1984-05-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is on the record as stating he would cap interest rates at 12 per cent. I presume this means if he is elected Liberal leader and, automatically, Prime Minister, his statement can be interpreted to mean that John Turner will not under any circumstances be his Minister of Finance.
Mr. Turner, during his tenure as Finance Minister, invented deficit spending and since he has become a leadership candidate has done everything in his power to elevate the word "contradiction" to the status of campaign policy. If Mr. Turner could roll back interest rates as well as he rolls back his many slips of the tongue, the country would be well served. In the meantime I have a slogan I want to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture: "When you are Number 7, you have to try harder".


HOUSING
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the province of Quebec regularly ask us about the connection between the federal Government's RRAP Program and LOGINOVE, administered by the province of Quebec.
In the minds of many Quebecers and among municipal authorities there is some confusion about the two programs. This is not surprising, since in its advertising, the Societe d'habitation du Quebec, which administers LOGINOVE, gives the impression that the two programs are related. I have here an example taken from a brochure about the LOGINOVE program. It says: "LOGINOVE is restricted to the territory of
specific urban centres, considering the restrictions set by the CMHC on its own urban RRAP program".
Mr. Speaker, the LOGINOVE and RRAP programs are entirely independent of one another. No federal-provincial agreement has been signed for these grants. The Government of Quebec cannot relate its decision to offer LOGINOVE to the federal Government's decision to designate certain areas for the urban RRAP program. I would therefore ask the conveyors of rhetoric in the Quebec Government to be honest and inform their fellow Quebecers properly.


ELEANOR ROOSEVELT CENTENNIAL AWARD
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the attention of this House that Mrs. Mildred Bronfman Lande, a member of the Order of Canada and a distinguished Canadian, will today, in Montreal, be the first Canadian recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Centennial Award from the State of Israel Bonds of Canada for her exemplary work for, and lifelong dedication to, humanitarian, cultural, and philanthropic causes.
I am sure that all Members of this House will join with me in extending our best wishes to Mrs. Lande and to the Canadian Jewish community on the occasion of this prestigious award.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, every day the list of countries that will not be participating in the Olympic Games in Los Angeles is getting longer, and coming from a riding where many young people are involved in sports, I would like to ask the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Olivier) and the federal Government to make urgent representations to the effect that in future, the Olympic Games should have a permanent location. Perhaps we could go back to the first Olympic Games and designate Athens. We must get politics out of the Olympics, so that young people
3952

May 23, 1984
who have been working for years, in accordance with the Olympic ideals, for the day on which they will compete with one another, will no longer be the hostages of politics or ideology.
Mr. Speaker, if sports are to remain part of the key to international understanding, we cannot afford to set up these ideological and political barriers every four years and we must keep young people who are anxious to compete with their peers from being the hostages of their political leaders. Mr. Speaker, it is very important for Canada to lead the way in this field and prevent countries from making the Olympic Games a matter of prestige and expensive buildings and facilities for the country concerned, because what young people want is to meet with their peers every four years and compete with each other in accordance with the Olympic ideal.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the CNR has officially embarked on a program to operate its trains without a caboose at the rear. It is pleading economic pressures and technological improvements. It contends that the introduction of hot box detectors, dragging equipment detectors, and other technological improvements, now negate the necessity for a man in a caboose. This is simply not so.
Trains are now longer; over two miles is not unusual, and a mile and a half is very common. They travel faster, 50 to 65 miles per hour, and they carry more dangerous commodities than ever before. Coupled with this, there are fewer operating, inspection, and maintenance forces than there have ever been. This naturally means less and less attention is being given to rolling stock, and fewer people are inspecting either standing or running trains.
Cities, towns, and communities are more in jeopardy than they have ever been, and now the CNR wants to remove the man at the rear of the train, the key person who keeps a constant watch over the train while it is in motion. If this is allowed to happen, Mississauga will have been only a rehearsal for what is to come. I call on all Members of Parliament, and members of the public, to pay attention to this issue and not let it be decided on a technical basis. It is a political issue and it ought to be treated as such.


HARDY CUP CANADIAN INTERMEDIATE &quot;A&quot; CHAMPIONSHIP- CONGRATULATIONS TO VICTORIOUS CHARLOTTETOWN ISLANDERS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Commons my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), proudly congratulated the Edmonton Oilers as the new Stanley Cup champions. Unquestionably the Oilers have brought great credit to Edmonton and the West, indeed to all of Canada, by their win over the New York Islanders.
However, I wish to draw to your attention, Sir, and to the attention of the House, that the Charlottetown Islanders have performed a similar feat for that city, for Prince Edward Island, and for the Atlantic Provinces, by winning the Hardy Cup Canadian Intermediate "A" Championship. They did so by beating the Moose Jaw Generals four games to one in the best of seven finals.
I know all Members of the House join me in congratulating Captain Wilfred MacDonald, Coach Errol Thompson, all other members of the Charlottetown Islanders, and everyone else associated with the team, on this major national sports triumph. As the Member of Parliament for the team's riding, I take particular pride in their victory.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian senior citizens cannot enjoy their golden age unless they have housing facilities suitable to their needs. Substantial improvements have been made across Canada in senior citizen housing and homes for special care, but there is much more that can be done.
While special housing may be the answer in some cases, most senior citizens would be happier in their own homes or sharing homes with members of their family. In this context we should applaud the measures taken by the Government of Ontario. In its recent Budget, Ontario provided tax incentives to home owners who make renovations to keep elderly relatives living at home. Similar tax incentives are provided to elderly home owners themselves who renovate rather than move to special housing for seniors.
Our social concern can be measured, in Canada, by the way we treat our senior citizens and those who cannot cope without help. Keeping elderly Canadians in a home environment recognizes that senior citizens are an important element in each Canadian community. By encouraging Canadian families to care for their own, the Ontario Government has shown leadership which the federal Government and other provinces would be wise to follow.
May 23, 1984


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Members of the Tory Party laughed when I asked about workers' safety on Canada Works projects.


Mr. Thacker:: You're a liar.


James Douglas Manly: What was so funny? Did the Tories laugh at the large number of people who have to take jobs at low wages? Did they laugh at the suggestion that these workers were entitled to some form of safety committee and grievance procedure?


Mr. Blenkarn:: No; at you.


James Douglas Manly: Maybe these same Tory Members could go out and visit some of the crews on Canada Works projects. They could find out how funny it is to try to maintain a home and support a family on these low wages. They could joke about safety conditions, with workers doing heavy manual labour and working with power equipment outdoors in all kinds of weather.
The Tories called the Minister of Employment and Immigration two-faced when he promised to look into the question. Whether he was two-faced on this, only time will tell. But at least he had enough political sensitivity to realize that this was an important question. The Conservatives are completely insensitive to the needs of working people in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: Safety in the work place is not a laughing matter, and Canadians can do without the Tory sense of humour.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, some two and a half years ago a government decision was made with regard to CFB Chatham which seemed at the time to be a staggering blow to the town of Chatham and the riding of Northumberland-Miramichi. However, at the time the Government also said it would make every effort to compensate for that loss, and to replace it. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) went to Chatham and announced that what was about to become a dead military base would in fact be given new life and would have a long-term future.
While the Tories and NDP in New Brunswick were playing politics with the issue, many people here in Ottawa, and officials in the region, were working hard to solve the problem. It has been solved, and I want to express gratitude on my behalf and on behalf of all of my constituents for the decision
Oral Questions
the Government made with regard to Chatham which will give it a long-term future with 1,400 employees.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Minister of Economic Development, who is hovering in the background.


Mr. Wilson:: Hobbling in the background.


An Hon. Member:: Here is the Prime Minister.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday in Toronto the Minister of State for Economic Development criticized the Industrial and Regional Development Program, for which he is partly responsible as chairman of the Cabinet Committee for Economic Development, when he said:
I get the feeling it's just not working.
I believe it has a tendency to build on economic weaknesses rather than on economic strengths.
This is the same Minister who said a few weeks ago, and I quote:
Instead of propping up run-down trucking firms, bankrupt computer companies and over-staffed government Departments, we should be investing more money in our people.
Surely we have arrived at a point in time when enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet solidarity and that convention notwithstanding, how can the Prime Minister condone the continuous presence in the Cabinet of a Minister who would criticize the very program for which he is responsible?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to that question if I may. I wish the Hon. Member would have a look at my speech, provided he promises not to use any of the ideas set forth therein, as Members opposite have in the past. The fact is that during this leadership convention a number of us have been travelling coast to coast, meeting with people. Of course I do that in the course of my responsibilities in any event.
With regard to the particular program which I discussed last night, in the small and medium-sized business sectors there have been many questions raised with me which I feel must be addressed. I am inclined to the view that in that small

May 23, 1984
Oral Questions
and medium-sized business sector there is a better approach. I am not suggesting that there is not room for grants, as the report said. That is why I invite the Hon. Member to look at the text. However, there are many businessmen in the country who feel that this type of program may be overcentralized and too bureaucratic. We on this side of the House have a tradition of always trying to self improve in our programs, policies, and other areas. That is exactly what I am saying. I suggest that a little self improvement may be a good idea for that side of the House as well.


CABINET SOLIDARITY-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. That legislation is less than a year old. If there is a better approach, why does the Government not bring it in? Why does this Minister not bring it in, or else do the honourable thing and resign?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of Justice is calling for the firing of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Minister of Employment and Immigration is calling for the firing of 30,000 civil servants. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is refusing to appear before a committee to defend his own Estimates. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there comes a point in time when the Leader of the Government must exercise some discipline so that all of these programs will not be totally undermined by his own Ministers, and so that the confidence of the people of Canada who have to depend upon these programs for a living will not be totally eroded.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, for years Members on the other side have been accusing me of arrogance. I am showing a little tolerance and the arrogance is all on the other side.


EXAMINATION OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MINES AND RESOURCES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister will agree that these kinds of statements can only undermine confidence in economic expansion, as well as undermine the confidence of the people in the Altantic provinces and other areas who depend upon these programs for a living. Surely that is the effect of what the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development is saying.
If the Prime Minister does not intend to ask for the resignation of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, does he intend to follow his advice and change the legislation? Also, does he intend to issue instructions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to appear before a committee of the House and defend his Estimates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me a series of questions. With regard to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I have asked that either he or the Minister of State attempt to find a date upon which the committee would be able to question him on his Estimates. I have not received the answer. I made the request yesterday.
With regard to the suggestion of the Hon. Member that in some way my Ministers are undermining confidence in the future of the economy, I do not see how that follows from a Minister saying that if he became Prime Minister he would try to improve again on our programs. It is the job of a Prime Minister and the Cabinet to try to make the programs ever better. That is certainly what we attempted to do some years ago when we switched from the pure system of tax incentives to grants so that they would be identifiable to the taxpayer.
It seems rather strange, and I am sure it does to people who follow the proceedings in the House, to hear the accusation from the Hon. Member that in some way we are undermining the confidence of the business community in the future of this country. That surely is the stock-in-trade of the Opposition. Every day of the week they stand up and say how terrible things are and how they will get worse. Members on this side are saying that if things are bad we will make them better. They on the other side can be relied upon to make them worse.


THE ECONOMY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. It is further to the comments on the weakness in the economy made by my colleague.
I want to welcome the Minister back to the real world of the Canadian economy because, while he was away in Paris, there have been a number of economists who cut back their expectations of the rate of growth in the economy, some by substantial amounts. John Grant of Wood Gundy, and Aron Gampel of Pitfield are two such economists. If this is realized, it will result in a significant increase in unemployment by the end of the year.
Does the Minister still stand by his expectations for growth in the economy that he set out in the February Budget and, if so, why is he doing so in the face of the combined intelligence of these economists? If not, what is his new projection for the rate of growth in the economy for this year?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his words of welcome and to report to him that I was not only at the meeting of the OECD but also at a meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers and at the Group of Ten Ministers where indeed we
May 23, 1984

had an opportunity to exchange views on the present economic situation world-wide.
The Hon. Member refers to some forecasts by some economists. Obviously he will get various projections from various economists from week to week. I refer him to an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal, I believe, talking about the collective wisdom of economists. I will send him a copy. I think he will be very interested in reading it.
I came out with a number of forecasts in the February 15 Budget. The practice in the Department is to re-examine those forecasts by mid year, roughly, which is the beginning of the summer or in the course of the summer, so as to use them for the re-examination of the projections for the economy and the consideration of priorities and planning in the Cabinet later on in the course of the year. As far as I am concerned, I have no other forecasts to put forward than those contained in the February Budget. However, we will proceed to the normal re-examination of the evolution of the economy later on this year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I detect a change in tone from the way the Minister previously defended the projections in that Budget. I think he has seen the writing on the wall.


IMPACT OF INTEREST RATES ON HOUSE BUILDING INDUSTRY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring another projection to the attention of the Minister, that of William Dickson, President of the Canadian Real Estate Association, who is projecting that housing starts this year will drop from his previous projection of 170,000 to 135,000. That means that there will be approximately 100,000 fewer jobs in that sector of the economy. What is the Minister doing to offset the impact of high interest rates, because it is clearly high interest rates that have caused this drop in housing starts? I hope that he will not tell us again that his hands are tied because of the increase in the deficit from $10 billion to $30 billion and that there is nothing he can do about it. If he is going to say that, he should be blaming his predecessor, the Prime Minister, and the rest of the Government for getting us into the mess we are in today.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can read whatever he wishes into what 1 said. What I said was quite simple. Every year we proceed to a re-examination of forecasts contained in the Budget, by mid year. This is what we will do again this year.
As far as the forecasted decline in housing is concerned, again I want to tell the Hon. Member that, contrary to what he said, the decline that took place in the early part of this year was not the result of higher interest rates, because indeed that decline began before the rise in interest rates. What one can expect is that the new measures we will be introducing, I hope in a very short time, concerning mortgage interest rate protection in particular, and the new provisions amending the Interest Act, will have a beneficial effect upon the housing industry generally.
Oral Questions


INTEREST RATE LEVELS-COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will know that the United States twelve months' inflation rate is almost double from its low in July, and all the financial analysts are now suggesting that that means interest rates in the United States are bound to be increasing in the months ahead by 2 percentage points and maybe by up to 4 percentage points. The Minister of Finance has indicated on a number of occasions that he plans to track American interest rates, that he simply plans to follow the American rate upwards. Knowing the very fragile state of the Canadian economy, Mr. Speaker, knowing the pressures under which small business people, home owners, farmers, and fishermen, find themselves, is the Minister of Finance ready to say today that he is prepared to take action independent of Paul Volcker and not track United States interest rates in the weeks and months ahead?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the increase in inflation in the United States of one-half of one per cent. I hope he will be encouraged by reminding himself that for April our own inflation went up by only 0.2 per cent.


Mr. Stevens:: Still higher over-all than the U.S.


Marc Lalonde: I would hope that the Canadian record will be significantly better than the United States record in terms of the inflation rate for 1984. That will be quite helpful in terms of our ability to maintain our interest rates at a lower level than the United States. As the Hon. Member knows, the situation is not that we are only tracking the U.S. rates. He will remember, for instance, that sometime in 1982 our prime rate was as much as 3 percentage points higher than the United States' prime rate. At the present time our prime rate is half a point less than that of the United States. We have achieved this because we have been able to bring our inflation down; increase our productivity, reduce our unit labour costs, and attain a very good rate of growth.
I think if we continue collectively to ensure that our economy will continue to grow, keeping our costs down, we will be able to keep our interest rates generally-the prime rate and other bank rates-at lower levels than those in the United States, or very close to those in the United States. I have never said that we have no independence of choice. We have some autonomy. But one has to look at the real situation, however, and to realize that we cannot just close out the world around us, ignore the United States situation, and think that we can have a totally independent interest rate policy.


SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF TAX ON CAPITAL OUTFLOWS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks about autonomy, and the Prime Minister indicates a willingness to make things better, a willingness to take some independent action.

May 23, 1984
Oral Questions
The Minister of Finance knows full well that the weeks and months ahead will see an increase in United States interest rates, based on the best information available to us today. Businessmen, home owners and farmers are watching very closely because they feel that if our future performance is anything like our past performance it means that we will simply follow American rates upward.
The Minister of Finance has indicated that we cannot take real independent action because money will flow out of the country. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to give some consideration to lowering interest rates and to give some consideration to the implementation of a speculators' tax on large sums of money that people might move out of the country in order to take advantage of an interest rate? What is his view on a speculators' tax as one method to counter the argument against tracking American rates?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that speculating on what might happen does not necessarily mean it is going to happen. The Hon. Member is referring to projections on increases in interest rates in the United States in 1984. It is possible, but it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that it will happen. I would therefore urge the Hon. Member to keep his sense of perspective and not automatically assume there will be an increase of, for instance, two percentage points in interest rates in the United States, as he said.
He also mentioned creating a special tax on movements of capital to the United States. This point has been raised by fellow Members of the Hon. Member's party here in the House, and I said at the time that this did not seem to be a realistic solution. However, if the Hon. Member has specific proposals to make and he feels it would be feasible to implement this kind of tax, I shall consider all this within the framework of a future budget.
At the present time, however, I must say that the Hon. Member's proposal does not seem very realistic and it is not one I am prepared to consider.


MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the present, if the Minister is not prepared to speculate on action that he might take. In the United States this morning, Baystate Funding, a savings and loan company in Massachusetts, is offering mortgages at 9.75 per cent, and the First Interstate Bank in California is also offering mortgages at 9.75 per cent. The same thing is being played out throughout the United States.
Considering that our prime rates are approximately the same, and that the inflation rate in Canada is approximately the same as that in the United States, why is there a 3 per cent differential between what banks, savings and loan companies
in the United States are charging for mortgages, and what banks like the Royal Bank of Canada are charging? Why is there a 3 per cent differential?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member will admit that there are some significant differences between the tax systems in the United States and in Canada. If I am not mistaken, perhaps, the Hon. Member will recall that in the U.S., there is a tax on capital gains accruing from the sale of one's own home. Canadians, however, do not pay a capital gains tax when they sell their home. That is one example of the differences between the tax systems in our two countries.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the amount of Irish beef which has been coming into Canada since the first of the year. The Minister will know that Ireland is now the largest single supplier of beef to this country. He will also know that some of this beef has been landed in Canada at as much as 30 cents per pound under our market price. If the level of those kinds of imports into our country continues, by August or September our quotas will be filled. This kind of thing hurts producers and processors in this country. For instance, Burns Meats in Brandon has just announced that it will close in August. This also jeopardizes the trade which we have with our traditional trading partners. Would the Minister bring us up to date on what he or his Department is prepared to do to address this very serious situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we met with representatives of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association on the Beef Import Advisory Committee just this past week. They made certain recommendations to the Ministry of Agriculture, to myself, and some of the officials in my Department.
The Hon. Member is saying that he wants import controls and that he wants them imposed. I am not against that. He knows that I am very much in favour of that. The beef is not coming to Canada by itself; it is being brought here by a corporate citizen of Canada who is buying it and putting it on the market here because it is cheaper. If he wants that kind of control, let him say so.
We have put a countervailing duty on hams coming in from Europe, from the same area. We know it is heavily subsidized, but when I talk about those kinds of things and when I talk about supply and management-and in essence that is what they are saying at the present time-they disagree with me.


Mr. Gamble:: What are you doing today?
May 23, 1984


Eugene Whelan: If we had that kind of plan, as we have for some other products, we would not have to worry about beef coming from any place in the world into Canada.


Charles James Mayer: The Minister totally misrepresents what I asked him. I did not say anything about cutting off imports. I was concerned about the price at which it was coming into the country. The reason it is coming in is that the European Economic Community subsidizes it to the tune of about 50 cents per pound. We cannot compete with that. If the Minister continues to allow this, it will cause major problems in the meat industry.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared, through his Department, to take this on as a personal initiative? There are provisions under one section of GATT whereby he can, through his Department, initiate investigations to see whether in fact there is hurt in the industry. This will speed up the process so that we do not have to go through the 90-day to 180-day wait to bring on a countervailing duty. If he is prepared to do something within his Department, if he is prepared to instruct his officials to act now, we could do something about beef which is coming into the country at low prices. We are not as concerned about the quantity as we are about the price.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be worried about the quantity because there has been an 800 per cent increase over what there was last year for the same period. If he wants to make a comparison with the great free-trading nation to the south of us, he will learn that it only allows 5,000 tonnes of that kind of beef into the United States for 246 million people in a total year.


Mr. Dick:: What about you?


Eugene Whelan: If the Hon. Member wants import controls, let him say so. If he wants to go through the system of surcharges and countervailing duties, he should know that we are supporting Canadian cattlemen in that regard, but it is time consuming. They come back on us for compensation under that kind of a ruling. It is a hurly-burly, free-trading world out there. Is he saying that he wants controls on that? Is that what he is saying on behalf of his Party over there? Does he want to stop those imports? In essence, I think that is what he is saying, and I do not disagree with him on that.


EDUCATION
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who, yesterday, expressed his grave concern about the quality and value of post-second-
Oral Questions
ary education in Canada. The Minister has received in recent weeks requests for tripartite consultations on post-secondary education support, from the major components of the educational community in Canada, from the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Federation of Students, as well as recommendations in the Page-Symons report issued by the Association of Universities and Colleges.
Will the Minister act now to end the Government's confrontational approach and initiate public consultations, which are being called for, on the need for accountability for federal government post-secondary educational funding?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is speaking from the two corners of his mouth at the same time. On one hand we have appointed Mr. A1 Johnson to consult with the various post-secondary educational institutions in Canada. As a matter of fact, at my own request, Mr. Johnson is meeting with representatives of the Official Opposition, with representatives of the New Democratic Party, and with representatives of various associations of teachers and educational institutions in Canada.
On the other hand, as a result of the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, we have unanimously accepted an amendment to Bill C-12, investing the Secretary of State with the responsibility to report annually to the House on the negotiations with the Council of Ministers of Education on national objectives in post-secondary education.
What does the Hon. Member want? He wants more consultation. We have already had consultation. I said to him in committee yesterday that Mr. Johnson would be reporting to the Government and that the Government would table his reports on policy alternatives to end the stalemate which we have had with the provinces.
Essentially the provinces did not want to pass on the money which Parliament voted last year. This is not due to the priorities of the federal Government. It is due to the priorities of the provinces which have not made post-secondary education the first priority to be served in our country.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State who outlined once again the unilateral approach of the Government. The $500 per day activities of Mr. Johnson will once again bring a solution to the Government without consultation with the provinces or educational institutions.
Is the Secretary of State fundamentally agreeing with the proposals of Mr. Turner for unilateral federal action in order to bring the provinces and the institutions into line?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not know what the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has been doing in the last month. Due to her own initiative, she brought in an amendment to Bill C-12 which called upon me to negotiate with the Council of

May 23, 1984
Oral Questions
Ministers of Education. We have accepted it, with the support of the New Democratic Party. If the unilateral gesture of Parliament is the unilateral gesture of the Government, I do not know exactly what the Hon. Member has in mind.


Walter Franklin McLean: That was our initiative, not the Government's initiative.


Serge Joyal: I have said to him repeatedly that following the consultation a report will be tabled in Parliament. There will be ample consultation with all the intervenors. The Hon. Member should get his act together and come back with positive suggestions.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Of course he is aware that farm prices have been falling on many fronts, that costs are up, and that bankruptcies are up. Also, on the weekend he called for a general tax cut to stimulate the economy. Since he believes in a tax cut, is he ready to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues a cut in federal gasoline taxes on farm fuels, which amount to around 30 cents a gallon? Will he take that recommendation to Cabinet in order to help the farmers and to stimulate the economy of the country in general?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to one of my views I have expressed, one of the planks in my platform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McDermid:: That's not a plank, that's a two by four.


Eugene Whelan: I say to him that I have also made my views known with regard to taxes on fuel used in the production of food. I am sure he is aware of that. We are having ongoing discussions on this.


REQUEST FOR TAX REPEAL LEGISLATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the best known politician in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I noticed the Prime Minister next to him a few minutes ago talking about a transfer of power, but he had better wait a few weeks.
Because of the urgency of the question and the urgency of the situation that farmers across the country now face, will the Minister take to Cabinet a proposal that, before the end of
June, the Government will bring in a Bill to end gasoline taxes, which amount to around 30 cents a gallon on farm fuel? In fact I will make him a deal. If he does that for the farmers, I will lobby any Liberal delegate I can find in my riding for him in his leadership campaign.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Hon. Member that I have already talked to all the Liberal delegates in his riding. They tell me I should not make any commitment to him because he will not be here after the next election.
My concern about making food production profitable for the producers, and reasonably priced for the consumers, still stands. Anything that I can do to make sure that that comes about will be done.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF LABOUR AND MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT OF TANZANIA
Mr. Speaker:: I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. D. N. Mwakawago, the Minister of Labour and Manpower Development of Tanzania.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The Minister signed a lease purchase contract with a Toronto developer, Rampart Enterprises, for the DVA headquarters building in Charlottetown. The Government spent some $7 million on the building and then turned it over to Rampart, which spent some $16 million. The lease runs for 35 years and requires the Government to pay $2.2 million per year in rent, for a total of $78 million over the term of the contract. Will the Minister admit that this is overly generous to Rampart Enterprises?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it would be totally irresponsible to try to give that sort of judgment without knowing the amount of space, the management conditions of the contract, and so on. Obviously the Hon. Member does not expect me to carry that kind of information in my head.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: If the Minister signs these contracts, I would expect him to know something about them.
May 23, 1984


MAINTENANCE COSTS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that, unlike most landlord/tenant leases, in this case the tenant, which is the Government, will pay all maintenance, heating, tax and other costs, which come to over $1 million a year and which will run the rent for this $22 million building up to over $100 million during the term of the lease?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is using every inflated arithmetical figure he can find. Obviously we cannot discuss this sort of issue without having all the figures in front of us. If the Hon. member wants me to appear before the committee and discuss this contract, I will do so.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of a Goldfarb Consultants poll commissioned by the Liberal Government in July, 1983, which reveals that four out of five Canadians want unrestricted access to U.S. television stations,
I want to ask the Minister two things. First, why had the Government hidden the results of last year's poll until Canadian Press revealed them in the media just yesterday? I received my copy in my seat in the House about five minutes ago. Second, what specific question did Goldfarb put to 1,600 Canadians to elicit the most interesting response that 80 per cent of Canadians want unfettered access to U.S. signals?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, as he has a copy of the Goldfarb report, courtesy of the Minister of Communications-


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Signed by his own hand.


Francis Fox: -I would indicate that Canadian Press was obviously more diligent than Members of the Opposition. They used the Access to Information Act which I brought before this House, and which was adopted by the House two years ago, to obtain a copy of the report. As far as the Hon. Member's question is concerned, he will find the questionnaire on page 11 of the book, compiled by Mr. Goldfarb. I hasten to point out that one result that was not published by Canadian Press, which is also most interesting, is that 78 per cent of Canadians support the development of a strong Canadian artistic community.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I am glad to know that Canadians also recognize the need to protect and preserve a distinctive Canadian identity and a viable Canadian broadcasting industry.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications will know of the hostility of folks, particularly in many of Canada's smaller and more remote communities, when they are denied or cut off from American signals. Did the Minister commission this poll with a view to changing government policy on access to American signals? If so how is he going to come up with a policy which will ensure fair and equitable distribution of both Canadian and American signals and preserve the Canadian broadcasting system?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. gentleman has been watching the development of the Canadian broadcasting policy, he knows that that is what has been done for the past few years. Through the CRTC we have licensed a group of Canadian businessmen and entrepreneurs to deliver to all villages, towns, and areas of this country, a complete package of four U.S. signals, the four main networks, along with four Canadian signals. We feel that what Canadians are looking for is not only access to U.S. signals but access to Canadians signals, to let them know what is going on in this country.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In the latter part of April the Minister appeared on the television program The Journal with respect to an issue that I have raised in this House before, the release of board of inquiry transcripts to designated next-of-kin in the case of military accidents. In response to a question from Barbara Frum on that program, the Minister indicated with regard to designated next-of-kin in a couple of other accidents which had been brought to his attention, that there had been a policy change, that these transcripts were now available and all the parents in this case had to do was get in touch with him the next morning and this information would be forthcoming. As of this weekend, neither of two sets of parents who got in touch with him the next morning has received the transcripts.
I was in touch with one of them this morning, Anne McKinnon of Alberta. As of today she has not yet received an answer to a telephone call she placed to the Minister's office that morning. The Minister had the nerve to go on national television and give the impression that there has been a policy change and that he would look after everything. I want to know when he is going to look after everything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member ask his question?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I did in fact indicate that there was a major policy change. That change is being implemented. The Hon. Member

May 23, 1984
Oral Questions
did not provide me, as he did on other occasions, with previous notice of his intention to raise the question so that I could provide details relating to the representations he has made, or the representations made by the individual he has identified. I will look into the matter he has brought to my attention and report to him.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: When there is a policy change you don't expect to have to give the Minister notice. We want to know why he has not acted.


NAMES OF INQUEST WITNESSES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister. He knows that an inquest has been called into the accident that resulted in the deaths of Privates Krosney and Laurendeau. I believe it is to take place on June 22 in Moosomin, Saskatchewan. At this point they are not able to get the names in the transcript. We have the testimony that was given, but not the names. Will the Minister extend his ministerial discretion, which he has made a big deal of, to releasing the names of those who gave testimony in those transcripts so that that inquest can have the benefit of knowing everything there is to know about what happened that day?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the names were not provided because of the limitation under the Access to Information Act. That information was not to be made available because of the considerations of privacy. That having been said, Mr. Speaker, there is, indeed, a request which has been made relating to a coroner's inquest which was to be conducted by the provincial authorities. We have offered every cooperation in that respect. I have not received any requests from the coroner relating to the identification of particular individuals within the transcript.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You can't even get the transcript, never mind the names.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for tourism. As predicted, the tourism deficit rose again in the first three months of this year over last year. In fact it is expected to reach a staggering $3 billion by the end of this year. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the industry is in trouble and is suffering. Deficits are rising. This all contributes to unemployment. When industry spokesmen voiced their concerns, as they should, the Minister's answer was: "If the tourism industry gets more bitchy or complaining, it will be hard to persuade the Cabinet to continue this current level of funding". Can the Minister justify
making such a stupid and unproductive statement? Or is this his way to blackmail the industry and keep it quiet when it is in trouble? What is the answer?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, that particular statement, which I think was taken out of context, had to do with some complaints about the price of gasoline in this country and the effect of that on tourism. The simple fact of the matter is that the price of gasoline in this country results from an agreement which we have with the oil producing provinces. We fought long and hard to get the best deal we could for the Canadian consumer, and we got that deal.
I do not believe it is reasonable to think that that agreement is going to be ripped up because of its impact on tourism. I might point out that the first three months, January, February and March, in any year, are always the most difficult months for us because of the weather, and the Hon. Member knows that full well.


PROVISION OF FUNDS TO ONTARIO
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, that is a cop-out if I ever heard one. An election was fought on 18 cents a gallon, and you are the ones who raised the price of gasoline. Everyone knows that in Canada. We also know that in the tourism industry the problem is over-taxation, purely and simply, particularly on gasoline and alcohol. If the Minister had any clout at all in cabinet, he would have that tax lowered or knocked off completely.
There is a subagreement between Ottawa and the Province of Ontario which has been sitting on the desk of the other Minister since 1980. It was for $100 million, since reduced to $60 million. Can the Minister use some kind of clout and get that money to the province so it can spend it properly and increase tourism in this country? Some 85 per cent of tourism comes into this country by car. Will the Minister get that agreement signed and get that $60 million to the Province of Ontario which represents one-third of our tourism market?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first point of the Hon. Member on the price of gasoline, I would tell him that I saw my good friend, the Hon. Member for Rosedale, on City TV on Sunday night and heard him state that the position of the Conservative Party was still to move toward world prices for oil in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Mazankowski:: They are above world prices now.


David P. Smith: That is not the position of this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: I seem to have touched a raw nerve, Mr. Speaker. With regard to an agreement with Ontario, yes, we have worked toward one, and we hope to have one before long.
May 23, 1984


Otto John Jelinek: When?


David P. Smith: The delay has not been on our part.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is with respect to Wayne Boden who recently escaped while on day leave. He was free for 36 hours, then was apprehended and again placed in jail. Boden raped, and then murdered four women by strangulation. Less than a year ago a psychiatric assessment said that he could murder again.
My question deals with a letter sent to me in 1976 from the former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, wherein he stated that because of the viciousness of Boden's crimes he would not be released without Cabinet approval. In view of that commitment, and the psychiatric assessment, why was Boden out on day leave?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question in general. However, I was unaware of the letter. I will take the Member's question as notice and look into it.


FORMER MINISTER'S LETTER
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is going to look into it, I will ask him to look into this as well. Can he advise me if the letter, or the thrust of the letter, sent to me by the former Solicitor General, together with the psychiatric report, is in Boden's file at the prison? If so, what authority at the prison level could have overridden the requirement for Cabinet approval?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, again I will take notice of the supplementary question and report back to the Hon. Member as soon as I can.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Is it, or is it not, the policy of the Government of Canada to allow for oil and gas drilling in Lancaster Sound?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question should be addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-
Oral Questions


Mr. Caccia:: -as to what the policy is for drilling in Lancaster Sound. He is the Minister responsible, and it seems to me the question should be addressed to him, or to the Minister who answers for him today in the House.


MINISTER'S ADVICE
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, what advice has the Minister of the Environment given to the Minister who will make the effective decision? I believe it is not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but rather the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What advice has the Minister of the Environment given to this Minister?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Hon. Member to clippings in the press which have appeared in the past two weeks. I am sure he is very aware of them, otherwise he would not be asking this question. I did write to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicating that Lancaster Sound, because of its biological richness, is one which ought to be left aside in terms of oil drilling. That letter has been made available or leaked to the press.


TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT-POSSIBLE JAPANESE PARTICIPATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the problems in the Middle East and the Gulf States, and the fact that Japan gets most of its oil from that region, I wonder whether the Government had made any arrangements, or thought of making any arrangements, with Japan, to develop tar sands' potential in western Canada on the basis that the Japanese would be given, on financing such plants, access to oil recovered in payment of its advances? The Minister will realize that that will go a long way toward solving a great deal of unemployment which exists in this country.


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend that Canada was self-sufficient in oil last year. As a matter of fact, we were net exporters of oil to the United States. We were aiming for self-sufficiency by 1980, and we achieved it in 1983. I believe the energy policies of this Government were quite effective in reaching that goal. I hope my friend will applaud such a development.
As far as the arrangements concerning the development of the tar sands are concerned, again I remind my friend that a number of steps were taken regarding the development of the tar sands last year. As far as enhanced oil recovery is concerned, projects have taken place at Cold Lake and Wolf Lake, to mention only two, and there are discussions going on


Paul Wyatt Dick: Where is he?

May 23, 1984
Business of the House
at the present time with the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Alberta concerning additional projects in that regard. There is no shortage of financing for good projects at the present time, and these discussions are going on.
If there are Japanese interested in the development of the Canadian tar sands, obviously the Government would be ready and willing to sit down with them and talk. However, we have to bear in mind our first priority, which is Canadian self-sufficiency, and we are not going to approve long-term commitments of exports of oil to other countries without first making sure that Canadians are going to be protected. We have to bear in mind that our first priority is Canadian self-sufficiency. We will not approve long-term commitments for exports of oil to other countries without first making sure that Canadians will be protected.


SUGGESTED OFFER OF SECURITY OF SUPPLY TO JAPAN
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is confusing me. First of all, he said that we are self-sufficient, and then he said that we are not self-sufficient. We do not really know. However, because he has said that we are self-sufficient, will he make an arrangement with the Japanese to give them some security of supply in consideration for their immediately opening up a tar sand plant that will provide jobs in Ontario, Alberta and the rest of the country? Canada has 1.5 million people out of work. When will the Government start using the energy potential of the country to put people back to work?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I again invite my hon. friend to look a little bit further than his nose. We were self-sufficient last year, and we want to ensure that we will be self-sufficient in oil in the future. Therefore, we will take steps to ensure that Canada will be well protected in the future in terms of oil supply.
As far as his question with respect to supposed Japanese interest is concerned, I have already answered it.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, May 22, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

BUSINESS OF	THE HOUSE


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr.	Speaker,	I	rise	on	a	matter of House
business. Perhaps the Government House Leader might be able to advise the House whether or not the Government will
be able to fulfil its commitment of last Friday and tell the House whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will in fact be appearing before the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions relating to House business are permitted on Thursday. The Hon. Member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton is aware of the usual practice of the House.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I understand that that is the usual practice of the House in order to get a weekly schedule. However, supplementary questions are frequently asked during the week, and this is a committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West rising?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I would like to raise at this time is that if committees are not able to function, that is a matter of order within the House and it would come under the jurisdiction of the House. A commitment was made by the Acting Prime Minister acknowledging that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should, in fact, appear before committee on his estimates. The Acting Prime Minister said that he would report back to the House in order that the committee could function. I think my hon. colleague who asked the question wanted to know whether or not there has been any report back with respect to the matter. I believe it is a matter of order for the House as it relates to the functioning of committees.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that his point would have been a perfectly proper question to ask the Minister during Question Period. The practice has been to entertain questions relating to House business on Thursdays. I think the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton can restrain themselves until tomorrow. At that time, the usual questions relating to-


Paul Wyatt Dick: No, that is when the committee meets.


Mr. Speaker:: Committees must resolve their problems regarding witnesses, who appears and who does not appear. It is not the practice of the House of Commons to order or instruct witnesses. That is a matter for the committee to resolve.


Paul Wyatt Dick: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Question Period will not be until two o'clock and the committee-if it is going to meet with the Minister-will be meeting before that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is well aware that it is not the normal business to settle procedures before committees on the floor of the House of Commons. These are matters for the committees to resolve. Questions relating to the business of the House are entertained regularly on Thursdays. That is the practice of the House.
May 23, 1984


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I do not for a moment question Your Honour's ruling. However, that ruling does present the House with a terrible dilemma. As you know, under the rules all estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House as of midnight, the end of May. If the Minister refuses to appear before the committee to defend his estimates-and he cannot be subpoenaed to appear before a committee-those estimates are deemed to have been reported back. That means the House has been denied the right to examine the estimates, which is the very essence of supply. In other words, Parliament is being denied one of its most important functions. I would ask Your Honour with respect: How do we get around that dilemma?


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty the Chair faces in recognizing the point made by the Hon. Member for St. John's East is that the Chair can hardly be aware of what is taking place in a committee without a report from the committee. The practice of what takes place before a committee is a matter of the committee's business. If and when a report is received from the committee-and presumably that report would be debated- there would be an opportunity for Hon. Members to express their views.
In all fairness, the Hon. Member for St. John's East has made a valid point and I always listen to him, but what does he expect the Chair to do under these circumstances? It is very difficult for the Chair to instruct a Minister, or to interfere with regard to the conduct of a committee's affairs. If the comittee reports and there is a matter arising out of the committee's report of which the Chair can take notice, the Chair will do the appropriate thing. However, there is no report from the committee. The committee has its terms of reference. Therefore, under the circumstances there is nothing which appears to the Chair that can be done at this time.
The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has been recognized three times. This will be the last time.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do believe it is incumbent upon you perhaps to listen before making any final judgment in this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I have recognized in the 12 years in which I have been in the House that, because of changing circumstances from time to time, House business has been discussed other than on Thursdays. Yesterday when I attempted to raise this matter, Mr. Speaker, you suggested that it be brought to the House as a question. Unfortunately, it was not possible today for you to see me when I rose to put a question-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, the Chair was given a list of eight names from the Whip of the Hon. Member's Party, and there were certain difficulties.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I know that there were a number of other people recognized. However, it is an important matter because the committee is sitting tomorrow before Question Period. It is a simple matter of an undertaking by the Government which
Petitions
appears on page 3865 of Hansard, given by the Acting Prime Minister. I would expect as a matter of course in dealing with House business, that a straightforward reply could be given very easily.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard the Hon. Member now for the fourth time.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to try and answer his question tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages the Fifth Report (Statutory Instruments No. 24) of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* [DOT]
*


PETITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition by several hundred residents of northern Ontario who note that approximately 1,000 residents in the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan must travel each year to Toronto and Winnipeg to receive medical treatment which is unavailable in northern Ontario. That represents an increase of 50 per cent to Toronto and an increase of 98 per cent to Winnipeg from 1976 to 1982. They also note that many of these residents must pay for the visits themselves or rely on charity. They note that the Canada Health Act calls for reasonable access to health services without undue financial barriers.
Therefore they call on Parliament to uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act and assure reasonable access to health services without undue financial barriers for the residents of northern Ontario.

May 23, 1984
Order Paper Questions


REPRESENTATION ACT, 1984 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an Act to stabilize the representation in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will dispense with the necessity of readjustment of constituency boundaries based on the 1981 census. Given that, in my opinion and that of many others, there is no need to enlarge the number of MPs, this Bill will spare the public from further confusion and expense on this account during the 1980s.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 775, 776, 777, 779 and 780.


Mr. St. Germain: Was any cost incurred by the Government for media monitoring as a result of the announcement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning his intention to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No.


Mr. St. Germain: Was any cost incurred by the Government for media monitoring as a result of the announcement by the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development concerning his intention to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party?


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: No.


Mr. St. Germain: Was any cost incurred by the Government for media monitoring as a result of the announcement by the Minister of Justice concerning his intention to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: No.


Mr. St. Germain: Was any cost incurred by the Government for media monitoring as a result of the announcement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning his intention to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No.


Mr. St. Germain: Since April I, 1983, did the Department of Employment and Immigration spend any amount for (a) electronic media monitoring services performed by private firms or individual contractors (b) print media clipping services performed by private firms or individual contractors and, if so, in each case, what amount?


Jean-Guy Dubois: No.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 756 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 756 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, when did the Williams Lake Community Development Association commence operations?
2.	Was the association granted any funds by the Government and, if so (a) on what dates (b) what amounts and, in each case, for what reason?
3.	To the knowledge of the Government, what amount does the association (a) pay for the rent of the office space (b) pay for furniture (c) budget for operations?
4.	To the knowledge of the Government, what is a list of (a) the names of all the employees and their salaries (b) the names of the board of directors and any remuneration paid to them by the association?
5.	Did the Government make any loans to the association and, if so, (a) at what rate of interest (b) for what reason (c) was there a maximum amount per loan and, if so, in each case, what amount?
6.	Were contracts or agreements signed for each loan or grant and, if so, what are the provisions of each?
May 23, 1984

7.	Were there any defaults on any loans obtained through the association and, if so (a) by whom (b) for what reason?
Return tabled.


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 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with representatives of each of the Parties on House business. I believe the Government House Leader may well be prepared to alter the sequence of the Bills to be considered this afternoon. I was wondering if the House Leader has some proposals in that regard with respect to the business of today.


Yvon Pinard: My hon. colleague is right, Sir. The changes have been made known to himself, the NDP House Leader and the Table. If he wants me to repeat them, we will be dealing with Bills C-l 1, C-8, C-7, C-16 and C-24.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bill C-l4.


Yvon Pinard: As you wish. That is all right.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement that Bill C-ll could proceed through Committee of the Whole rather than be referred to the
Currency and Exchange Act
Standing Committee. Perhaps the reference could be altered in accordance with that agreement.


Yvon Pinard: That is correct, Sir. I may outline generally the understanding we had among House Leaders on each of the Bills. On C-ll the understanding is that there is one speaker per Party and that the Bill will be passed through all stages here in this House. Therefore, the consequential amendment of the motion will be taken into account.
In so far as Bill C-7 and Bill C-8 are concerned, they will come next and the understanding is that they will be sent to a Standing Committee as opposed to Committee of the Whole. There will be one speaker per Party on Bill C-8, and I understand that debate on Bill C-7 was held a few weeks ago on a Wednesday afternoon. In so far as Bill C-16 is concerned, we will see when we reach that Bill.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-ll, an Act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I rise on a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the House for interrupting at this point. Have you called Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers? If not, was it your intention to call them today?


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary requested that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand. I called the item and there was no objection taken at that point. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair called the item and it was carried.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed it but I did not hear you call Orders of the Day. We were on House business and it seems to me that we are still in Routine Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Clearly the Chair did call Orders of the Day. I am sure the Hansard record will show that point without any question.
The Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) has the floor.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Bill we have before us, Bill C-ll to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, deals primarily with the accounting procedures used by the Exchange Fund Account to value Canada's gold reserves and to record gains on gold transactions. Additionally, it seeks to broaden somewhat the provisions under which the Minister of Finance can engage in gold transactions, clarifies and modernizes the wording of the Act, and changes its title to the "Currency Act".
The amendments proposed are of a housekeeping nature, occasioned by developments subsequent to the abandonment of an official price for gold by the International Monetary Fund

May 23, 1984
Currency and Exchange Act
in 1978. In his audits of the Exchange Fund Account beginning in 1979, the Auditor General has expressed the opinion that the policy of continuing to value the Exchange Fund Account's gold holdings at the former official price rather than at market value is not in strict conformity with the Act. Valuing the Exchange Fund Account's gold at the market price, however, has a number of drawbacks, the principal one being that it could lead to large fluctuations in the reported level of our international reserves which are unrepresentative of actual changes in those reserves. The amendments would provide for a continuation of present practice as well as for flexibility in changing the basis for valuing Canada's gold reserves, subject to the provision that the value not exceed the market price, should future circumstances warrant such a change.
The amendments would sanction explicitly the current practice of recording gains on the sale of gold as valuation gains and paying them to the Consolidated Revenue Fund over a three-year period, paralleling the treatment of valuation gains resulting from exchange rate changes. This treatment is consistent with the amendments to the Currency and Exchange Act of 1977, which distinguished between net investment income and valuation gains or losses and provided for transfers to the Consolidated Revenue Fund based on the different character of these two categories. It has the effect of smoothing year-to-year transfers to the Consolidated Revenue Fund due to abnormal and irregular movements. I should like to remark that the aforesaid changes relating to accounting practices will not affect the actual transactions of the Exchange Fund Account in any way. The Auditor General has indicated that the proposed amendments overcome the concerns expressed in his recent audits of the Exchange Fund Account.
The payment of income by the Exchange Fund Account to the Consolidated Revenue Fund is effectively only a bookkeeping entry; no cash is transferred. Income from foreign currency assets is retained by the Exchange Fund Account. The Canadian dollar equivalent which is paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund is financed by an increase in Canadian dollar advances to the Exchange Fund Account by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, so that there is no net change in cash holdings.
It is proposed to widen the provisions under which the Minister of Finance may deal in gold loans and similar transactions in order to increase the potential income of the Exchange Fund Account. It is also proposed to modernize the wording of Section 14, repeal the obsolete provisions of Section 16, and to change the Act's title to the "Currency Act", since the additional wording serves no purpose.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my presentation on this matter will be equally brief. It was rather astounding to hear an admission by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) this afternoon that, with respect to the Currency and Exchange Act, the Government has been acting illegally for some time. One immediately asks oneself why the government did not bring in amendments to the Act
before this. Why did the Government wait until this late stage in the game, some time after this matter had been brought to its attention by the Auditor General, before it presented Parliament with amendments which would allow it to operate legally? The Government is certainly not operating legally at the present time, as the Auditor General of Canada has determined.
Let us take a closer look at the Bill, Sir. First, the Government wants to drop the title, the Currency and Exchange Act, which has a historic ring to it. I do not know why it wants to change it to "An Act respecting Currency". They still use the term "the Exchange Fund" in the proposed amendments. I guess it does not really matter whether we call it the Currency Act or the Currency and Exchange Act, but I would like a further explanation on that score.
The second change in terminology, that to change the name of the "Exchange Fund" to the "Exchange Fund Account", does make sense because that is really all it is. It is not something kept strictly apart from other funds that the Government holds. It is really an accounting mechanism whereby funds which are retained in a central fund are allocated to one account or another.
I have some reservations with respect to the authority which the Minister seeks to deal in gold. The Minister always could buy, sell and lend gold. However, he had to do it himself or through his servants. This Bill would enlarge upon that so that the Minister of Finance could deal through an agent. One might ask oneself who this agent is to be. What friend of the Liberal Party is this agent likely to be? Why do we need agents to deal in gold when the Minister of Finance does not need agents to deal with securities held by the Exchange Fund? Why do we need special agents to deal in gold? Why have the words "otherwise deal in" been added? The Minister could buy, sell or lend gold before. What does it really mean when it says that he is now able to "otherwise deal in" gold? Are we to start undertaking highly speculative operations with respect to gold? I would hope not. I think enough speculation has gone on already.
Let us take another look at the clause to which I am referring, Sir. All of these things can be done "as the Minister thinks fit". Extremely wide discretion is to be granted by a Minister of the Crown. There are apparently no regulations as to how this agent is to operate or what "otherwise deal in" means. It is all left up to the Minister. He can issue whatever directions he wants. Once we have passed this Bill, the matter will be removed from any further parliamentary control.
There is the question of valuation of gold contained in the Exchange Fund Account. To a certain extent I buy the argument presented by the Minister of State for Finance that, because the price of gold has fluctuated rather widely as of late, we may need a value to put on gold other than the current market value at the date of valuation of the account. The way this matter is approached in these amendments is that the value is to be determined by the Minister at his discretion. He can put any value on that gold that he wants, so long as that
May 23, 1984

value is below the current market price. I am sure you would agree that this could give rise to some very creative-to use a word which is frequently used by members of the accounting profession-approaches to the presentation of the books of account for the Exchange Fund. If they see themselves in pretty bad shape and do not want to give that impression to the general public, they can always value the gold contained in that account at a much higher figure than the year preceding. Therefore, they can give the misleading impression that they are conducting the affairs of the Exchange Fund Account in a proper and business-like manner when in fact they are not. The fund may be sinking in value and because they put another value on the gold contained therein they give a false impression. There are certain things to be concerned with in this Bill. It is largely a housekeeping matter, but there are elements of concern contained therein.
I would also like to state that I am not fully satisfied with the way the Government of Canada has been disposing of some of the gold contained in the account for some time. Although they have not gone above board yet, I am always scared that they might adopt the same approach that President Nixon had to the GSA stockpiles in the United States. He used those stockpiles, which are supposed to be for a strategic purpose, for the objective of obtaining ready cash. He was running out of money and did not want to increase taxes. He sold off the stockpiles to get ready cash. I would not like to see the Government of Canada use our gold reserves in that manner.
When all is said and done, gold is the real money. When paper currencies and paper securities of one kind or another are no longer of value, gold will always have an inherent value. If at all possible, a nation should keep to itself a certain adequate reserve of gold. In my opinion, it is not out of line to suggest that one ounce per citizen might be a reasonable amount of gold for the nation to hold. I would hope that Canadian gold reserves would not go much below the 20 million ounce level.
In concluding my presentation on the Bill to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, I would like to make two further points, Mr. Speaker. Although this does not strictly relate to the Bill we are discussing today, I would like to give my opinion on the issue of a S1 coin. In order to buy a package of cigarettes from a vending machine, one must have about 10 quarters, maybe more in Newfoundland. It would be a lot easier if a $1 coin could be issued. I am sure the people who operate vending machines would find that attractive after a while, although it would entail some expense to change the machines. It would certainly be to the advantage of heavy smokers like myself.
The last point is that on one or two occasions in the House I have raised the issue of plastic bank notes. I understand that at the present time linen bank notes are to be discontinued and be replaced with cotton bank notes. I do not know what the
Currency and Exchange Act
advantage of one of those over the other is. I know that we grow flax, but we do not grow cotton in Canada.
It is now possible to make plastic bank notes. I have before me a bank note issued by the Government of the Isle of Man. I know I am not allowed to bring exhibits into the House but you can consider this as being a speech note, although it is a bank note. These plastic notes are much more durable than paper bank notes. They can get wet without being ruined. Their life expectancy is said to be about five years rather than a few months. They are virtually indestructible. Even at a temperature of 40 degrees below zero they do not become brittle. Apparently they would be good for Canadian climatic conditions.


An Hon. Member:: Can you light a cigar with it?


Dave Nickerson: The one thing that you cannot do with it is light a cigar.
At some point I would like a response from the Government of Canada indicating it will at least look into the possibility of issuing plastic bank notes and whether, in its opinion, it may or may not be a good idea.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to say a few words regarding Bill C-l 1, an Act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act. I listened very carefully to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) as he explained the housekeeping amendments which, by and large, provide the general thrust of the Bill. Consequently, I do not necessarily want to go over the same ground. However, I would like to make a couple of comments and identify some concerns that I have regarding the nature of Bill C-l 1.
The question has already been raised about the need for a change of title. I suppose that it is hardly worth spending much time debating the appropriateness of the new title, "An Act respecting Currency". However, it does point out the value of the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General's report recently noted that the current Act, if strictly interpreted, would mean that for accounting purposes the Government would have to value its gold reserves at the market rate and not use the currently accepted practice. Valuation of the gold reserves at the market rate tends to lead to an overvaluing of the Exchange Fund Account since if we sold the gold on the world market, the price we would get would be less than the current rate. It certainly makes a good deal of sense to follow the Auditor General's advice in this respect in terms of the value Canadians will receive.
Another change broadens the ability of the Minister of Finance to engage in gold transactions. As indicated by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), the Minister of Finance could always sell, buy or lend gold. Now he is able to use special agents to carry on this particular function in his place. One must ask what it is that encourages this particular change and what problems have existed in the past. What does it mean in terms of the possibility of the Minister involving himself in patronage practices of one kind or

May 23, 1984
Currency and Exchange Act
another? However, recognizing that as years go by different types of gold transactions between countries develop, this Bill authorizes the Minister to engage in such transactions, now using appointed agents if he feels that is appropriate.
The other major change involves treating gains received from gold sales as accounting gains rather than as current income to be included in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This is obviously an important change and one that needs to be implemented. My general concern is that there are a number of references in the Bill that would provide more discretion to be used by the Minister of Finance. When one considers that an increasing number of Bills that we debate give more discretion to the responsible Minister, it is a trend that I believe needs to be examined. While a particular Minister of Finance may fulfil his responsibilities with honour and integrity, upon reflection one does not always have that same level of confidence with respect to other individuals. Therefore, I believe that putting more discretion in the hands of Ministers opens the entire matter up to more interpretation and builds, in a sense, vagaries into the system.
However, in order not to prolong this discussion unnecessarily, we will be supporting the housekeeping amendments that essentially make up Bill C-l 1. We will do our best to pass this Bill with considerable haste to enable us to get on with other more appropriate and important debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Guilbault in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Bill C-8 as well as on Bill C-7, which will follow, we have agreed that both of these Bills will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and not to the Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed and so ordered.


SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
Roy MacLaren: that Bill C-8, an Act respecting the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, the Customs Tariff and the Export and Import Permits Act and to repeal the Anti-dumping Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 implements the legislative changes set out in the Notice of Ways and Means Motion that I tabled in the House in December. It provides for the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, it amends the Currency and Exchange Act, the Customs Tariff and the Export and Import Permits Act, and it repeals the current Anti-dumping Act. It also proposes a few consequential amendments of a technical nature to other Acts.
The Bill is the product of a lengthy consultative process that began with the publication by the then Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) of a discussion paper entitled Proposals on Import Policy in 1980. The proposals were referred to the Standing Committee on Finance for study which established a sub-committee on import policy to examine the proposals. The sub-committee held public hearings and presented its report in 1982. It accepted most of the 1980 proposals and made recommendations to deal with other issues raised during its work. Additional comments were subsequently received from the public after the issuance of the sub-committee report. The Bill now before us reflects the original proposals, the sub-committee report and the representations from the public.
Before going into details, I should like to recall the purpose of the legislative changes proposed. They are designed to ensure that the Government has the necessary authority to take greater advantage of our rights under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, and of the agreements on non-tariff measures negotiated during the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations which was concluded in 1979, in particular the agreements on anti-dumping and countervailing duties. They are particularly aimed at ensuring that Canada is equipped to deal effectively with injurious import competition and other trade problems. They will ensure that Canada's procedures are as effective as those of our main trading partners who have already adopted similar legislation.
In order to achieve these objectives, the Bill proposes changes in legislation relating to the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, to emergency safeguard action on imports and to the taking of trade measures to protect our trade interests.
The proposed Special Import Measures Act replaces the current anti-dumping and countervailing duty legislation and contains most of the legislative changes proposed in the Bill. Following this, a brief review of its provisions, I shall address other related amendments to the Customs Tariff and Export and Import Permits Act. The amendments to the Currency and Exchange Act are minor; they simply provide a firmer
May 23, 1984

basis for the regulation-making authority regarding the conversion of foreign currencies to equivalent values in Canadian dollars.
The Special Import Measures Act provides for the imposition of anti-dumping duties when Canadian producers are injured by goods imported at prices lower than in the exporting country itself. It also provides for the imposition of countervailing duties on injurious imports of goods subsidized by foreign governments. It sets out the procedures to be followed in both cases.
Under the current regime, the Department of National Revenue is responsible for investigating dumping and subsidization where they are of the opinion that the alleged dumping or subsidization is causing injury to Canadian producers. The Anti-dumping Tribunal, which will be renamed the Canadian Import Tribunal under the proposed Act, conducts the formal inquiry into the alleged injury. I should stress here that Canada's international obligations under the GATT require that anti-dumping or countervailing duties be imposed only where it has been determined that there is a direct link between the dumped or subsidized imports and the material injury to Canadian producers.
The proposed Act would bring the following main changes to the current anti-dumping and countervailing duty legislation. First, the Act would provide for parallel procedures in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. While there are similarities in current procedures there are also important differences that the Act would eliminate. Under the new legislation, the degree of ministerial discretion at various stages in the countervail proceedings will be reduced, thereby making the system more automatic as in the case of antidumping. Moreover, the new legislation will permit the investigation of countervail cases where the Canadian industry has only a small share of the domestic market or where subsidized imports are retarding the establishment of a domestic industry, as is currently the case for dumping. These and other changes I shall describe to the countervail system should make it a more responsive instrument of trade policy and increase public confidence in it.
Second, under current procedures there are no specific time limits in law for the conduct of dumping or subsidy investigations. This has led to criticisms that our procedures are too slow to be effective and created uncertainty for all parties in proceedings. The Act would provide strict time limits for the conduct of investigations into dumping or subsidization. The limits would reduce the time between the submission of a complaint by Canadian producers and the decision whether to impose provisional duties from the present six to ten months to four months in the future in most cases.
There is currently no specific legal authority for the acceptance of undertakings from exporters or their governments to eliminate the dumping or the subsidy. This procedure is permitted under the international agreements on anti-dumping and countervail. It is essentially intended to eliminate the injury caused by dumped or subsidized goods more quickly than possible with a full-scale investigation and inquiry.
Special Import Measures Act
Hence, it reduces the burden both in time and expense on all interested parties.
The Act allows for the acceptance of undertakings. I wish to stress here that undertakings would be voluntarily offered by exporters of foreign governments. Before accepting an undertaking, all interested parties, including the complainant, would be consulted. They would be free for up to 30 days after the undertaking has been accepted to request that the normal procedures be resumed.
Third, the sub-committee on import policy recommended further study of the problems of the capital goods sector. The Government has decided that it was important to address these problems now. The Act and the draft regulations made public in December contain provisions which would deal with many of the specific problems that have been raised by this industry, including those relating to the measurement of concessional export financing for the calculation of normal value and export price in dumping cases. The Act would also allow for appeals to the tribunal of any decisions made by Revenue Canada regarding the identity of the importer, an issue of considerable importance to the industry.
Fourth, at the same time as the Government wants to make Canada's anti-dumping and countervail system more effective in dealing with the injurious dumped or subsidized imports, it also wants to ensure that the system is fair and equitable. In this regard the Act will allow for the public interest to be taken specifically into account. Consumers and users, among others, will be permitted to present their views to the tribunal, which in turn may recommend application of less than the full amount of the anti-dumping or countervailing duties if in its opinion a full assessment would not be in the public interest.
The Act would also allow Revenue Canada's initial injury determinations to be challenged in an appeal to the tribunal in the same way as the legislation now permits a complainant to appeal a decision by Revenue Canada not to initiate an investigation on the basis of lack of evidence of injury.
Moreover, the Act would provide for sunset clauses. Undertakings and findings by the tribunal would lapse after a specified period of time unless a review by it leads to a determination that there is still a need for the measures. Similar sunset provisions are proposed regarding measures taken in emergency safeguard situations to deal with injurious imports which are not necessarily dumped or subsidized. This will ensure that any measure of protection against injurious imports is periodically reviewed to assess its need.
Fourth, the Act provides for greater public disclosure and better access to information in the case of investigations by Revenue Canada, while protecting information which must legitimately remain confidential. This should enhance public confidence in the import regime and is in keeping with our international commitments.
I should like to turn to the second part of the Bill dealing with other amendments which relate essentially to the Customs Tariff and Export and Import Permits Act. They are

May 23, 1984
Special Import Measures Act
designed to provide the Government with more flexibility and a wider range of measures to deal with emergency import situations. They will also provide the Government with more flexibility to enforce Canada's rights under international trade agreements and to respond to acts by other governments which adversely affect Canadian trade interests.
Currently, actions to deal with emergency import situations may take the form of a quota under the Export and Import Permits Act or of a surtax under the Customs Tariff. Because surtaxes cannot now be imposed beyond 180 days without parliamentary approval, this measure has been generally used to deal with short-term, price-related problems. However, there may be times when surtax would provide a more effective remedy than quotas to deal with longer-term problems. This Bill would amend the Customs Tariff to allow for the application of surtax actions beyond 180 days where an injury finding has been made by an independent tribunal. Where there is no such finding, parliamentary approval for the extension would continue to be required. Moreover, any surtax action could be revoked by Parliament at any time. The Bill would also amend the Customs Tariff to permit the application of surtax after a specified volume of imports has been reached.
The Export and Import Permits Act would be amended to allow the collection of information with respect to goods in order to ascertain whether the importation of such goods is causing injury to Canadian production. Such monitoring is impossible under the current Act. The Bill would amend the Customs Tariff to provide the Government with broader scope to respond to the acts of other governments adversely affecting trade in Canadian goods and services and to enforce Canada's rights under a trade agreement.
There is one more amendment to the Customs Tariff which I should like to bring to the attention of the House. The Bill proposes new provisions which would provide specific authority to take measures in the form of a surcharge on imports for balance of payments purposes. The GATT allows countries to restrict imports to deal with general balance of payments problems. While with flexible exchange rates this provision may have less relevance than in the past, the Government wants to ensure that it is legally entitled to exercise all its GATT rights should the occasion demand.
As I have already indicated earlier, this Bill is the result of a lengthy consultative process which permitted all interested parties to present their views. Its provisions reflect a serious attempt by the Government to take those often divergent views into account.
The legislative changes contained in the Bill are needed soon in order to equip Canada with speedy and effective import policy instruments which are at the same time fair and equitable to deal with injurious imports and other trade problems. Accordingly, I welcome the work of the standing committee with regard to this Bill. I further welcome the agreement among all Parties in the House to give speedy approval to this legislation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in June last year a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, with the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) and the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) working together, produced a report which was accepted by the standing committee and placed with the House. It was from that report that Bill C-8 was drafted. To a large extent it almost completely adopted the recommendations of the sub-committee.
The Bill is long past due. Today in the House the issue of Irish beef was raised. The question is one of subsidy on imports. Until now it is my understanding that countervailing duties and anti-dumping provisions really only applied where goods were being sold in the Canadian market at less than the price offered in the foreign market. That is often the case because there are massive domestic subsidies on products in the markets from which they come. Therefore we wind up with Italian canned tomatoes and Spanish canned tomatoes being brought into Canada at a price less than the cost of the tomatoes themselves as a result of the subsidies on agricultural products in Europe.
Recently the Chinese had a price for paint brushes and a price for hog bristles. One could either buy a paint brush complete with hog bristles or just the hog bristles. If one wanted to buy only the hog bristles, the price was somewhat higher than it was if the hog bristles were made into a paint brush. That kind of trade is not fair trade. Something must be done-and in that particular case it was done-to ensure that Canadian industry is not unduly and unfairly damaged. In that particular case the countervail was as much as 500 per cent. It is evident that work has been taking place. Of course, the problem is that the present system is somewhat cumbersome or somewhat slow. It requires a great deal of money in terms of lawyers' fees, briefs and so on. It is hoped that the new Act will expedite some of the necessary action which must be taken.
We live in a world where a number of countries are striving to grab hard currency at any price. They do not care whether or not they are fair in trade. They will sell products from state-owned corporations at any price just to obtain hard currency. Therefore, we have to be on our toes and ensure that actions of that nature do not destroy our own domestic manufacturers and producers. This Bill is the kind of Bill we need to do that.
The ways of the world are becoming very sophisticated. Sometimes a subsidy is not directed to a product. It may be a subsidy in terms of transportation or in terms of the creation of a factory itself. The numbers of subsidies and the ways foreign countries organize their promotion in an unfair fashion are as unlimited as the imaginings of man. It is hoped that this particular Bill, getting at subsidies of every nature given to those who export to Canada which unfairly affect the price of goods in Canada, will be used to provide our own producers with an element of fairness. I do not think any of us see this as a new tariff Bill. We want free trade but not unfair trade. This is an important measure to ensure that we have fair trade.
May 23, 1984

It is in that light that I am happy this Party is recommending that the Bill go to the standing committee for further study and detailed analysis. A number of Canadian manufacturers have had difficulty with the Anti-dumping Tribunal in the past, a number of importers and a number of processors. They may want to have their case presented to the committee. In our view, the Bill is an improvement over the present legislation and should receive the support of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guibauit):: Mr. MacLaren, seconded by Mr. Smith, moved that Bill C-8, an Act respecting the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, the Customs Tariff and the Export and Import Permits Act and to repeal the Anti-dumping Act be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to determine whether it is Bill C-7 that is now before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Bill now before the House is Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff. We are on a new Bill. I remind the House that an agreement was reached earlier between the Parties and this Bill will proceed to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs instead of going to a Committee of the Whole. Is there unanimous consent for such a proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Debate.
Customs Tariff


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I understand from consulting the Clerk at the Table that on May 2, in addressing some remarks to Bill C-7, I had utilized most of the time available to me. In the two or three minutes remaining, if I am correct in the information I obtained, I would like to point out that Bill C-7 raises two major issues. The first is the administration of the new level of exemptions by Revenue Canada. The second is specific concerns that relate to the export trade.
By way of concluding my remarks on Bill C-7, which I commenced on May 2, I would like to say this. I hope and expect that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) will instruct his officers that in administering the new laws, with the double exemptions on goods brought into Canada by persons returning from foreign travel, they will exercise good judgment and not lead innocent citizens of Canada into a trap with respect to goods they bring back from their travels abroad. We have seen in this House of Commons and elsewhere that activities by officers of Revenue Canada have caused a certain amount of grief among Canadian taxpayers. We would not want this extended to the activities of the Customs and Excise Branch of the Department with respect to goods brought into Canada by Canadians who are travelling abroad. I again raise that caution and request that the Minister of National Revenue exercise care on behalf of Canadians.
With respect to export trade, which is part and parcel of this Bill because it contains provisions affecting the importation of goods from Third World countries, I again remind the House that the economic future of Canada is in great part dependent upon its substantive expansion of international trade.
It has been said by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that Canada should get back to its early 1970 share of international trade when we enjoyed approximately 5 per cent of all international trade. That would create in Canada 1.4 million jobs. By expanding our role in international trade, we would create jobs within Canada that would virtually eliminate the officially unemployed in Canada. That is not put forward as a solution but rather as a goal at which Government can aim in attempting to resolve the most important economic problem in Canada, namely unemployment. A great part of that solution is to expand our participation in international trade.
It has also been said that $ 1 billion in terms of international trade and exports will create, at 1984 levels, 17,000 jobs in Canada. If we make that the aim and goal of our economic policies in Canada, we can look forward to virtual elimination of unemployment in Canada over a period of time. Both of those matters and thoughts should be kept in mind in relation to Bill C-7.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: At this point in our proceedings a ten-minute period is provided for questions and comments. Are there questions of the Hon. Member? Debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair would like to be guided by the House. It was mentioned previously that some form of agreement might have been reached or that we would deal with it when we reach it, as stated earlier by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Are there any special instructions from Members of the House of Commons?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that there have been some discussions with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) with respect to what we consider to be a small but very important, indeed an extremely important, amendment to the schedule with respect to the application of the Act to fishing vessels, to include all fishing vessels in the schedule. I believe there is widespread support in all Parties with respect to an amendment to the schedule. I know the Minister of State for Finance has been canvassing this matter within his Department in terms of the policy which might be appropriate.
It would certainly be helpful if the Minister of State for Finance could address the question as to whether we could move to an amendment as suggested to him. I am sure he would find there would be unanimous consent with respect to whatever technicalities are required, whether it be by way of proceeding to a Ways and Means Motion, if that were necessary, or whatever authority is required to have the amendment made to the legislation.
It is this kind of co-operation for which we in the Official Opposition are well known. The House Leader will understand that we are trying to make Parliament work, as usual. If the Minister of State for Finance is prepared to consider this very constructive suggestion made by members of my Party with respect to an amendment, he will find that it will certainly facilitate the passage of this important legislation.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the offer by the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition to allow Parliament to work better in the future than in the recent past. I thank him for his co-operation.
It is true that there was a clear understanding that if we were to agree to the kind of amendment referred to by the Hon. Member, we could dispose of the Bill through all stages
with one speaker per Party. It was not clear, if we were not to agree to the amendment, that there would not be one or two more speakers from the Official Opposition. For the time being I would prefer to let the Minister responsible deliver his speech on second reading. We would then have a better indication of what he intends to do. It is his decision. He may have good reason to agree or disagree. I therefore suggest that we start debate on second reading stage and then we will see what happens.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, the position put forward by the House Leader for the Conservative Party is the wish of the entire House. Certainly I think it would be informative to the House to know where we are and how we are to prepare for this. It may be possible for the Minister to make a statement on the acceptability of the amendment. By putting the amendment forward we were led to believe-and it was confirmed by the Government House Leader-that the Bill could in fact be placed in danger. The largest part of the economy of shipbuilding in Canada will relate to offshore oil exploration among other things, so this is an extremely dangerous area. I wonder if the Minister might give an indication to the House whether he would be prepared to accept this very worth-while amendment and let us know prior to entering the debate whether we are preparing to pass the Bill through all stages-which we would very much like to do this afternoon-or whether procedural gamesmanship will put this very important piece of legislation beyond the reach of the House. We would like to see the Bill passed this afternoon with the amendment.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two clarifications with respect to the last intervention made by the Hon. Member. First, I would suggest that he speak with his House Leader. There was never any firm agreement that we would agree to the amendment. Therefore, there was a possibility that we would pass the Bill through all stages this afternoon, maybe with a few more speakers, and without the amendment. That was a possibility. There was no firm agreement to bring in the amendment. I was not able to give that commitment.
Second, he is seeking a statement by the Minister. That is exactly what I just indicated the Minister would do when he started debate on second reading.


Roy MacLaren: that Bill C-16, an Act to apply the customs and excise jurisdiction of Canada to the continental shelf of Canada and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will address the question which the House Leader for the Official Opposition raised, but first I should like to deal with the substance of the Bill itself. It is legislation which will fill a vacuum in Canadian law and will have significant positive effects on the ability of Canadian manufacturers to compete on fair and equitable terms in supplying goods used in the exploration and development of Canada's offshore petroleum reserves.
May 23, 1984

As a result of the Notice of Ways and Means Motions originally tabled in June of last year and subsequently retabled in December, Bill C-16 has been in effect on a provisional basis since June 30, 1983. Bill C-16 implements the customs and tariff aspects of the offshore policies announced by the Government in January, 1983.
More specifically, the Bill extends Canada's customs and excise legislation beyond the 12-mile territorial limit to the outer edge of the continental shelf, or to a distance of 200 miles from shore, whichever is farther. Second, it eliminates the tariff preference on Commonwealth-built ships engaged in coasting and the preferences on other vessels and floating structures from both Commonwealth and developing countries. Third, it reduces to 20 per cent the 25 per cent rate of duty on vessels and floating structures used for petroleum drilling. Fourth, it clarifies the dutiable status of other vessels and floating structures.
Most of the exploration offshore has taken place beyond the 12-mile territorial limit. Until the provisional implementation of Bill C-16, it was not subject to Canada's customs and excise laws. With the increase in the level of resource activity on the continental shelf, Canadian manufacturers expressed concern about serious problems that they were facing in attempting to supply goods because of predatory pricing by foreign competitors.
Under international law, Canada has sovereignty over resource activities on its shelf, so it was decided to extend to these activities the same customs and excise rules and procedures under which domestic and foreign companies have to operate within the 12-mile limit.
Bill C-16 means that foreign goods used beyond the 12-mile limit are now subject to regular customs duties and excise taxes. It also means that legislation providing for anti-dumping and countervailing duties can be applied where imports are causing injury to Canadian production. The extension of the customs and excise regime covers only goods used in resource activities and not goods used in other activities such as fishing.
The economic impact of extending the customs and excise regime was carefully studied before we decided to introduce this legislation. It was recognized that the application of duties would increase the cost of goods used in the offshore and would have an effect on the cost of exploration. The cost impact, however, will be lessened because of Petroleum Incentive Program grants and tax savings and should have a minimal impact on the level of exploration. Other factors such as petroleum prices, the supply and demand for offshore equipment, and interest rates will have more effect on rates of return and exploration activity.
The new measures will have a substantial beneficial effect on the ability of Canadian industry to compete in supplying goods to the offshore. It is estimated that the level of offshore activity will require capital expenditures of approximately $10 billion over the next ten years. Without the extension of the customs and excise regime, Canadian shipbuilders and other manufacturers would be hard pressed to capture many of the contracts for these goods. With the customs jurisdiction exten-
Customs and Excise
sion, it is estimated that about $3 billion worth of installations and vessels will be built in Canada without the need for government subsidies. This action should also have some import substitution effect with respect to other goods required in the offshore.
There will be little, if any, net effect on the revenues and expenditures of the Government. While there will be additional revenue from duties and taxes, this will be more than offset by the expenditures relating to increased PIP grants and corporate tax savings. Those expenditures in turn will be offset by the termination of the 9 per cent production subsidy under the shipbuilding industry assistance program. The elimination of that subsidy was one of the measures announced as part of the new shipbuilding policy in January of last year.
One aspect of the new coasting trade policy announced by the then Minister of Transport on January 6, 1983 is the elimination of the preferences on Commonwealth vessels engaged in Canada's coasting trade. With the abrogation of the British Commonwealth Merchant Agreement and the phasing-out of tariff preferences on British goods, it was considered that the unrestricted entry of British vessels into our coasting trade was both outdated and anomalous. Bill C-16, therefore, accordingly amends the Customs Tariff and the Canada Shipping Act to eliminate the tariff preference on Commonwealth vessels used in coasting.
Further, in view of the termination of the production subsidy under the shipbuilding industry assistance program, it was decided that if the tariff rate on vessels was to be effective, the preferences accorded under the general preferential tariff should also be withdrawn. As a result of these amendments, all vessels and floating structures, except those used in drilling for petroleum, are dutiable at a uniform rate of 25 per cent regardless of country of origin.
The coasting trade policy announcement also indicated that there would be a continuation of the practice of allowing temporary entries of foreign vessels when no suitable Canadian vessels are available. It is the current practice to collect duty on one-one hundred and twentieth of the value of these vessels for each month engaged in coasting. It is intended to continue this practice by Order in Council pursuant to a new provision in the Customs Tariff. The new Order in Council will also provide for full duty exemptions on vessels temporarily used to move goods between west and east coasts or between Canadian ports via a foreign port, and certain cruise vessels, again if no suitable Canadian vessels are available.
It has been suggested that the partial duty payments on vessels temporarily engaged in coasting provides Canadian shipbuilders with insufficient tariff protection and should be increased. We have studied these proposals carefully and concluded that the current level of duty payments is equitable and reasonable. Foreign vessels are permitted to engage in coasting activity only when no suitable Canadian vessels are available. In view of this, the only real effect of increasing duty payments on these vessels would be higher costs for the

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise
shipping industry. In other words, Canadian shipbuilders would not seem to benefit to any extent from such action. There may, however, be scope for tightening up the criteria used to determine whether or not suitable Canadian vessels are available for particular activities, and this is being examined.
It has been suggested that vessels and floating structures used in the offshore should be dutiable at a 10 per cent rate, the same rate applied to most equipment used in petroleum exploration on land. The 10 per cent rate is based on recommendations made by the Tariff Board in a report in the 1960s. It is perfectly clear that the 10 per cent rate was meant to apply to equipment used on land and not to vessels and floating equipment. Despite this, it has come to our attention that some vessels and floating structures have entered Canada at the 10 per cent rate. Therefore, the Bill includes tariff amendments to prevent any recurrence of this, and to remove any doubts about the proper dutiable status of these goods.
Notwithstanding these amendments, in recognition of the high cost of exploration in the offshore it was decided that the 25 per cent rate on vessels and structures used in drilling should be reduced to 20 per cent. The lower rate should not have any significant effect on the ability of Canada's shipbuilders to compete, but will help offset some of the higher costs that petroleum companies face as a consequence of the new offshore measures.
A great deal of thought was given to the manner in which this legislation should be introduced so as to lessen the initial impact on users of foreign equipment, while at the same time providing them with an incentive to buy Canadian goods in the future. With this in mind Bill C-16 provides duty and tax exemptions or "grandfather rights" for goods on site in the new jurisdiction on June 30, 1983, the effective date of this legislation.
It also provides exemptions for goods ordered before the Government announced its new offshore policies in January of 1983. The exemptions for foreign-owned goods are limited, in most instances, to the duration of the leases under which they are operating on the shelf. Similar grandfather rights have been introduced in connection with the elimination of the tariff preferences on Commonwealth ships engaged in coastal trading.
Since the announcement of the new offshore measures, we have received a number of inquiries and comments from our trading partners. In essence, they are concerned that the measures introduce new elements of protectionism. When we reviewed the desirability of extending customs and excise jurisdiction, careful consideration was given to the international implications of such action. Let me assure the House that we view the extension of the customs and excise regime as fully consistent with international law. Indeed, similar action has already been taken by the United States.
The related tariff amendments aimed at rectifying current and potential anomalies in the dutiable status of vessels and floating structures are purely technical with no substantive implications for our obligations under the GATT. We have nevertheless notified the GATT of the action taken.
In conclusion, I would like to state that the Government has received strong support for this initiative from various sectors of the Canadian economy, such as the shipbuilders, as well as from several Hon. Members on both sides of the House. As was to be expected, we also received a number of representations from importers and users of vessels and other equipment urging modification or cancellation of the new policies, or at least a delay in their implementation. We are not ready to do this. The extension of the custom and excise regime is, in our view, necessary if Canada is to exercise economic sovereignty in matters affecting resource development on its continental shelf and to provide its business community with an environment in which it can compete on a fair and equitable basis. This legislation is a reasonable compromise between the necessity of keeping offshore resource exploration costs down and the desirability of having Canadian manufacturers participate to the greatest possible extent in supplying goods to the offshore exploration. The generous grandfather rights reduce the initial impact of the measures.
I should now like to turn for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to the question raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition and by the representative of the New Democratic Party with regard to Schedule B of the Bill now before us. Hon. Members will recognize that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that Canadian shipbuilders and other marine suppliers have a fair and equitable opportunity to supply the petroleum exploration within our 200-mile limit. In providing this legislation, however, the occasion was taken in the schedule to the Bill to reorder, as it were, or to place in one schedule the various tariff rates which affect all types of ships, including fishing vessels exceeding 30.5 metres in length. Fishing vessels under 30.5 metres in length have incurred a duty since the 1950s but, equally, vessels over 30 metres in length have entered Canada free under the general preferential tariff.
The Bill now before us does not change in any way the regime pertaining to fishing vessels. Vessels under 30 metres will continue to incur a duty; those over 30 metres will continue to enter duty free. This is a policy which has been pursued by governments on both sides of the House since the 1950s. However, the placing of all of the tariff items pertaining to vessels under one schedule has drawn the attention of some Hon. Members of the House to the fact that fishing vessels measuring 30 metres or longer do enter duty free. It has been the contention of certain Hon. Members that the occasion should now be taken to impose a tariff on all such vessels comparable to the tariff now incurred by fishing vessels of under 30 metres. We have had one or two representations recently from shipbuilding interests-I might say very few-to consider such a change.
But we have equally had some representations from some fishing interests opposing such a change. We have also had in mind that if we were to change the tariff, that is to say impose a tariff on fishing vessels measuring over 30 metres, our trading partners could interpret this as a form of protectionism
May 23, 1984

which could in turn cause some difficulties for Canada in its general trade relations.


Raymond John Skelly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister just made an error which is so important he might want to correct it. It was not one or two shipbuilding interests, it was representatives from the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association which represents all shipbuilders in Canada. I wonder if he might wish to correct that.


Roy MacLaren: I have noted the comments of the Hon. Member opposite. We have not only received such a representation but, as I indicated, we have received one or two representations from individual shipbuilding interests as well. I ask the Hon. Member to recognize that equally we have had indications from some fishing interests, an industry which has been passing through a very difficult time recently, I hardly need remind the House, that we should not impose any such increase in duties. Equally we have kept in mind the recommendations of the Kirby Commission which would have the Government eliminate all duties on fishing vessels, whether above or below 30 metres in length.
Be that as it may, the situation seemed to us one that warranted rapid but careful consideration of the interests involved, whether they be the shipbuilding industry on one side or the fishing industry on the other side. With that in mind, the Government in past weeks has undertaken an extensive survey of the opinion in the fishing industry and shipbuilding industries as well as in, for example, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and relevant provincial Governments, about their views on the possibility of imposing a duty on fishing vessels over 30 metres in length so as to prevent any loss of production or employment at Canadian shipyards and in allied industries.
We have undertaken such a quick survey, Mr. Speaker. The adoption of the Bill this afternoon will in no way change the present tariff status of fishing vessels entering Canada which are over 30 metres in length. What we would propose to do is analyse the results of our survey in consultation with the private sector and then we will be in a better position to decide how best to act. That can be done through a Ways and Means motion at any time. I would hope that Members opposite would agree that the prudent and well advised way to proceed this afternoon is to adopt the Bill as we had discussed in previous informal contacts and then proceed separately with regard to tariffs on fishing vessels in light of the survey and consultations that the Government is currently undertaking.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the Minister is not required to answer questions at this stage of debate. However, in view of the fact that there are relatively few people who are likely to take part in the debate, I was wondering if he would consent to answer questions. The Minister has certainly not exhausted any reasonable length of time in his presentation of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Our Standing Orders do not call for questions and comments in the
Customs and Excise
first round of speakers. If unanimous consent is asked for, I will inquire of the House if there is unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Debate.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the remarks of the Minister on Bill C-16, let me indicate our disappointment that he would not accept questions. That would allow us to bear down on the areas of difficulty which Bill C-16 presents. It might allow us to resolve any differences of opinion which might exist. I think the will of the House is to support Bill C-16 as being not only essential for the development of the Canadian offshore and shipbuilding industries but, indeed, long overdue as evidenced by the fact that the effective date of the Bill is June 30, 1983. If we had the opportunity of questioning the Minister, it might accelerate the process of passing the Bill. However, I am left with little alternative but to review on behalf of the Official Opposition our views with respect to Bill C-16, although we support the provisions of the Bill in substance.
The Bill in effect extends the territory of Canada to include the Continental Shelf as defined in Clause 2. That is basically the 200-mile zone that now exists off the coasts of Canada, brought about by international agreement. In the future, commencing with the effective date of this Bill, which as I have indicated is June 30, 1983, the territory of Canada for customs and excise purposes will extend to the limit of that 200-mile zone. That measure is overdue and quite necessary in the circumstances.
In the result, Mr. Speaker, the Bill relates to two very important areas. I do not think any of us will quarrel with the specific measures designed to implement this extension of jurisdiction in the application of the customs and excise laws of Canada. However, as I have indicated, we do want to consider the two main elements involved in this process. Those are the effect on the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and the offshore industry which has been so active in the past few years off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and which shows every sign of being a substantial economic force in the future if we take the right steps to manage and encourage this industry and those who are involved or might be involved in it in the future. Therefore, 1 want to deal with those two areas of shipbuilding and offshore development as they are affected by Bill C-16 and the measures that will be imposed once the Bill is enacted.
With respect to the Canadian shipbuilding industry, I heard the Minister indicate that there would be benefits of $10 billion over the next 10 years as a result of the measures taken in Bill C-16. It is a little difficult to understand what the Minister means by this allegation, because for the last few years the value of the shipbuilding industry in Canada has approached $1 billion. In fact, in 1982, the value of shipbuild-

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise
ing in Canada was $1.1 billion. It dropped substantially in 1983 to a value of $739 million. Expressing that in terms of tonnage, Mr. Speaker, there were approximately 18,900 tonnes of new orders in 1983. Looking at that in terms of employment, that meant that approximately 14,000 persons were employed in Canadian shipyards in 1983.
I think we must consider that as a major factor in relation to these kinds of economic provisions. We have said time and again in the House of Commons that the major economic problem in Canada is unemployment and that it should be the goal and aim of any measures taken by the Government to reduce the amount of unemployment in Canada. It is in that context that I want to make my remarks concerning the provisions of Bill C-16 as they relate to the Canadian shipbuilding industry. We are trying to reduce unemployment in Canada and create more jobs and more job opportunities.
It is no exaggeration to say that acceleration and enhancement of the Canadian shipbuilding industry would result in thousands more jobs for Canadians. It is no exaggeration to say that the 20,000 now employed in the Canadian shipbuilding industry, which was reduced to 14,000 in 1983, could be dramatically increased by substantial increases in the amount of ship construction in Canada. How are we going to do that, Mr. Speaker? I will refer to the remarks made by the Minister in his address.
The Minister said that as a result of measures such as those included in Bill C-16 it would be unnecessary to subsidize the Canadian shipbuilding industry. I want to challenge that remark by the Minister. Looking world-wide at shipbuilding, and particularly at countries such as Poland, not to mention South Korea and other Third World nations which are becoming heavily involved in shipbuilding, one notices some very dramatic factors which affect Canada's shipbuilding industry and thereby affect Canadians. The major factor is simply the amount of government subsidization provided for shipbuilding in the countries I have mentioned.
A few years ago there were many difficulties at the Gdansk shipyards in Poland. The workers were on strike, and so on. We recognized then that the shipbuilding activity in Gdansk, Poland, was a type of unemployment project. There was no need at that point in time for the ships which were being constructed in the shipyards. Because of the world-wide economic downturn, there was no need for increased activity in ship construction. Yet the Gdansk shipyards were turning out large vessel after large vessel. It was really a kind of unemployment insurance.
If Canada had to compete in that kind of environment with a nation like Poland, which was prepared to spend millions of dollars subsidizing the construction of vessels for the world merchant marine trade, the industry would require very substantial assistance. I do not see how that is going to change a lot because of the enactment of Bill C-16. The amount of government subsidization applied to shipbuilding activities in countries such as Poland and South Korea is enormous. It is a much larger proportion than 20 per cent of the value of the construction. It would amount to millions of dollars. In fact, if
we applied a large portion of our expenditures on unemployment insurance, which exceed $10 billion annually, to the shipbuilding industry, it is doubtful whether we could compete with nations like South Korea and Poland in ship construction.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the provisions protective of Canadian shipbuilding in relation to the vessels and other marine equipment referred to in Bill C-16 are absolutely essential. However, even when enacted, they will not breathe new life into the Canadian shipbuilding industry. With respect to shipbuilding in Canada, we must carefully analyse the international situation. We must determine exactly what is occurring in the nations with which Canada must compete with respect to vessel construction. We must determine, as a matter of government policy, whether the Government is willing to meet the kind of subsidization which is being provided in those competing nations. As I said, I have particularly in mind places like Poland and South Korea.
Japan and other shipbuilding nations are in competition too, but it is not clear what kind and character of subsidization they have. The Japanese would have us believe that their shipyards are more efficient, their workers are more productive and that there is no direct subsidization. In South Korea I do not think there is any pretence that their ability to produce vessels at much lower total costs than nations like Canada is not related to some very specific financial subsidization of the yards, in addition to whatever effective work measures and productive measures they have introduced.
As I understand it, the Canadian shipbuilding industry does not take the position that it is less productive or that its workers are less efficient than those in foreign shipyards. I think it is a fair statement on behalf of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and particularly on behalf of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association, that Canadian shipbuilders can compete internationally if the rules of the game are the same. That is to say, if there is no subsidization in terms of financial assistance which can take the form of low interest loans, direct dollar payments or whatever, Canada can compete. However, if there is subsidization, Canadian shipyards must have the same kind and character of subsidization in order to compete. It is as simple as that.
As the Minister and all Members know, one form of protection from competition is tariff barriers. That is what the Government has resorted to in Bill C-16. No Canadian wants tariff barriers unless they are essential. We would all like to compete in a free market worldwide, but that is not possible. We must take the realities of international trade and our ability to compete in international trade into consideration. That is why we endorse tariff protection as an ad hoc essential measure. Once we admit that we need that kind of protection in an industry such as shipbuilding, we must consider the exact kind of protection which is provided.
There is no way that a Member of the Official Opposition who does not have the facts and figures which are available to the Government and Government officers can make a judgement as to whether the specific numbers presented in Bill C-16 are appropriate in the circumstances. We must accept the
May 23, 1984

Minister's judgment that a rate of 20 per cent is sufficient protection. Time will tell whether the Minister is correct. However, we can examine the object of the tariff, that is to say the application to vessels and other marine equipment. That is where we quarrel with the exemption of the tariff with respect to vessels over 100 feet. The Minister prefers 30.5 metres.
Our quarrel is that the historic reason for this exemption of fishing vessels over 100 feet has been lost. I believe this is accurate in that the exemption came into existence at a time when the Canadian fishing industry had to compete with foreign fleets in the deep sea or so-called offshore fishery. At that time Canadian ships would not only have to compete for catch, but for the processing and eventual marketing of the fish that were caught with nations like Portugal and iron curtain countries like Russia.
Therefore this measure was implemented under the appropriate legislation to allow for that kind of competitive situation, and in recognition of the disadvantage to Canadian fishermen if they had to pay a higher amount for their vessels.
However, in 1984 we have a 200-mile zone, as Bill C-16 makes clear. Canadian fishermen are not competing directly with foreign fishermen, at least in the sense that Canada has the right to eliminate foreign nations from fishing the 200-mile zone. If it allows such fishing, it is done so under permit and licence from the Government of Canada. Therefore it can be fairly said that this kind of special protection is not required for international competitive reasons.
Having said that, I have in effect made the case for the Canadian shipbuilding industry which wants to have the advantage of competing for future fishing vessel construction. I can assure the House that future fishing vessel construction would be mainly for vessels in excess of 100 feet. Of course, it would be vital for the Canadian shipbuilding industry to have the opportunity to participate in what may be a very substantial construction program.
Having made the case for the Canadian shipbuilding industry, I want to respond to my own case on behalf of the fishing industry. I know that the Fisheries Council of Canada has grave reservations about the elimination of that exemption. I can say that all Members of the House, Government and Opposition, are between the proverbial rock and the hard place. We do not know whether to side with the Canadian shipbuilding industry and remove the exemption for fishing vessels over 100 feet, or to side with the fishing industry and keep the exemption.
I offer the Minister a base for making the decision. That decision is Canadian jobs. We want more jobs and if they can be provided by the shipbuilding industry on the basis of the elimination of this exemption, then that is the way it should go. If it can be provided by the Canadian fishing industry by way of taking advantage of the continuance of this exemption for fishing vessels over 100 feet, then that should be done.
On behalf of my colleagues, I say to the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association, who made one represen-
Customs and Excise
tation, and to the Fisheries Council of Canada who made the opposite representation, that we want to decide in the direction that will provide more jobs for Canadians and eliminate a portion of the unemployment faced by the 1.5 million Canadians now unemployed, not to mention another million who are employed at jobs below their qualifications of those employed part time. While we would like to see this exemption removed with a view to creating more jobs in the shipbuilding industry, we recognize that if it would be to the grave disadvantage of the Canadian fishing industry in terms of job creation in that industry, we understand the basis for the decision.
I will leave the Minister with one thought on that aspect of the matter. It is anticipated that as a result of the restructuring of the Atlantic fishing industry there could be tremendous momentum in the fishing industry over the next years, or decade. This might result in very substantial construction of fishing vessels in the range of over 100 feet. Therefore we want to look very carefully at the projection of that situation, because we could be talking about millions and millions of dollars in fishing vessel construction. If the level of fishing vessel construction was the same as the past few years, perhaps it would not be such a grave problem. But anticipating a substantial increase in the need for fishing vessels means that we would want to look at that situation very carefully.
Having dealt with the problems as they relate to Canada's shipbuilding industry in relation to Bill C-16, I want to talk about the offshore industry, particularly as it relates to the Province of Nova Scotia, and also to the Province of Newfoundland. Both provinces now enjoy substantial activities in their offshore areas resulting from the energy exploration taking place off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In the case of Newfoundland, there is the potential of developing the oil reserves in the Hibernia field. In the case of Nova Scotia it is the gas reserves off Sable Island and Venture.
Let me indicate the basis for offshore energy development being vital to the future of Nova Scotia. This is an industry that is worth $ 1 billion a year at almost current rates. Furthermore, there has been a projection in terms of the value of the offshore industry in relation to Nova Scotia. In 1982, the amount spent on offshore activity was $220 million. That is money that is alleged to float back into the economy. In 1983 the amount increased to $579.4 million. According to the Canadian Oil and Gas Administration, Nova Scotia consequently enjoyed that level of expenditure of offshore activity in 1983. When one considers the formula that $1 million in expenditures provides 30 to 40 jobs, depending on the level of that employment, we are considering a very substantial number of jobs for Nova Scotia. In that respect it is said that the offshore activity pumped approximately $101 million directly into Nova Scotia in terms of supply and service there and produced 1,400 jobs for Nova Scotians.
I do not know how these figures are derived and I only put them on the record to indicate how substantial this industry might be for Nova Scotia.
According to a May 8, 1984, report in the Chronicle Herald, the value of agreements under the legislation adminis-

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise
tered by the Canadian Oil and Gas Administration would result in exploration activity in total value of $702 million off the coast of Nova Scotia. It is easy to see why offshore exploration is the hope for the future in Nova Scotia.
I want to give two specific examples of how the offshore activity affects an area like Nova Scotia. The first example is a small company called M & M Manufacturing Company Limited in Fall River in the constituency of Halifax West. It is in business, and succeeding in business as a result of the offshore activity. The President of that company, Melvin Mattie says that business is great. He employs people in that small community near Fall River and estimated that his revenues last year would be $1.5 million, increasing to $2 million in the following year. That is an example of a small business that was created and has been successfully operated on the basis of the offshore industry. That is how jobs are created for Nova Scotians in relation to offshore development.
A great issue in Nova Scotia today is the position taken by the various Liberal candidates with respect to the Petroleum Incentives Program. The notion exists that some leadership candidates are not in favour of the Petroleum Incentives Program. Of course, those candidates who are not in favour of this program will receive very few votes in Nova Scotia. What the Government will do in the future with the Petroleum Incentives Program is a matter of real concern. Let me point out that the amounts involved in the government's Petroleum Incentives Program are immense. We are talking about an expenditure of $4.7 billion over the life of the program. The Government must ensure that these massive amounts of money are converted into real benefits for Nova Scotians and all Canadians. That is why I again refer to the importance of Bill C-16 which hopefully will ensure that the vessels and other equipment used in the offshore industry will be Canadian made.
In that respect I want to point out and underline that we are quite late with this kind of measure. I was amazed when the Minister on introducing this Bill referred to the fact that in some areas there are no suitable Canadian vessels. I can tell the Minister why there are no suitable Canadian vessels. There are vessels that serve oil rigs around the world which have been in existence for a number of years. There is no equivalent industry in Canada. Not having an offshore industry in Canada we did not have the rigs and the service vessels.
If we are going to allow Canadians to participate in this aspect of the offshore oil industry, namely, the construction of rigs and service vessels, Mr. Speaker, then we have to provide some lead time. We cannot take the position that there are no existing vessels and rigs, so we will allow foreign vessels and rigs to be brought into the 200-mile zone to service the Canadian oil industry. We have to stop it now. We have to say "no more foreign vessels". That will allow Canadian shipyards to go to work to construct the vessels and rigs required. Then we will have Canadian vessels.
If I do not make myself clear, let me express it as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we create an industry where there was no industry, such as the offshore oil industry, we cannot expect to have all the articles of that industry in place. If we make the statement that we do not have and we will not have the equipment, then that prophecy will be fulfilled, Mr. Speaker. In other words, if we do not take steps to allow Canada to gain entry into the industry, it will never happen.
In that connection, I want to underline the work done by the Minister of Development in Nova Scotia, the Hon. Roland J. Thornhill, who has taken a very close look at Nova Scotia's participation in the offshore oil industry, particularly in terms of Nova Scotia benefits. It may be of interest to Members of the House to know that under the terms of the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement, resource companies negotiating exploration and development licences with the federal and provincial governments must submit a benefits plan.
The benefits plan defines the exploration or development activity in terms of the expenditures expected to result from programs, the employment to be created, and the potential socio-economic implications. Employment and expenditures are translated into Canadian and Nova Scotia content commitments based on industry and government experience.
By way of this action taken by the Minister of Development in Nova Scotia in co-operation with the federal authorities we can receive assurance that Nova Scotians and Canadians are going to benefit from these operations. But the way they will benefit most is by keeping the activity in Canada. The way we will benefit most in Nova Scotia from the off-shore energy industry is by building the vessels and the rigs that are used in that industry, and by supplying the services that are required for it. We will only do that if we get the head start I was talking about and if we start the ball rolling right now by agreeing that Canada has to be given the opportunity to get her foot in the door by way of constructing vessels, oil rigs and other equipment used in the offshore industry. During the period when Canada has to get its foot in the door the industries involved need some protection. This has already taken place to a limited degree.
The Saint John shipyards has already constructed an oil rig, Beau Dril III, which is now in operation off the coast of Nova Scotia as I understand it, although it sat in Halifax Harbour for several months receiving some final work. There is no doubt about the ability of the Nova Scotia, the New Brunswick and the Newfoundland shipyards to construct the kind of service vessels used in the offshore industry. If we bring in these protections, Mr. Speaker, and we are serious about it and really want to get Canada into this industry by protective measures and the required assistance, then we can participate in a real way.
To give you one example of the difficulties that occur, the amount and value of work that flows out of Canada in the offshore industry is not always realized. All of the statistical material that relates to offshore development is done outside of Canada as far as I know. It is a multimillion dollar item. We have to be on guard to make sure that Canadians get the
May 23, 1984

maximum benefit from our shipbuilding industry and from our offshore energy industry. It may not be important in Ottawa Centre, Mr. Speaker. The Member from that riding comes into the House pooh-poohing this kind of thing. But if we are here talking about Canadian manufacturing in Central Canada, or if we are here talking about the automobile industry, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) would be up from his seat saying "We have to have protection. You cannot buy American-made cars. You have to buy your cars made in Oakville, Ontario." We are used to that. But when we start talking about shipbuilding in the Maritimes and we talk about the offshore energy industry then everybody goes silent. It is a situation of "we do not want to talk about that. Let those fellows fight their own way. This should be a free world economy. We should let oil rigs flow in and out from Denmark, Norway, any place you want. Bring them in. Set them up and send the information to Atlanta, Georgia, for processing at a cost of millions and millions of dollars and millions of Canadian jobs." And the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre does not care. But the people of Canada care. They care about Canadian jobs because every unemployed Canadian represents dollars out of the pockets of Canadians. But if the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre does not know that, he better start realizing it. I understand. I live in Ottawa Centre and I see the conditions there. They are perfect, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: Thanks.


Howard Edward Crosby: The unemployment rate must be down to zero, because Ottawa benefits from all of Canada. Regions such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland want to share in those benefits. The only way they will share in the benefits is by getting some advantage from offshore exploration, and some advantage from shipbuilding. In order to gain that advantage they need some protection, help and assistance from Government. Let me say to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLar-en): Give us the protection. Give us what you have given other parts of Canada and we will get the job done.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, It looks as though this Bill, which has been a long time coming, will now come to fruition, but only after a lot of cautious and dangerous positions taken in the House. The Bill is worth supporting. It is unfortunate that the Government was unable to accept the amendment which I think this whole House wanted to see passed. It is worth nothing what kind of a gift the Minister is interested in giving to certain interests.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimated in 1982 that $5 billion would be needed over the next decade to upgrade the East Coast trawler fleet. Unless that loophole for 100 foot fishing vessels is plugged the Canadian shipbuilders will lose out on an enormous amount of money. The Minister's statement that the Government will be able to pick up this particular amendment down the road is complete foolishness. I believe that by the time he finishes his consultation we will be on to the next federal election and there will be another Parliament. Hopefully sometime off in the future, before the
Customs and Excise
opportunities have all gone, there will be a chance to plug that loophole.
It is extremely unfortunate that the Liberal government was unable to accept the recommendations of the Opposition Parties to pass that legislation, and is now quite prepared to kiss $5 billion for Canadian economic development and employment goodbye. That is a tragedy. But that has been the history of shipbuilding in Canada since the Second World War. For whatever reason the Liberal Government decided to torpedo that industry, leaving it alone and not provide it with any meaningful support.
Policy statements by a variety of Ministers of Liberal Governments indicated that they felt Canada's best interests lay in having the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans supplying cheap ships. It was thought that this was providing economic opportunities for Canadians when in fact an industry was being handed away. It was an industry in which Canada had developed tremendous expertise. It could have provided tremendous employment opportunities and economic benefits, as well as an opportunity to develop technology in an industry in which we could have been a world-class leader.
It was even more tragic when the Government lost an opportunity for Canada to have a presence in offshore development. Canada probably has one of the largest coastlines in the world. It is dependent upon marine transportation, both coastal and international. It was deprived of future resource development in oil and gas, mineral exploration and deep seabed operations. It was similar to the case of the old Avro Arrow and the development of the first jetliner. The Government was prepared to give away the shipbuilding industry in the same manner as it gave away the aviation industry. It has ignored the shipbuilding industry for decades.
It is interesting that the Bill before us was developed somewhere in relation to the Canada Oil and Gas Act when it was apparent that Canada would lose an enormous amount of employment and economic development in this particular field. The Government showed no initiative in bringing forward the Bill. A tremendous amount of energy was expended, to the credit of the new Minister. Certainly his colleagues cannot be given the same credit because they resisted bringing it forward. They wrung their hands and moaned and groaned. They suggested that our trading partners would somehow retaliate or that our big bad neighbour next door would somehow retaliate. A classic lack of guts has characterized this Government. However, it is refreshing in the dying weeks of this Parliament to see this Bill before us. It is very close to receiving the support of the Houe.
I do not want to dwell much longer on the Bill, except to say that it is only a step forward. The potential for Canada in marine industrial development is very great. We believe shipbuilding industries across the country will benefit, and that tens of thousands of Canadians will return to work as a result of this legislation. Also an opportunity will be provided for Canada to become a world-class leader in the shipbuilding

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise
industry. We must remember that ocean industry groups behind the shipbuilding industry also have a chance to flourish.
The Government of Canada must not only look seriously at providing this 200-mile custom limit, it must assist the industry which it held back for so long. There is an opportunity for Canada to develop shipyards and ocean industry groups which have the potential for tremendous technological advancement in this field. The Government should look seriously at providing incentive financing. Through the Export Development Corporation it could provide financing to foreign purchasers at extremely low rates of interest. Such long-term loans could be very beneficial to the countries which purchase Canadian ships. It should also provide that type of concessionary financing to Canadian owners and developers of marine platforms and ships. Such financing is extremely important in order to get the industry rolling again, an industry which the Government has shackled for so long.
When the Government took office in July 1980 it decided that assistance under the Canadian Shipbuilding Assistance Program would be cut from 20 per cent to 9 per cent. At present it talks about removing the assistance entirely. Now, when there is an opportunity for the industry to blossom and grow, it is talking about removing the incentives. The custom boundary extension is passive. It is a constructive act, but it is passive. It should contain some aggression to ensure that financing provided for the construction of vessels for foreign owners in Canada is provided for Canadians who want to have ships built in Canada. That would provide the industry with a tremendous shot in the arm.
This is only a starting point. A more active situation is the Petroleum Incentive Program. It will pay 80 per cent of the cost of doing business to oil companies participating in exploration in the Canada Lands. When an oil company wishes to import a leased rig which was built in another country, not only is the cost of leasing covered, the cost of duty is covered under the Petroleum Incentive Program. The Minister must convince his colleagues that PIP should apply only to rigs built in Canada. If a Canadian firm wants to have a rig built here and lease it to an oil company to become involved in offshore exploration, that rig should be covered by the Petroleum Incentive Program. However, if it wishes to purchase a rig from any other country to use in these waters, it should not be covered by that program. It is an enormous flaw in the existing situation which the Government should move quickly to rectify. It is absolutely irrational to provide a taxpayer subsidy at the 80 per cent level to pay leasing and duty costs of an imported marine platform to conduct exploration in Canada.
There is another area in which we have an advantage. The next step has to be one of providing Canada with a Canadian merchant fleet. There is tremendous opportunity in providing Canada with Canadian-built ships and insisting that they be crewed by Canadians. Again the Government appears to be providing lip service in its dying days. Rather than becoming active and aggressively pursuing this tremendous opportunity,
the Government sat on its hands throughout its term of office and said that nothing could be done. It followed consistently its policy that Canadians could not build ships and therefore it was necessary to have foreign countries build them cheaper and better. The Government said that Canadians could not operate ships, although Canada has a maritime tradition which extends back to the time of Jacques Cartier. The Government makes no move to bring home the Canadian Pacific Fleet, to repatriate it. Canadian Pacific Ships is at liberty to carry Canadian cargoes all over the world with no benefit to Canadians. It has its ships built in foreign countries. It means its vessels with foreign crews. Its vessels are registered in Bermuda, London and Singapore. The benefits of its trading accrue everywhere else in the world but Canada.
The particular piece of legislation before us today should have been coupled with a marine industrial strategy which ensure a Canadian merchant fleet carrying Canadian goods in Canadian-built ships, crewed by Canadians and with the benefits accruing to Canada. I am sure Hon. Members on my right would support such an activity.
Outfits like Federal Commerce and Navigation need to be tuned up by the Government. They need to have a more responsive attitude toward the country in which it does business. Canadian Pacific Ships has to develop a responsible attitude toward this country as well. It should display good corporate citizenship. The same applies to Papachristadias. There is a litany of disasters in the marine industry which the Government has tolerated.
It is long past the time that we brought this together into a comprehensive marine industrial strategy which would see Canadians derive the benefits of shipbuilding. This would build world-class industries and leaders in technology. This should be done with the support, not with the opposition, of the Government. Behind that shipbuilding effort we would develop an ocean industries group. It would supply engines and other components for those ships, and marine platforms. It would also provide navigation systems. That group is worthy of support. In its early stages there should be subsidization, if you will, to get it rolling. Once rolling and competing on a world-class basis, there could be low interest rate loans, long-term loans, with specific areas of subsidization for enhancement. But we should get rolling on that.
The other area where something has to be done is very clear. We have to get involved in a Canadian merchant fleet. There is no point sending wheat abroad in Russian vessels or in vessels of Canadian companies that are registered in other countries. I recognize that the Government at this very late date has brought together another advisory committee on developing a Canadian merchant fleet. It is complete nonsense that, task force after task force developing the line that we should be following, studying the subject to death, in order to go out on the hustings in Eastern and Western Canada, in the Province of Quebec, along the St. Lawrence River and important areas along the Great Lakes where Canadian shipbuilding
May 23, 1984

is done, where Canadian ships are operating, the Government is going to say: "Look at what we have done. After five years we have developed a policy or a program to take one more of hundreds and hundreds of looks at what we have had. See what we are doing to provide a Canadian merchant fleet".
Two things have to happen. This Government, even in the time available, could put in place Transport Canada policies that would enhance Canadian registered ships. Without coming to Parliament, they could do something constructive to enhance the manufacture of Canadian ships, Canadian-operated ships, and ensure that Canadian crews are on those ships. There are dredges in the Arctic carrying foreign crews in Canadian waters.
A complaint was made recently to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), a man travelling this country saying that he wants to be the leader of his Party, which would like to remain in Government, that he signed an order to allow foreign crews on a Canadian ship. That was done just the other day. It is simply not acceptable. We know what has to go into place to develop a Canadian marine industrial strategy. That strategy within Transport Canada, within Customs and Excise, within the taxation policy areas, can be effectively carried out.
Before us today is a fairly constructive move. It is a passive move. It is not a move by a Government that is showing aggressiveness or clear concern for an industry that for years has been neglected. Nevertheless, it is one small move. There must be many more following. With that I will conclude my remarks. I hope this Bill passes quickly.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the good faith of the Government was indicated when the Minister refused to answer questions with respect to his consultations with the fishing industry concerning the removal of the exemption of 100-foot shipping vessels. The answer is that the Government wants to continue allowing foreign shipyards to bring ships into Canada and exploit the resources of Canada to the detriment of Atlantic Canada and the ship workers of Canada. This must stop.
If you read the Schedule, you find that it exempts ships and other vessels exceeding 30.5 metres registered length for use in commercial fishing industry. The item is tariff 44002-1. It says British preferential tariff free, most favoured nation tariff free, Saudi Arabia tariff 25 per cent, General preferential tariff free. It is only vessels used in commercial fishing.
A vessel is brought in, used for a day in commercial fishing, it is into Canada for free and that's it. This loophole represents a hole in this Bill so wide you could drive the whole-I was going to say the army through with all its tanks, but we have not got that many. It is a hole in the Bill that must be corrected or this Bill will be virtually meaningless.
Some years ago we declared a 200-mile limit. We extended the boundaries of Canada 200 miles out to sea so that we would be able to exploit the commercial resources of the continental shelf. What does this Government do? Up until now it leaves the 200-mile area totally free for anybody and
Customs and Excise
his brother to exploit. It is supposed to monitor the number of fish taken off the Altantic Coast. It does not do that very well. It should do everything to ensure that the jobs in shipbuilding, manufacturing, resource exploitation, equipment, food, supplies, are in Canada, and that all that is used in resource exploitation on this extended limit of Canada is purchased from Canadian manufacturers, Canadian suppliers, or impose tariffs.
This Bill is supposed to do that, but what does it do? As far as drilling rigs are concerned, the ones that are presently under lease, they are okay. As far as coasting vessels are concerned, the ones presently operating, they are okay. They do not have to pay tariffs. Only the new ones might have to pay tariffs, but they will probably come in as fishing vessels for use in commercial fishing. They will be used for commercial fishing for a day. Then they can do the coasting trade and not be subject to any tariff.
This is the hoax we are being asked to support and the Minister refuses to answer questions. I ask why? He knows we will get to him. He knows we will ask the questions that will embarrass him. Therefore he hides under the rules. What kind of Government would hide under the rules and pretend that it is doing something for the shipbuilding industry in this country?
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), who has the Marystown yard in his riding, knows what will happen to him. He has been pestering the Minister to do something about it. It is not just members on this side who think that this exemption should go. Members from all over Atlantic Canada thinks this exemption should go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair has allowed a certain leniency this afternoon by permitting Members to go into what should be discussed at committee stage, that is referring to specific clauses. Because it felt that an agreement might be reached, if the Government agreed to make an amendment, this was done. I cannot allow the Hon. Member to base his whole speech on this particular clause. It is jumping the gun. We will deal with this in committee stage, if we ever reach that stage.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On the point you have raised, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this is a Bill that in pith and substance is imposing a tariff on vessels being brought into Canada, and the Canadian limit for the purpose of determining the importation is the continental shelf or the 200-mile limit. That is what we are talking about. This Bill is to levy a tariff on ships and other things now being brought into the 200-mile extraterritorial part of Canada and do not now any duty. The Bill extends the limit so that those goods are subject to duty. That is the purpose of the Bill. The trouble is, the Bill does not do that. The Bill is supposed to do that. It is only proper at second reading to point that out. It was always my feeling that at second reading we were entitled to debate the nature of the Bill. That is the purpose of second reading debate. That is where the problem is-

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. I do not know whether the Hon. Member is reflecting on a ruling made by the Chair or failing to see that the Bill contains much more than the simple Schedule to which he is referring. Other Members have been able to speak about the principle of the Bill. The Chair has been lenient in allowing the Hon. Member to refer to the Schedule from time to time, but he should not make an entire speech on it. That can be done at committee stage.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: With all due respect to the Chair, I would suggest that I am not now referring to the Schedule. I have referred to it. I am really talking about the principle clause in the Bill, which is Clause 3. That Clause imposes a tariff. Then, the Bill goes on to exempt certain parts of the tariff. I am talking about the pith and substance of the Bill. With respect to the Chair, that is what I intend to continue to talk about.
We are looking for some recognition for those provinces which have very little in the way of natural resources. Their people are entitled to the benefits of the resources in the 200-mile limit. The Premier of Newfoundland has expressed his concern with respect to the right to control the oil and petroleum resources in the 200-mile limit. He has also expressed concern with respect to the fishing resources. One of the advantages of having the 200-mile limit is the number of jobs that can be created for Canadians. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the goods, the drilling platforms, the drill bits and all types of machinery and equipment which are used in fishing or in oil exploration bear duty and are organized in such a fashion as to ensure that Canadians-particularly those from Atlantic Canada-get the jobs that those resources will provide.
Prior to the 200-mile limit declaration, certain things were exempt. Obviously a person drilling at sea was not drilling in Canada, and therefore he could bring in his drill ships, rigs and supplies from anywhere in the world. They were not subject to duty because they were being used in a non-duty area. The same applied to fishing vessels and fishing gear, indeed, to everything used beyond the normal three-mile limit. They were in international waters and they were not subject to duty. Therefore, the jobs which would come from manufacturing, supplying, and servicing were not subject to Canadian taxes and were not ensuring that Canadians received the protection that Canadians elsewhere, in other businesses and in other parts of Canada, received. The concept of the Bill is to extend that limit and to extend Canada's borders for customs purposes 200 miles out to sea.
We have focused on the fishing vessel exemption. We have said that it is a very major exemption. Indeed, with that exemption the whole purpose of the Bill is damaged destroyed. But more importantly, it affects the whole substance of what we are trying to accomplish by ensuring that those who come from Atlantic Canada get all of the benefit there is for them in that 200-mile resource area. For example, equipment that is presently on lease or that is presently
servicing the area and which is owned by foreigners is exempted. Those are exemptions which take away the jobs and the benefits that Atlantic Canadians should have.
All along we have been taking away what we should have. My friend from the New Democratic Party mentioned a merchant marine policy. We could have our own Canadian merchant marine if we were prepared to operate a merchant marine that was based on international tax levels instead of Canadian domestic tax levels, and on international labour standards instead of domestic labour standards. After all, if ships are to travel the world they must operate under international standards to be competitive. We could have a merchant marine, but everything that we do in Ottawa seems to be directed from a central Canadian concept that does not bear any relation to the benefits that should accrue to Atlantic Canada, to Pacific Canada and to northern Canada. By the extension of the 200-mile limit in this Bill, we in a sense promise Atlantic Canadians the resource benefits, the job benefits, the manufacturing benefits and the supply and service benefits that that extension of Canada's boundaries should give them. To the extent that this Bill does not do that, the Government should be castigated. In a sense, the Government has promised something that it seems to have no intention of delivering.
We do not seem to have developed any shipping or shipbuilding policy. We had a 20 per cent subsidy for shipyards which has been reduced to 9 per cent. It will soon be phased out completely. If we were to substitute that subsidy arrangement with a tariff arrangement that covered all ships that took advantage of the 200-mile limit, and if we had a tax situation or a tariff that protected our shipbuilding industry so that our industry at least would have a captive or home market for our coastal ship requirements, then perhaps we could justify the removal of that 9 per cent subsidy. We are not only going to let the subsidy die, but we are going to allow a good portion of the ships that should be subject to tariff come in tariff-free. That is a derogation of responsibility.
The problem is that the Bill is presented in such a way that it really looks as if Atlantic Canadians are getting something. Do not look too closely at the fine print, though, because what it says it gives in Clause 3 is taken away in the Schedules. It is that kind of deceit, to put it that way, Sir, which I suppose prompted the Minister to refuse to answer questions. He knew that if we really started asking questions, the real pith and substance of what was happening would come out. The Government would be exposed for what it is; the Bill would be exposed for what it is.
The Bill is better than nothing, Sir, I suppose, but not much better. I am very disappointed that the Government did not come forward, recognizing the kind of Bill it had, to make sure that the jobs which are supposed to come to Atlantic Canada from the 200-mile limit would in fact come to it, that the 200-mile limit would not be just a promise in the air. It should make sure that the fish resources in the 200-mile limit come to
May 23, 1984

Canadians and are sold by Canadians as processed fish; that the oil and petrochemical resources now discovered all come through Canadian hands. This will not happen because of this Bill, and that disappoints me. Therefore, again I ask the Minister and the Government why do they not come clean? Why do they not really tell us how far they will go to assist perhaps one of the most depressed parts of our country, the part of our country where unemployment is by far the highest? The only way we are ever going to reduce the human misery, the tragedy, the unemployment and poverty upon poverty which exists in parts of Atlantic Canada, particularly, is by enabling the people there to have resources which they can exploit and so earn a living and have a decent standard of existence. We could do that, but this Bill does not do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions on the remarks of the Hon. Member?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important piece of legislation and we note there are 17 minutes left in which to get it through second reading, through committee stage and finish it all this afternoon. I just wonder whether, as spokesperson for the Conservative Party on this Bill, the previous speaker could stand up and enlighten this House as to whether his Party intends to let this particular Bill go through all stages today, or whether it is going to sandbag it?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I could say that that is not a permitted question under the rules, but I will not. I believe it is only fair that the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, so much in bed with the Liberal Party these days, should have an answer to that question.


Mr. Althouse:: Look at our voting record.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, we can look at that Party's voting record and we could look at its arrangements today. I am told that there are Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party looking for Liberal nominations. They get along with the Liberals famously. Obviously, the Hon. Member is prepared to give away this legislation. He wants to have another notch in his record, showing that once again he has come to heel to the Liberal Party. Are we going to do what the Hon. Member asks? Well, that is not up to me, Sir. There are other Hon. Members of this House of Commons who want to make contributions. We have already passed three pieces of legislation this afternoon.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Is that enough?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If this legislation did something for Canadians we could probably go through it quickly. However, the Minister and the Government do not even answer questions on the matter. I am surprised that the Hon. Member would even ask such a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any other questions or comments? Debate.
Customs and Excise


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-16, an Act to apply the customs and excise jurisdiction of Canada to the continental shelf of Canada and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof.
This Bill is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, or legislation like it. Unfortunately, as pointed out by the previous speaker, we are extremely disappointed that for some reason or other this Government has decided that it is going to single out people in the business of building fishing vessels of over 100 feet for particular persecution. This Government has determined that it is going to single out particularly those men and women who are normally employed in that section of the shipbuilding industry for isolation and persecution as well. We believe it is extremely unfair, Mr. Speaker, and we plead with the Government to reconsider its seemingly intransigent position on this matter and, indeed, give the issue some very deep consideration. We plead with the Government to show some compassion for those people to whom a livelihood is just as important as it is for those people who might be involved in the construction of new vessels used in exploration work, new passenger vessels, and virtually all other shipping material for use in Canada within the 200-mile limit.
The ways and means motion which was presented to this House last June 29 was indeed one which was heralded with a great deal of enthusiasm by our Party, as it was by the New Democratic Party. We had pressured the Government before that time to get on with the long awaited legislation which it had been talking about approving and bringing forth to this House for some number of months-indeed probably in the vicinity of two years, perhaps two and a half years. Until last June 29 we and the industry had not seen anything of it. Of course, in the meantime we have been pressing the Government to introduce the legislation so we could peruse it and have the opportunity of assessing its impact on the shipbuilding industry in this country.
I personally welcome a good number of the areas with which the Bill deals. I believe it is indeed good news for the shipping industry that this Government finally has become aware of the plight it has been experiencing over the last number of years. One of the problems we have with this legislation at this late date is that the shipbuilding industry has plummeted to such depths of despair that a good many of the qualified workmen, who for years found work in that particular sector, have now left the area and have taken up other means of making a living. For instance, in 1982, there were over 9,000 people in this nation employed in the shipbuilding industry and, indeed, this year that work force has dropped to less than 2,000 men. The ship yard in Saint John, New Brunswick, one of the finest facilities you will find anywhere in the world, let alone in Canada, steadily employed upwards of 1,500 to 2,000 people. In 1978 it employed 2,089 people. In 1981 that number had dropped to 1,627, and, indeed, in January of this past year, the work force at the Saint John yard had dropped to a shameful low of 40 men. I doubt today if there are 40 men still working at that shipyard. I realize that the shipyard at Saint John has
3984

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise
received the contract for construction of the six frigates, and a substantial amount of that work is being subcontracted to yards in other parts of the country. However, this contract will contribute handsomely to the welfare of that yard and employees in that region.
I have become very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the Government's intentions concerning the shipbuilding industry in Canada. As can be pointed out by anyone who has had the time to peruse Hansard, the Government's record has not been enviable at all. Members on this side have repeatedly asked questions of the various Ministers responsible for shipbuilding policy over the years, of whom there have been several, and all of whom promised to introduce the legislation. With the exception of the present Minister, none of them have produced. In response to these questions we have never received any satisfaction whatsoever. I am informed that questions have been asked as to the status of the frigate program at the Saint John yard. They have asked which shipyard will the first frigate be started in? What is the schedule for construction of the second and third ships? Will all the work normally connected with the construction of a ship be undertaken in the yard itself, or is the contract written in such a way that the work can be subcontracted out? These extremely important questions have been left unanswered. They are being asked by the workers directly affected, particularly those in the Saint John yard.
I ask the Government to be considerate and to be concerned about the plight of those workers, Mr. Speaker. It is a very frightening experience to not have the assurance of work that you thought you had a few short months ago. I think these people deserve answers to these questions which so directly affect them, and I urge the Government to address itself to these questions. If the Bill is allowed to pass with the additions and recommendations we have made, it will be a long over-due step forward, and I look forward to some positive response from the Government in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Mr. MacLaren, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved that Bill C-16, an Act to apply the customs and excise jurisdiction of Canada to the continental shelf of Canada and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Guilbault in the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-16, an Act to apply the customs and excise jurisdiction over Canada to the continental shelf of Canada, and to amend certain acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof.
Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 14-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, Clause 14 refers to the schedule in the Bill. Therefore, I move:
That the Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act be amended in the Schedule on page 12 as follows:
That the tariff item 44002-1 be deleted.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair is ready to entertain the amendment.


Roy MacLaren: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. If I understand the amendment correctly, it would have the effect of placing a charge on the public purse. Therefore, I would assume that under Beauchesne, Articles 523, 516 and 519, the amendment is not in order.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The amendment, which I have in my hand, reads that the tariff item be deleted. In deleting the tariff item, we do not impose a tax. As a matter of fact, we would even remove a tax. I do not know if the Minister understood the amendment properly. This would remove the tariff item completely. In other words, the 25 per cent general tariff would also be dropped. We would lower the taxes, not increase them. The amendment is in order as far as the Chair is concerned.


Roy MacLaren: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Minister on a point of order.


Roy MacLaren: As I understand the amendment as it was read, we would be removing, under the British preferential tariff, the free access; under most favoured nation, free access; and under general preferential tariff, free access. If we remove "free" from each of those three categories then it necessarily follows that the general tariff of 25 per cent pertains. Therefore, there is a charge in the sense that we would be imposing on importers of those vessels the general tariff as opposed to the free entry under the other three categories.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair is taking the question under advisement for a minute.
The Chair has no problem accepting the substance of the amendment, that is, the deletion of a tariff item. The Chair realizes that the Member is doing it by amending Clause 14. There is a procedural problem involved there. I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member that he could move the same
May 23, 1984

amendment in substance when we reach the Schedule which is just a couple of items down the line.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, I would perhaps agree with you. I only moved it now because if you look at page 12 of the Schedule it says "Schedule" and then "(Section 14)'. Therefore, I felt it might be appropriate to make the amendment now. However, if it is your ruling that it be made when we come to the Schedule, I would certainly be prepared to have the matter stood down until that point. The reason I moved it now is because of the reference to the Section in the Schedule.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The first thing we have to do at this time is to realize that the clock has passed six o'clock. Therefore, this committee should rise.


Raymond John Skelly: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: I wonder whether with unanimous consent of the Members in the House we could extend the time of sitting until such time as this Bill is completely through the House, considering the good faith expressed by all Parties that we want to see this in place.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Is there unanimous consent to proceed as the Hon. Member just suggested?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Some one on the Conservative Party side said no, Mr. Chairman. However, we would agree that time be extended until someone calls it six o'clock.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We can agree with that proposition. Until someone calls it six o'clock, on our part we will continue to consider this matter.


Harold Thomas Herbert: We are back on Clause 14. I would just remind the Hon. Member for Mississauga South that Clause 14 which we are now considering would strike out tariff items of a previous Act which we are amending. Therefore he does not have to propose the amendment he wishes at this time. The amendment would be in order only when we reach the Schedule, and we are getting there. First, I will ask, shall Clause 14 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 14 agreed to.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clause 15 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 15 agreed to.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall the Schedule carry?
Customs and Excise


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, you have in your hand an amendment to delete tariff item 44002-1 in the Schedule to the Bill found on page 12.1 so move that amendment.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair considers the amendment to be allowable.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let my try again. If this amendment were to be adopted, it would have the effect of abolishing tariff category 44002-1. In other words, under the British Preferential Tariff, we would remove the free entry under most favoured nations. We would supposedly remove the 25 per cent general tariff, and we would remove the free entry under the general preferential tariff. However, if we were to do that, then the general tariff category applies, in which case 25 per cent would apply in all four categories. By abolishing 44002-1 we would in effect replace that category with 44000-1, which is a 25 per cent tariff in each of four categories.
I would submit to you that according to Beauchesne 523, 519 and 516, the Opposition cannot amend the Bill in such a way as to place a charge on the public purse.


Harold Thomas Herbert: This is certainly a complicated situation. If other members have contributions, the Chair will hear them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have a very short contribution to make.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair has ruled, but since then Hon. Members have been commenting on the so-called ruling of the Chair.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I agree that Your Honour should be as lenient as possible, but I do not know how many times, when we attempt to have a full fledged discussion with respect to procedural matters the Chair says that we cannot question the ruling of the Chair.
I clearly heard you say, Mr. Chairman, that this is an acceptable amendment. That is my brief intervention. I accept you at your word, if that has been your ruling. I appreciate the eminent argument put forward by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) but it is too late.


Yvon Pinard: You have ruled on an amendment.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Are Hon. Members still questioning the ruling? If they do, the Chair will question its own ruling.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, when you ruled, you ruled on an amendment that was moved to Clause 14. You never ruled on the amendment that is proposed to the Schedule now. It is a brand new amendment. It is not an amendment on which you have ruled. Therefore, there is no ruling on this amendment. There is an objection that is awaiting your decision.
We have explained why the amendment to the Schedule is not admissible. It is up to you to make a decision, but

May 23, 1984
Customs and Excise
certainly, with respect, you have never ruled on the amendment to the Schedule that has just been put.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, in my view you ruled on that amendment twice. I think we should respect the Chair.
The Government has many more members in the House than the Opposition. The Government can vote to make sure that this tariff exemption on vessels over 100 feet stays where it is. The Government can make sure that fishing vessels of over 30.5 metres are treated in accordance with this tariff item if it wants to. I think it is a matter of voting on this amendment. We can see where the Government stands on the issue. The Government has the opportunity to vote this way or it can let the amendment go through. There is no question about it. Most of the Members involved from Atlantic Canada who belong to the Government Party want this changed. The New Democratic Party-


Harold Thomas Herbert: Order, please. The words of the Hon. Member are not of very great use to the Chair in trying to determine whether or not this is allowable.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, at the time the amendment was received by the Chair the Chairman indicated that the amendment would not be acceptable under Clause 14, but it would be acceptable and received under the Schedule. Was that not a ruling of the Chair, that that amendment was acceptable under the Schedule? The Chair would find nothing wrong with it, I believe was the wording. What we do have is a ruling that if the Hon. Member placed this amendment before the Chair, that it would be the acceptable thing to do; that it would be appropriate and acceptable to the Chair. That was the nature of the words of the Chairman. That was the ruling of the House.
Second, the amendment does receive the popular support of the House. Many of the Members here are in favour of this kind of benefit. I wonder whether the Chair should not accept it, given the Chair's first ruling, and given the sense of the House which the Chair would feel if he were to allow it to proceed.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would be glad to have your guidance. Is it in accordance with our rules that an Opposition amendment can increase a tariff?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It decreases it.


John Leslie Evans: No, it does not.


Harold Thomas Herbert: That has not been raised so far. The problem we have is, first, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River is right. When I disallowed the amendment on Clause 14 I said it would be allowable under the Schedule. Therefore, the amendment is allowed as far as I am concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Chairman, I think if I recall correctly, you said the amendment-


Harold Thomas Herbert: Order, please. The Chair has made a final ruling. We are going to proceed with the business in committee now. Is there any debate on the amendment?
Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Harold Thomas Herbert: All those in favour of the amendment please say Yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Harold Thomas Herbert: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Harold Thomas Herbert: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Amendment (Mr. Blenkarn) negatived: Yeas, 18; Nays, 24.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
An Hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a House order that the House would sit until we called it six o'clock. As yet no one has called it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The Chair heard a Member calling it six o'clock, with all due respect.
It being after six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.18 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 24, 1984