And, similarly, with more leadership in the GATT system in an effort to develop further the integration of developing nations into GATT, we have to pay much more attention to what UNCTAD is attempting to do in enlarging the trade capacities of developing countries.
I have to say with some real regret that the most recent UNCTAD conference in Belgrade, which I think was held about a year ago-I do not know whether you can call any conference a failure; it is not a failure if people come out of it still talking to each other,-certainly did not accomplish anything toward the enlargement of the trade capacity of developing nations, and again I say that the enlargement of that trade capacity is in the interests of the whole North-South dialogue. I believe a re-examination is needed in terms of a new GATT round and a much more serious effort made to respond to the message of UNCTAD in acting against protectionist trade barriers.
Finally, we need to develop a new strategy of international development co-operation, as I have said, that would respond to and harmonize with the United Nations international development strategy for the 1980s. 1 do not think that much in this way can be done realistically until there is greater public awareness in our country and greater public education of the people on the complexities of the international monetary and trading system of the world today.
When we look at relations with developing countries, the reality is that this subject goes so far beyond CIDA and so-called foreign aid or international development assistance, it goes so far beyond it, as I indicated a moment ago, as to render almost marginal those activities of an aid nature, when the real

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff
need is to enlarge the productive capacity of the whole world in such a way that we increase our trading capacity one with another.
We have failed to keep pace in Canada. Not only have we lost our share of world trade in the life of this Government, not only have we declined from 5.8 per cent to 3.7 per cent of world trade, but we have not kept pace with the United States, Japan, and EEC in the enlargement of their trade with developing countries. Our trade balance on both sides, import and export, with developing nations is somewhere around 12 per cent, maybe 13 per cent. In the case of the United States, Japan and the EEC, it varies from, say, 20 per cent to the low 40s.
I have taken this moment to use the opportunity, which the minister provides us by bringing in what I call a piece-meal Bill, to remind the Government of its responsibilities and its obligations to take a much more sweeping approach through publishing a strategy, setting out a course of action to help Canadians understand the dimensions, and also to make the point that it is in our own interests to do these things.
I come from Edmonton South. I can tell you there are people today out of work in Edmonton South who were never out of work before in their lives. Why are they out of work today? Because of the recession and because of the cutbacks in the productive capacity of some of their own industries. I am leaving aside here the whole question of the deleterious impact of the National Energy Program on the economy of my own province and my own city. I feel pretty strongly about that, but I do not want to make a political attack on the Government in this speech because I really want to make an effort to have the Government listen and respond to this need for an enlargement of thinking in our approach to the construction of policy of a trading international financial institution and energy and commodity pricing of all those elements that are at the basis of the international economy today. The Government should hear how it would be in the interests of those people in Edmonton South who are out of work, were they able to witness and participate in a replugging of Canada into the industrial economic growth of industrialized countries, starting with ourselves.
There is a crisis in the world today. It is a crisis which has many dimensions. Bankers are replete with their own definitions of this crisis. It is a crisis of people in our country who are out of work as a result of the failure of the economy to expand. There is a crisis in developing countries where their debt is so horrendous that it results in a cutback in their own development programs. There is a cutback in the lives of people who are suffering as a result of the inability of the world economy to get going again.
I say to the Government that we now have a tremendous opportunity to use our ability to build an economy which can reach out to the expanding world in a way that lifts up Canadians and helps to make us a full participant as a vigorous and vibrant nation in a growing world economy,
leading to some economic stability and a sense of social justice for the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in this debate for a few moments. Often when we are considering a Bill of which most in the House take little note, a Bill such as Bill C-7, it is wise to take a little more in-depth look at what we are talking about. For example, what is this Bill that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) seemed to pass off so lightly in his opening remarks? He used the term once or twice that it was a kind of housekeeping Bill.
The main thrust of my remarks today will be that I believe the House of Commons is not acutely aware enough of what the export-import or general trade picture of Canada is all about. Tied in with that, of course, we must give more thought to the question of customs tariff. Are we indeed dealing with the rest of the world in the most prudent way?
Since I have been in the House of Commons, the Bill we are now considering amending has been amended 11 other times. For example, it was amended in 1973. It was amended three further times in the period from 1974 to 1975. In the period from 1976 to 1977, it was amended four times. In the 1977-78 session, it was amended again. Again it was amended in 1979-80. Finally, it was amended in the 1980-81-82 session.
If we attempt to identify what is the existing law, bearing in mind the Revised Statutes of Canada which are dated 1970, we find that this is one of the most confusing pieces of legislation on the statute books of Canada. Granted, we can go to the Canada Statute Citator and go through the various amendments. However, I am suggesting that because of the amendments and the basic complexity of the Bill, it is now almost impossible for the average Member of the House to come up with a meaningful position, for example, with respect to Clause 2 of Bill C-7. I refer to Clause 2 because it sounds so innocent. It simply reads:
Section 3.7 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor-
The net effect of that clause would be to have the expiry date for Sections 3.1 to 3.6 lengthened from 1984 to June 30, 1994. It is not until we go to the Citator that we see the true significance of that 10-year extension. Mr. Speaker, I know that you follow these statutes very closely; perhaps it is no news to you. However, I think it would be news to many people in Canada if I indicated what in fact is being covered by that rather innocent Clause 2 to which I have referred.
In fact, in the Canada Statute Citator there are literally pages of amendments to the 1970 Customs Tariff Act, as it appears in the Statutes of Canada, which are now being amended by Clause 2. I will not read into the record-because Hon. Members who are interested will do it-the two to three dozen subsections affected by what is being proposed in Clause 2. I am simply using it as an illustration of how casual Ministers of the Crown can become with regard to Bills which they are introducing.
May 2, 1984

To use the words the Minister dropped on us, he hoped that there would be speedy passage. Why did he hope that there would be speedy passage? It was probably because he does not know what the Bill means. Certainly he would not entertain questions. He would be most embarrassed if I asked him questions about any of those three dozen subsections to which I have referred and which will be affected by Clause 2 of Bill C-7. I will go further and suggest that the Minister has not even read those subsections, yet he recommended a speedy passage.
I should like to deal with Clause 3 of the Bill before us. Again it sounds innocent. It simply reads:
Section 11 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Then it continues:
The Governor in Council may, by order,
(a)	make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any
other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for concessions granted by any such country or countries; and
(b)	extend any reduction made pursuant to paragraph (a) to any other
countries as may be required by Canada's international obligations.
It is subsection (b) which is really the amendment. However, I should like to point out that when one reads that subsection, one naturally asks, "What is the effect of including it?" Then one looks to the explanatory notes and sees that the section I have just read is the same as that in paragraph 3 of the Budget motions introduced with the Budget on December 7. In short, you are told nothing. All you are told is that on February 7 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) tabled in the House a motion that had the same words as Clause 3 which now appears in the Bill with no further explanation. Most people would be interested in why the Minister felt it was necessary in December to move the motion. The Minister did not touch today on why we are now being asked to give speedy passage to this Bill, including Clause 3. I raise that because I did a little homework. I thought we should check into Subclause (b) to find the reason they have extended the first paragraph, which reads:
Extend any reduction made pursuant to paragraph (a) to any other countries as may be required by Canada's international obligations.
The bottom line is that they have added that subclause because they do not want to come back to this House. They want the ultimate in freedom. At the present time the Government is able to negotiate with countries under the present Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act. As I indicated, it has the right to make compensation for concessions given by other countries.
Apparently because they have to make those changes in a spirit of bartering or negotiation, there are certain circumstances that may trigger the necessity also to include other countries. That is what they mean by "extend any reduction made pursuant to paragraph (a) to any other countries as may be required by Canada's international obligations". Does that wording have to be that wide? Is it really appropriate for this House of Commons, which represents the people of Canada, to
Customs Tariff
say, not to any designated Minister but to the Cabinet; "If you think it is necessary to make a change and extend that change to any other country as may be required by Canada's international obligations, you go ahead and do it and don't worry us about it"? That is what we are being asked to do.
Think of the implications, Mr. Speaker. What does the Government mean by "Canada's international obligation"? Is it talking about aid obligations? Is it something to do with the CIDA program, our obligations in NATO or our obligations to such international financial institutions as the World Bank? We do not know. We are being asked to give the Government the right, a blank cheque, to extend as it sees fit any reduction made pursuant to paragraph (a) to any other country as may be required by Canada's international obligations.
Not only do I raise the question of how complicated this Bill has become. Not only is it a question of all the amendments to which I am referring. We also have to realize that if the Government has its way with the Bill in its present form, it will take even more away from the House of Commons than we have had taken away over the last decade.
It is not time for us to consider that because of the complexities and the admitted difficulties of moving quickly, of making deals with international countries and partners that perhaps have to be finalized without undue delay, it is necessary to have a committee of this House meet on a constant basis to consider whatever those in Revenue Canada feel is needed in the line of either regulation or amendments to existing legislation?
If they feel they have a deal cooking with one or more countries that may, if entered into, require some type of change with other countries because of Canada's so-called international obligations, surely a committee of this House could be structured. In a preliminary way it could hear the problem and advise the respective caucuses as to whether it thinks the Government is right or wrong. I do not feel in an elected House of Commons that it is proper for this type of further delegation to be made. It is not appropriate for us to say: "Do not ask for whatever authority you need in specifics but ask in a blanket way and the more you shelter us from what you're doing, the better".
I do not want to fault Revenue Canada or, for that matter, the implications of the customs legislation generally, but the fact is that we have not done well under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to trade with the developing world. My colleague from Edmonton highlighted some of the problems. If you review trade with the developing world, Mr. Speaker, you find that in the case of European countries about 30 per cent of their trade at the present time is with the developing world. In the case of Japan it is about 30 per cent. Of all the trade the Japanese are doing with every country of the world, about 30 per cent is with developing world countries. In the case of the United States it is 43 per cent. In the case of Canada it is 10 per cent.
We have to start asking what has gone wrong under the "emperor" who, when he became emperor in the country in 1968, said that he was going to explore a third alternative. He
May 2, 1984

Customs Tariff
was going to shift our trade away from the American orientation to what he called the third option. If you check the figures, Mr. Speaker, you see that in 1965 when the Prime Minister spoke about shifting the orientation that we then had with the United States, total trade with the United States as far as the Canadian side was concerned was about 65 per cent. When the emperor took over, 65 per cent of our trade was with the United States. Now that he is leaving us it is 73 per cent. We have 8 per cent more of our trade now with the Americans than when the emperor began his reign.
When this type of thing is happening, is it not time for us in the House of Commons to begin taking a better look at legislation such as Bill C-7 and to say: "We need more input to make sure that you fellows are not going to continue to make the mistakes that you have been making with respect to export-import trade and, in particular, with respect to the levers that you may have, such as customs legislation." I am suggesting that a committee of the House could meet constantly to take a better look at this Bill.
Second, I am suggesting that we should not, without due consideration, let more authority be taken from the House and given to the Cabinet of the day as is contemplated by Clause 3. In effect, Clause 3 would simply say to the Cabinet: "If you think some international obligation is affected by some deal that you have cooked up, go ahead and make the changes without reference to the House". Too much is at stake for us to consider that.
I only wish that I had a little more time to speak, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to deal with the question of raising the duty free amount of money that Canadians can spend in foreign lands. These exemptions are coming at a time when we are living with such a severe external imbalance. At a time when our dollar is now coming close to 77 cents, is it not strange that we are telling Canadians that they can go out of the country and buy twice as much as before because we do not want to keep them unduly limited by these exemptions? Surely the time has come for the House to begin taking a more serious look at the question of whether or not this is really in the best interests of all Canadians. We must bear in mind that this change has already been put in place. If this Bill is passed, it will have retroactive effect to April 20, 1983.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. I would like to caution Hon. Members at this point that although the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) made reference to clauses in the Bill, discussion at second reading is on the principle of the Bill and questions or comments should not deal with specific clauses.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) a question. The Bill, an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act, contains a whole series of schedules which deal with the British preferential tariff, the most favoured-nation tariff, the general tariff and the general
preferential tariff. Is it the view of the Hon. Member that we need four separate tariffs, bearing in mind that the general tariff now applies only to Saudi Arabia? Is it his view that the Saudis should be penalized by being the only country in the world required to pay $6 a bottle for booze imported into Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) when he was making the case as to why the four schedules to which he has referred appear to be almost out of date or archaic. I think he has made a good point. If there is substantiation for his argument that Saudi Arabia is the only country that seems to have been isolated in this way, I find it to be a most strange turn of events.
In line with what I said earlier, I think it would be very helpful if not only the schedules in the Bill but the entire Bill itself was overhauled and streamlined with the hope that more people who are dealing with this type of legislation in a day-to-day sense can deal with it and understand what it means without hiring high-priced brokers and others who must intercede and who in many cases themselves do not even understand the effects of many of these clauses and schedules. My short answer to my hon. colleague would be that if, at committee for example, he is able to substantiate what he has said concerning the situation of Saudi Arabia, I believe it must be rectified and rectified quickly.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York-Peel is our Party's external affairs critic and that position would obviously have a great deal of reference to trade. I was wondering if he had taken a look at the question of whether the British preferential tariff had any real value any longer and whether it would be possible to simplify the entire tariff structure by having one general tariff and a separate preferential tariff for under-developed nations with which we may want to deal on a special basis. I wonder if it is his view that we could perhaps get rid of the British preferential tariff, particularly bearing in mind that it really does not offer much in the way of preference to any nation and bearing in mind the fact that Great Britain and Ireland are now members of the European Community.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of my hon. colleague, I think this is an excellent example of how the statute is rather out of date in so many ways. The term "British preferential tariff' is a term which presumably came from the days of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth and is simply not in tune with today's terminology. I see no reason that there could not be a smoothing out and simplification of the terminology and schedules to which my hon. colleague has referred.
I have in front of me the Canada Statute Citator which is published every year by McGoldrick. It is very difficult to find this in the customs tariff section of that book but the book does set out exactly which countries are treated as British preferential tariff countries. If any Hon. Members are interested, I could tell them which countries are included under that tariff.
May 2, 1984

If any Hon. Members are curious as to whether or not Christmas Island, the Cocos Islands, Guyana, Lesotho, Ghana and India are included, I could give them the answer.
In answer to my colleague's question, I would say we do not need so many schedules. We do not need so many so-called preferential categories. Those categories could be simplified and I hope that when this Bill gets to committee one of the things which would be explored with the Minister and his officials is why this is not being proposed at the present time.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), which concerns an area of Ontario with which I think the Hon. Member is very familiar, the Lindsay area. There is a manufacturing plant there which manufactures inner tubes and some minor rubber products. That plant has been very adversely affected by the importation of products from South Korea and Taiwan.
I directed the officials of that plant to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal which ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to determine that dumping was occurring. A considerable number of jobs were lost at this plant which means a lot to the community. I think the officials of the plant were probably given the brush-off by the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and I have a deep concern over the number of people whose jobs will be affected.
I believe we see too much evidence of small plants trying to establish themselves, employing up to 50 people and then running into deep trouble because of foreign goods coming into the country at a much, much lower price. I would like to hear the views of the Hon. Member about situations like that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the point made by the Hon. Member illustrates why Members of the House should be taking a much deeper interest in the type of legislation that is now before us. I am suggesting that there could be a committee of this House before which the Minister and the officials of Revenue Canada could explain why they want to make these changes. That would be a good idea because it would help cover the very points raised by my colleague.
We all recall that the last round of tariff negotiations in Geneva was held in almost complete secrecy. We had negotiators there, but the rank and file manufacturer in Canada-the people who were going to be affected-had no direct input.
That is in complete contrast to the American approach. The Americans, first of all, went to their manufacturers, invited them to attend and hear what proposals were going to be raised in Europe, and asked for their comments and criticisms. The package that the Americans then negotiated was a package that virtually anybody who had an interest in the United States was given an opportunity for input. That is not so in Canada. It is always secret. It is always left up to the Cabinet or the Department involved.
Customs Tariff
My suggestion to the Hon. Member would be that he make a case of what is happening in Lindsay and point out the repercussions that an import will have on employment in Canada. It is safe to say that every time we allow greater importation of goods, it is generally labour-intensive. What we are gaining on the other side through the exportation of goods is very low as far as labour is concerned. In short, we are exporting not only raw materials; in many cases we are exporting jobs with them. The manufacturing occurs in some other country, such as South Korea or Taiwan, and we import back. This cannot carry on. There is no way that we can solve the unemployment problem in this country-the projections made by the Minister of Finance confirm this-if we do not get a balanced trade position, especially on manufactured goods that are now S20 billion in deficit as far as overall trade is concerned.
I thank the Hon. Member for his question because it is really at the heart of why we should be getting more into this type of legislation than the Minister indicated when he said: "Let us give it speedy passage". Speedy passage has resulted in almost two million Canadians being out of work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in making a contribution to this debate, I would like to salute the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) for being present today. I would like to compliment him on the courage and candour of his remarks which were made yesterday on another trade matter at a conference held at the Lester B. Pearson Building. I might say that had he stayed yesterday for the rest of the speakers, he would have found their comments as equally interesting as his own, and perhaps, in some cases, more so. I do not mean to belittle his comments. There were a lot of interesting things said yesterday on the matter of proposed sectoral free trade between Canada and the United States.
I would like to ask the Minister before he leaves why it is that a Bill such as the one we are discussing, Bill C-7, purports to help the Third World in a way that my colleagues have spoken about earlier, when at the same time as a Bill such as this is coming forward, members of the Opposition have representatives of governments coming to them asking why the Government of Canada is doing serious things in terms of their own economies. I am thinking, for example, of a person from Mauritius who came to see me not very long ago to ask why it was that the Government of Canada had unilaterally imposed a quota on cardigan sweaters from Mauritius which was threatening to throw their economy into considerable difficulty.
Mauritius is not a member of the fabric union. They have been debating with the Government of Canada for a long time about the state of the sweaters coming into Canada. They are good sweaters. It is an under-developed country. Suddenly, someone-I do not know whether it was the Minister himself-informed them that they would have a quota imposed on

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff
them. Mauritius, I gather, is just getting on its feet economically. They are building up their manufacturing sector. It is a strategically important country to the West, situate as it is in the Indian Ocean. As a result, Mauritius has been hit very severely by a unilateral act by the Government of Canada with respect to one of its exports to Canada.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It is a member of the Commonwealth.


David Kilgour: As the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) points out, it is a member of the Commonwealth.
Is it another example of the Government appearing to do something to help the Third World-we on this side are all for that, particularly with respect to trade-but on the other hand, behind the curtain, under the table, slipping a notice, in this case to Mauritius, telling them that they must not get uppity and put their people to work because they cannot export to Canada more than a given quantity of a particular item.
Mr. Speaker, if you have not had the pleasure of reading this Bill, please do not. It is enough to give anybody a headache. Even those of us who have spent much of our lives trying to interpret statutes in front of judges find it virtually incomprehensible-from the first clause, as the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) noted, to the last explanatory notes which are, shall we say, unhelpful. They provide no more light on the matter than the clauses themselves. I wonder why the Minister of State for Finance could not have produced something that was at least comprehensible to Canadians as a whole.
I am led to believe that the substance of the Bill is as follows. It will provide for tariff reductions for goods from developing countries-that is the general preferential tariff- and tariff reductions will be provided for various goods not produced in Canada, such as diesel engines for crawler machines and electronic carillons for churches. There will be increases for certain "wear" parts of machinery. These changes were announced in the Budget of April 19. The tariff reductions are retroactive to October 20, 1983. The tariff increases will not take effect until proclaimed. The date of the proclamation for increases will not be determined until the conclusion of the ongoing GATT negotiations.
Second, the limits on goods that may be brought back into Canada by Canadians travelling abroad are doubled. What person of good will and reason would object to that? Certainly, Mr. Speaker, your wife and mine and the wives of anyone who is able to travel abroad would support that.
The quarterly exemption is increased to $100 from $50. The annual exemption rises to $300 from $150, and the casual exemption rises to $20 from $10. These measures are retroactive to April 20, 1983.
Third, the Bill points out that the expiry date for the general preferential tariff has been moved to June 30, 1994 from June 30, 1984.
Parts of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, are almost funny. They are housekeeping measures. As other speakers might have pointed
out earlier, certain mynah birds, which have traditionally been allowed into the country, are members of the starling family which are not allowed into the country. The Act has been amended to exempt the Chinese Talking Mynah and the Hill Mynah.
Fourth, in the humour section-and that is not humour at all-the wording of some of the clauses of the French version are revised. There is some clarification that goods eligible for the general preferential tariff may be produced in more than one eligible country.
Finally, the Bill provides Order in Council authority to exempt goods from the need to be shipped directly from the country of origin to qualify for the general preferential tariff.
There are approximately 3,500 customs officials across Canada. Very recently, one of the customs officials came to speak with me. He indicated that customs officers are given no training whatsoever. They are essentially presented with the leaflets that Canadian tourists and Canadian travellers are given and in effect, I gather, are told to enforce the law. How can any competent customs officer interpret the provisions of amendments such as these? The Hon. Member for York-Peel referred-he may not have used the term Byzantine-to the eleven amendments which have been made to the Customs Tariff in the past number of years.
Unless we train our customs officials, I am told it is simply impossible for them to administer the laws passed by this Parliament. If it is impossible to enforce and interpret provisions of a Bill such as this, what is the point, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, of all of us sitting here at so much an hour passing Bills like this which are going to be unenforceable and incomprehensible to the men and women who have to interpret the various provisions?
I end on that point with a plea to the Government at least to provide training to new customs officers and to provide adequate manuals. The Minister may argue that they have manuals, but again I have information from someone who works every day in the field that the manuals are so huge and so difficult to interpret that most customs officers do not even bother to refer to them, at least in some areas. I would assume that would include the area we are talking about today.
On the question of the developing world, if I may, I would like to associate myself with what has been said by others, particularly my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). He has been interested in the Third World for virtually a lifetime and what he says, Mr. Speaker, I feel should carry immense weight in this House.
The Third World desperately needs to trade with the developed world. I have been told, as I am sure you have, Mr. Speaker, time and time again, that it does not want aid as much as it wants the ability to trade, and it cannot trade with us unless it has the right to have its goods enter Canada. To that extent I certainly support the spirit of the Bill, which is to provide for a tariff reduction for goods supplied by developing countries. Please let there be no doubt about that.
May 2, 1984

It is so hard to get to the more basic problems. Not very many years ago, Mr. Speaker, it was my good fortune to attend a conference on crime prevention in Venezuela. There were people there from all over the world, including the developing world. You appreciate, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about crime, and one of the representatives of, I believe, the Republic of India-stood up and told us that in his view the real crime was the fact that the developed world-the 15 or 20 countries which are considered to be developed- would go into world markets for oil, would buy spot oil at prices which certainly the Third World could not afford. In other words, as a result of Canada buying oil and bidding up the price of oil in the world spot markets, we were making it more and more difficult for Third World countries to buy the oil which they desperately needed to develop their own economies.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many people who might hear my voice are, like myself, shamefully guilty of wasting energy from the time we get up in the morning to the time we go to bed at night? The wastage of energy in Canada is simply, in my view, obscene. We waste energy here in this building, with respect, Mr. Speaker. We waste it in our offices. Virtually since birth, most of us have acquired the habit of wasting energy at each and every conceivable opportunity. When we can turn on one light or ten lights, we do it. I was just looking at the lights in the ceiling of this Chamber and wondering why they are really necessary. I do not know how much it is costing an hour, but every one of those lights is on. I am sure the Chamber could operate as efficiently with less energy used.
It seems to me that before we can begin to help the Third World, we must look at some of its more basic problems. There is the question of Third World debt. Is it really useful for a country like Brazil or Mexico to be encouraged by the financial institutions, public and private, to bid up their debts to the maximum feasible extent, as they did during the last six or seven years, to be now in a position where in many cases their entire export earnings cannot pay the interest on their foreign debts? It seems to me, with respect, that is not a very good thing to encourage the Third World to do to itself.
I am told, Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly, that there are Canadians who had their loans called, or their credit cut back, because of the present need of the Canadian banking system to cover the indebtedness to it of the Third World. In effect, it seems to me Third World countries are being put into terribly difficult economic positions partly because of loans made by the Canadian banking system and partly because of conditions which have gone sour in many of those countries. And Canadians are losing their jobs, losing their businesses, in some cases losing their homes-and I speak of my own riding in that regard-by reason of loans being called and interest rates in the Canadian banking system going up.
May I be permitted, in passing, to point out that in Edmonton today we have, I am told, about 40 per cent unemployment in the construction industry. One of our malls put an advertisement in the paper for 200 summer jobs and 5,000 people showed up for those jobs, and they were summer jobs at that.
Customs Tariff
Another story out of Edmonton yesterday suggests that university students lined up-slept through the night in some cases- for the few jobs available through the Hire-a-Student Program.
I come back to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that over the last five years the so-called developed world has done a great deal to hurt the undeveloped, less developed or the developing economies of the world. I would like to make some points in this regard by quoting from a very penetrating article written not too long ago by Ivan Illich entitled "Outwitting the 'Developed' Countries". He points out that by persuading or pushing on to the developing world modern solutions we have caused them all sorts of grief. He said, and I quote from the article:
Rich nations now benevolently impose a straight jacket of traffic jams, hospital confinements, and classrooms on the poor nations, and by international agreement call this "development".... traffic jams develop in Sao Paolo, while almost a million northeastern Brazilians flee the drought by walking 500 miles. Latin American doctors get training at the New York Hospital for Special Surgery, which they apply to only a few, while amoebic dysentry remains endemic in slums where 90 per cent of the population live.
Buses are alternatives to a multitude of private cars. Vehicles designed for slow transportation on rough terrain are alternatives to standard trucks. Safe water is an alternative to high-priced surgery. Medical workers are an alternative to doctors and nurses. Community food storage is an alternative to expensive kitchen equipment. Other alternatives could be discussed by the dozen.
Why not, instead, make one or two months (of education) a year obligatory for all citizens (of Latin America) below the age of thirty? Money is now spent largely on children, but an adult can be taught to read in one tenth the time and for one tenth the cost it takes to teach a child ... not only can he (an adult) contribute to the education of his children, but to that of other adults as well.
Who here can disagree with the point which Mr. Illich, who is, I believe, a priest or a former priest, is making? The developed world, it seems to me, comes along with a Bill like this and says: "Look, developing world-we are so good to you we are going to extend the general preferential tariff on some of the items".
Let me list some of them. Just leafing through the Bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to give them help on things like biscuits, not sweetened; biscuits, sweetened; orchids, sardines, shellfish, lobsters, caviar-I wonder about that. Then there is tobacco leaf, whisky, gin, rum, brandy, vodka and alcoholic perfumes, whatever they are. Do you drink them or put them on your arm? Vinegar, labels for cigar boxes, photographs, plans and drawings, music for mechanical piano players, matches of paper, shoe blacking, baths, toilet bowls, grindstones, logging cars, flooring tiles and woven fabrics, among others. We say we are going to continue a tariff preference on these items, but, by George, in the case of Canada's proposed trade aid fund we are going to make it absolutely certain that 80 per cent of what you need in your economy is going to come from Canadian producers, whether we have producers or not, it seems to me, in that particular field.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, there is too much hypocrisy exhibited in Bills like this. I think it would be very helpful if all Members, especially a new government, were to look at some of the basic issues and deal with them rather than apply band-aids such as the one I am holding.

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member will know that the general preferential tariff, which is essentially for under-developed or less developed nations, still applies to countries like Brazil and South Korea. Both of those countries have been exporting fairly technical manufactured goods to the rest of the world and both restrict Canadian imports. Both countries have used the general preferential tariff to enter the Canadian market in a predatory fashion.
Is it the view of the Hon. Member that they should continue to receive this foreign aid, so to speak? Or should they have applied to them the ordinary tariffs, the same as any other manufacturing country? Is it his view that the general preferential tariff should be extended so as to cover virtually every fly-speck on the map in the sense that a country which really needs help does not get any more help than we give the south Koreas or Brazils of the world?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am very hesitant to try to compare tariff knowledge with the Hon. Member from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He is an expert on tariff matters. However, it seems to me that Brazil is still an undeveloped country that needs some help. Perhaps in his next question he could tell me what its average per capita income is. Obviously some people in Sao Paulo may be doing well but there are millions of Brazilians living outside of the major centres. If you could locate a plant in those areas, it seems to me they should then be entitled to export to Canada on a preferential tariff basis.
The Andean pact, which applies to Venezuela, for example, is proposing to reduce imports from countries like Canada over the next few years. Therefore, I wonder why Canada continues to buy about $1 billion worth of oil from Venezuela. I guess that has gone down in the last couple of years, but at the same time Venezuela is making it harder and harder through its membership in the Andean pact for Canadian oil processing and technical equipment to enter Venezuela. There is a whole range of goods, particularly in Alberta, that we would like to export to Venezuela but we are faced with the Andean pact tariff barrier. I guess that speaks to this question even if it does not answer it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the standard of living and the general wealth of the average person in Brazil is not that great. However, the Hon. Member will know from being in Brazil that a great deal of the population lives in more than ordinary affluence. Some industries, particularly the aircraft industry, are operated in such a fashion as to seriously impede through predatory pricing the sales of Canadian aircraft, particularly those of de Havilland.
Is it the view of the Hon. Member that we should continue to give countries like Brazil that advantage when they do not seem to concern themselves about predatory practices and taking advantage in the Canadian market? Should we perhaps not play a little tougher when we run into predatory practices of people masquerading as under-developed countries or less developed countries when the poverty in those countries is
largely because they refuse to allow equal opportunities to their own citizens?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, so the record is clear, I have never been to Brazil. There was a suggestion in my colleague's question that I have been and it should not be allowed to stand on the record. If the Hon. Member is prepared to send me there at his expense, I will be happy to go.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I thought with your foreign trade experience you would know about that.


David Kilgour: The question of aircraft is a very interesting one because it is my understanding that this industry is the one example of a truly internationalized industry. The industry all over the world has decided that you can make the steering wheel in Brazil, the engine in Britain and the fuselage somewhere else. As I understand it, there are very limited tariffs applicable to aircraft parts around the world. There is also the argument that that is the way the auto industry may-I underline "may"-go in the future. If it does, then presumably an under-developed Third World country might be capable of making the seat covers for all the planes built in the world. South Korea might produce something else, and Brazil something else. Barbados, for example, may produce a third item. The question of the aircraft industry is a fascinating one and I hope the Hon. Member makes a speech so I can ask him about how he sees the future of the industry as perhaps applicable to other sectors as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In the opinion of the Chair, Hon. Members are straying somewhat from the general contents of the Bill. I invite them to stick with the subject matter.


Albert Glen Cooper: The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) talked earlier about some of the concerns he had about this particular Bill. Parliament, he said, may have a little trouble scrutinizing the direction in which the Government is going and the kind of things it is trying to accomplish. One of his suggestions was the concept of having a committee study this type of situation. Would the Hon. Member who just spoke have some thoughts about the kind of committee he would envisage? Would it be a standing committee or part of the External Affairs Committee? I would like him to expand on that because I know of his interest and work in this particular area.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the question, which was not discussed before, gives me a chance to point out that I would like to see the committee consist of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, because it may astound you, Mr. Speaker, to know that to the best of my knowledge that committee has not met formally on any matter other than estimates since June 9, 1983.
It is rather odd that members of all Parties want to get on that Committee yet the Committee, for all intents and purposes, never meets.


Douglas Roche: It does not do anything.
May 2, 1984


David Kilgour: It does not do anything, as the Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) says. As best as I can determine-I know that the Chairman of the Committee will be mad at me for this-the Chairman does not seem to be very interested in having it do anything and certainly the Minister is not interested in having it do anything.


Douglas Roche: Interested in cocktail parties.


David Kilgour: The Minister or the Chairman?


Douglas Roche: The Chairman.


David Kilgour: May it be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that that comment is coming from the Member for Edmonton South. It is a very important point that if there is to be a standing committee representing democracy in Canada in an important area like that, there are 100 things it should be doing, including the matter raised by the Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), rather than sitting, waiting and primarily having basically informal discussions with visiting people from around the world. While that may be interesting, there is much more the Committee should be doing, possibly including the matter referred to by the Member for Peace River.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, we have had some fascinating debates with regard to customs over the years. I have been participating in customs tariff debates since 1963. It is always a challenge to ask the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary concerned with the legislation to refer to the various schedules and numbers and read out what is in the customs tariff. They supposedly know their way around. I must confess that few, if any, have ever been able to do so and even fewer have ever expressed a desire to do so.
In these various schedules there are all of these numbers, columns and various exceptions included in it and finally at the bottom there is always the phrase for all the category items "not otherwise provided for". It becomes rather confusing.
Clearly there are some interesting provisions here. One needs only to look at Clause 1(3) to see that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) was right on with regard to the development of what could be called world industry. Even some of our Canadian firms, such as Massey-Ferguson, will put engines constructed in Italy by Fiat or by other firms from Scotland into their tractors or combines. Of course, automobiles are made from an amalgamation of goods from many places. Let us not forget about TV sets and video component assemblies. Some stage of their manufacture perhaps will take place in Taiwan and then come to the United States or even Canada, notwithstanding the purists in the Department of External Affairs, because Canada does have some commercial relations with Taiwan. There are other examples.
It is only fair that a finished article being imported into the country should have a level of duty for Canadian purposes determined by the value of the goods in the country in which
Customs Tariff
the components were made. Otherwise, the process becomes totally inaccurate.
Let me give an example of when I believe I beat the Department. I was sent some cigars from the Philippines in a very heavy wooden box. In fact, the box weighed far more than the cigars. The clerk placed this on the scale and wrote the figure based on the duty on tobacco. There was not only the tobacco duty but sales tax as well. The box itself was not taken into account. I had a final assessment of approximately $25, I believe, which I thought was rather excessive. I believe $17 was returned to me. I inquired about the box and the wrappings for which they were charging me. While I did not object to the assessment of the cigars, the carved wooden box was another matter. Frankly, at the time I received a wooden cigar box for free as far as duty was concerned. I did not say anything because it would have confused them. They would not have been able to figure it out, other than by charging me the total price for cigars.
I believe we should get more explanation from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to Clause 10 since it is retroactive to April 20, 1983. While undoubtedly there are very good reasons for putting this clause forward, it is incumbent upon the Minister to come forward and say precisely what this effect will have. Does it mean that duties which were formerly leviable against certain commodities are now being moved back and the retroactive date will be April 20? Certainly one would hope that there will not be the imposition of additional duties dating back from April 20, 1983, and that this Bill will be the authority for having levied those additional duties.
I think the House will agree completely that with respect to the special tariff that is levied under the general preferential tariff for Third World countries, one would like to see what effect it has had now that it has been in place for approximately ten years. While it is proposed to extend it for another ten years, has it really met the stated objectives at the time of its introduction? As I recall, it was introduced by the Finance Minister of the day, John Turner. He introduced that measure with a view to giving a particular break to Third World countries in so far as our tariff schedules were concerned. But has it worked? Has there been an improvement in trade from those countries to Canada? If not, it is useless.
I would hope that the Minister can come forward with some figures which will show that while not all Third World countries have benefited, a number of them have benefited from the lowering of duties under this particular preferential tariff.
There are always humorous things in the customs tariff. I came across some right in the very early pages. Let us look at page 4, Clause 8. It reads:
The French version of Schedule A to the said Act is further amended by adding immediately after the reference to "a ciel ouvert"-
In other words, "open sky", which is the term to be used. The clause continues:
-in tariff item 49217-1, a reference to-

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff
The English would be "and their pieces". This is going to make a fascinating examination. I am sorry I have not had time to do so. But what on earth are they talking about in Clause 8 when they talk about "open sky"? Then we have this number 49217. I suppose one could have a quick look to see if 49217 is mentioned at all.


Donald W. Munro: It isn't.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is all right, then. It does not have to be. It can be in the tariff. I will have a look at my copy. But then Clause 9 reads:
Schedule C to the said Act is amended by repealing paragraph (2) of item 99214-1 -
And then we wonder. It continues in (2):
Any bird of the Starling family (Sturnidae) except the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)-
And then what is added? It continues:
-and the Chinese Talking Mynah or Hill Mynah (Gracula religiosa);
This is also fascinating insofar as these particular ones are concerned.
Then we can look over the various items under Schedule 1 which are being changed. We get the distinction between non-sweetened biscuits and sweetened biscuits, orchids, sardines, sprats or pilchards when they weigh so much. Then we have shellfish, lobster, and caviar. I want to draw this to the particular attention of the Chair because there is a very serious distinction between the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. Here on page 6 of Schedule 1 we find tobacco unmanufactured, for excise purposes under conditions of the Excise Act where there is a duty payable and not a tax.
Here we have "not otherwise provided for-unstemmed tobacco when imported by cigar manufacturers. Then we find stemmed when imported by cigar manufacturers for use in cigars. Then we find whiskey, gin and rum. All of these are being incidentally extended for the general preferential tariff. I suppose that means that certain ministers of the provinces will go running down to the Caribbean countries at the time of the CPA annual meetings and negotiate the best deal they can get for their various liquor commissions for liquors particularly exported from the Caribbean countries. There is a good deal, I must say, about liquor in this Bill, Mr. Speaker.
Then we move from liquor to vinegar. However, as I said, one could have a much more detailed examination of all these changes if one had the total schedule of the Customs Tariff before one. They have a very serious effect in various parts of the country. It is not known what the effect would be of really moving to free trade with either the world or the United States or to counter the Common Market.
I remember attending a conference some years ago in New York with regard to the establishment of a Japanese-North American trading bloc to counter the Common Market. There were a lot of fine theories put forward at that time, but we note that nothing has been done, and I have not heard anything more in at least 15 years about this type of, shall we
say, setting up a counter trading bloc with the European Common Market.
Our Customs Tariff has been the subject of some very severe criticisms in the past. In my experience here in this House we have gone through both the Kennedy round and the Tokyo round which, in effect, is something like 18 to 20 years of experience in dealing with the reclassifications under the Canadian Customs Tariff. I understand that there is another Bill as well having to do with the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. I think if my memory serves me correctly that Bill will do something with regard to classifications of items in order that there is a uniformity of definition or description and one does not discriminate against any particular country in invoking anti-dumping provisions.
With regard to our own Customs Tariff, we have seen a lot of reduction. The one thing I do not like is not so much what is in the Customs Tariff Act as content but behaviour under the Customs Act. We have had action taken by the administration at the present time with regard to textiles, finished textiles, high quality ones, where there were slowdowns at the ports of entry and now we are having some difficulty. I had a call from a number of importers or dealers in computer parts which had to be sent back to the United States where they are manufactured. They had to be sent back for repair and then re-entered.
Unfortunately there are times when the staffs at certain of the airports, the customs officers, are absolutely swamped. They get a sort of annual average establishment. Unfortunately there are periods when there is an awful lot of traffic. Notwithstanding the fact that certain limited local additions may be made, the customers are kept waiting. There was an occasion last week where if a representative of a firm had not gone out to the airport and pounded on the counter to get, shall we say, earlier service than that company would have had, and then taken the part the representative obtained and gone helter-skelter to Calgary by car, the company would have lost the account because competition is very tight. Unless people are able to deliver a service, the account is lost.
Sometimes this is not appreciated in the service departments of government like customs where, frankly, customers are told; "We have handled so much today that we are not handling any more". It was not closing time but they had been under the gun all day. Local superintendents have advised me that they are looking into this matter and will take the necessary action under the Customs Act. But we could take a long time to study the customs tariff. Many more Members of the House could take an interest in it in order to understand the effect of certain proposals. This is the one Bill which is the least understood of all legislation. It is fed down the pipe and people simply say: "Let it go on the nod". That should not be. Such is the nature of the Customs Tariff Bill that it is difficult to understand and few people pay attention to it, yet they are very seriously affected by it from time to time.
I hope the Bill will go through Committee of the Whole and ultimately receive passage. I understand that certain features
May 2, 1984

of it are needed and overdue in the Department of National Revenue on the customs side. However, the fault for that lies with the Government in waiting so long to bring forward the Bill for discussion in the House. Then the Minister arrives and says: "Rush, rush, rush; we need it". That is hypocrisy and bad management in the House.
I am taking my time to say these things because they have to be said. I refuse to be stampeded by being told that the Department needs this Bill now or needed it yesterday. It should have been brought forward a month ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? On debate, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, provides an opportunity to discuss two subjects of major importance to Canada. First and foremost, the Bill involves in an indirect way international trade and, second, it involves in a very direct way Revenue Canada, both in its administration and in relation to the laws it administers.
Let me begin by reviewing those two main features of Bill C-7. The Bill provides special tariff considerations for goods produced in so-called developing countries, otherwise known as the Third World. Of course, these are goods which are not available in Canada that we can allow to be imported without affecting similar goods processed within Canada. There is no exact similarity in the kinds of goods which will be permitted to be imported from Third World nations.
This legislative initiative through customs tariff arrangements allows us to consider the whole aspect of international trade, its effect on the Canadian economy and on Canadian people. Also we have to deal with Revenue Canada, both in its administration of the laws and with respect to the laws themselves. Bill C-7 changes the dollar values applicable to goods brought into Canada by residents of Canada who are returning from foreign travel. These changes in the dollar values of goods imported in this way are very substantially increased. As I understand it, for long term periods outside Canada, seven days or more, a Canadian resident can bring back $300 worth of goods. That is an increase of $150 over the previous dollar standards. The same applies in terms of the percentage increase for goods which can be returned to Canada after a shorter stay, that is, an increase of $50 to $100.
For some people who travel abroad and return to Canada with goods, this is a very substantial increase. I know from personal experience that some Canadian residents in their foreign travel would take that as immediate legislative authority to double the amount of goods they bring into Canada on their return. In some cases that is very substantial. I know people who upon returning from shopping trips in the United States bring back a large amount of goods and claim a value of $150. In some cases they require a truck when they return because they take that legislative, mandated increase as au-
Customs Tariff
thority to double their purchases and in that way increase the amounts of goods and services they bring back to Canada.
I have never known Canadians to overestimate the value of goods which they brought back to Canada. That is to say, I have never known them to say that the goods they brought back were substantially more in terms of dollar value than the restrictions allowed. I say that only partly with tongue in cheek because I do not know how Revenue Canada would ever be able to ascertain the total dollar amounts involved in a change such as this.
I want to speak about this more directly with respect to the administration of the revenue laws by Revenue Canada, because it is in an area where a great deal of judgment must be exercised by the administrators of the law. I do not suppose there is a customs officer on any border point in Canada who does not see time and time again Canadians returning with goods which they must suspect are greatly in excess of the dollar values permitted. However, what action should they take? Should they bother in every case that they encounter to demand proof of the value of the goods or otherwise attempt to assess the value by some objective standard?
The point I want to make and underline is: Is this another case in which the government through the legislative process will create a situation that will result in difficulties for Canadian citizens? In other words, is the Government inviting Canadians to bring back more and more goods from foreign travel and then find when they arrive at the border point that they have to submit themselves to a rigorous examination process which will possibly result in violations of laws of Canada, in prosecutions, in other enforcement actions or in imposition of sanctions in respect of those laws?
To put it bluntly, is this a case in which Canadian citizens will be lulled into thinking that the Government of Canada does not really care that much about the dollar value of the goods they bring back to Canada and, having given Canadians that impression, it then imposes with great force the full burden of the law? I would like to know the answer to that question. I hope in any final disposition of the Bill that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) will make very clear the exact instructions which will be issued to customs officers with respect to the enforcement of these new dollar values.
I should explain quickly that Revenue Canada, as it is commonly known, is actually the Department of National Revenue with two specific divisions, as I understand it-first, Customs and Excise and, second, Taxation. We in the House of Commons know all about the activities of Revenue Canada in its Taxation division. We know all about the harsh administration of tax laws. We know all about the quota systems imposed by senior officers in Revenue Canada, Taxation. But we know very little about Revenue Canada on the customs and excise side. I can state from my experience that customs officers can be equally difficult and present similar difficulties to Canadian residents as the officers of Revenue Canada, Taxation.

May 2, 1984
Customs Tariff
I do not underestimate the importance of the duties performed by the officers of Revenue Canada, either on the customs and excise side or on the taxation side. The statistics I have from the Department of National Revenue report from 1983 indicate that the Taxation division of Revenue Canada produced revenues of $56.9 billion, a very substantial portion of the total revenue of Canada. As I understand the statistics, the customs and excise side produced $3.2 billion in revenue. That is revenue from a variety of taxes including import duties, sales tax, excise tax and other excise taxes and duties. 1 suppose added to that are what are called sundry collections. That division of the Department of National Revenue, that is, Customs and Excise, has a wide variety of laws to administer.
As Members of Parliament and representatives of the people, our duty is to ensure two things: first, that the laws enacted by Parliament are fair in their application to the people subject to them; second, that the public administration of the laws, in this case by the Customs and Excise division of Revenue Canada, is fair. One is justified in addressing both of those points in the context of Bill C-7 because we now have reason to believe, as a result of our experience with Revenue Canada on the taxation side, that the administration of the laws may be questionable.
Those are the two points 1 want to make with respect to the provisions of Bill C-7 that relate to the importation of goods by Canadian travellers, namely that the written law be clear and that the administration of the law be fair to Canadians.
That brings me to this point. What we have done in Bill C-7 is double the value of goods that can be brought into Canada by travellers from abroad, as I have said several times. However, all of us in this Chamber know that Canadians are in the habit of giving a liberal interpretation to that designation of dollar value. Without naming names, I suspect there are many Canadians who bring back literally hundreds of dollars worth of goods into Canada, the value of which cannot be easily determined. I suspect in the normal course of things that some Canadians will interpret this change in the law as a permit to double the amount of goods they bring back.
I would like to know from the Minister of National Revenue how the officers will interpret these new dollar limitations. Will this be enforced more strictly than in the past or will they recognize that what the Parliament of Canada has authorized in Bill C-7 is an increase of 100 per cent of what has gone on in the past? In other words, Canadians who brought in a certain amount of goods and material on return to Canada may now feel free to double the quantity of goods and materials they are in the habit of bringing back to Canada. Will they now be faced with strict enforcement and will that result in the imposition of sanctions and penalties which are included in the law?
The reason I am so concerned about that is that there seems to be a tendency among law enforcers, whether they are involved in revenue or penal laws, including criminal laws, to demand stricter enforcement. Stricter enforcement of the law seems to be the order of the day. I want to say something very generally about strict enforcement of the laws. I am appalled by the situation that we often find ourselves in where relatively innocent citizens, those who contribute to the economy, work on a day-to-day basis, and so on, are called to task for minor infractions such as failing to file an income tax return on time or some other minor infraction of income tax law, some minor infraction of the traffic laws or laws that relate to hunting regulations and that sort of thing. More citizens are brought before the courts of Canada for those kinds of infractions than on serious criminal charges.
If we want to stamp out illegal activity in Canada and want to use the resources of government to do that, let us stamp out rape, murder, robbery and housebreaks. Never mind stamping out the minor infractions of Canadian citizens which they commit inadvertently or without any guilty intent, such as exceeding the values that relate to goods they bring into Canada on return from travel abroad.
I am told there are certain advantages to increasing the amounts that apply to goods brought into Canada by Canadians returning from foreign travel. Certainly the inflation we have experienced in the past decade justifies a substantial increase in its own right. It is my sincere hope that this will not result in a substantial change in the manner in which these laws are enforced, or it will end up to the detriment of those we are trying to benefit, our fellow Canadians.
We have reason not to trust the administration of Revenue Canada with respect to this kind of change in the law. Let me say very quickly that I have great confidence in the public servants of Canada, particularly those in the service of the Department of National Revenue. However, like any employees, they require clear direction. Employees require a code and management direction that makes it very clear what their responsibilities are and how they are to administer the laws which they are charged with.
I want to take this opportunity to say to the Minister of National Revenue and those who serve directly under him that they should make certain in the administration of this new law that instructions are given that will be consistent with the intent of this law, which is to benefit Canadians returning from foreign travel. Keep that in mind and make it the guide. This is a law to benefit Canadians, not a law to change the administration of our revenue laws.
I mentioned international trade. As I said, that subject is implicit in the provisions of Bill C-7 that relate to importation of goods from the Third World.
May 2, 1984

I see the clock is approaching six. I will take the remaining minute to underline the importance of international trade to Canada. We have had a dramatic increase in our trading capacity over the past decade. I understand that at present our international trade amounts to approximately 30 per cent of our Gross National Product. The 1982 figure for our international trade is $84.6 billion. It becomes immediately evident that that is a very substantial sum of money when you consider
Customs Tariff
that the total amount spent by Canada as a nation on government business is $100 billion. I see the clock is approaching six.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow morning.
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 3, 1984